Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Actual deneb review/comparison to Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 25, 2008 8:47:23 PM

Here's the translated version of the site
http://74.125.95.101/translate_c?hl=en&sl=el&u=http://w...

Greek version
http://www.hwbox.gr/

This is of the 920 and 940 coming out for am2+. They don't go over the overclocking ability but only stock speeds. This looks like the answer to Core2 as it's around the same performance as that but can't touch I7. Not sure how much of a boost the am3 will get from DDR3 and if there are any other changes done to them but it will end up alot cheaper.
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2008 9:18:42 PM

looks like Phenom II is pretty even with the Q9000 series. i7 is faster in most cases but I wonder how PhII will compare against the more mainstream i5 when they come out in late 2009...

PhII is pretty much what the original phenom should have been...
a c 86 à CPUs
December 25, 2008 10:49:19 PM

Interesting review. To many synthetic benchies and not enough real world CPU benchmarks for my tastes, but the synthetics paint an interesting picture. If true, then as Kari correctly pointed out, the PhII does seem like a good match against the Q9xxx series. If the clock speeds come out as claimed, then these should be good. I'd be slightly more interested in the 2.4ish if it to can overclock to nearly 4GHz. i7 does seem to be faster, wonder if AMD has anything planned for that.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2008 2:51:56 AM

Interesting. I guess we shall see what more reviews will tell us next month, but it looks like the phenom II will be positioned between the Intel Q9000 series and the i7s. I wouldn't say it's a game changer but at least it will inch AMD back towards being competitive again. Even though AMD needs to release faster parts to compete with the i7 I think that what they don't want right now is to pressure Intel into releasing faster parts or lowering their prices further which would cause AMD to lower theirs.
December 26, 2008 2:59:42 AM

4745454b said:
Interesting review. To many synthetic benchies and not enough real world CPU benchmarks for my tastes, but the synthetics paint an interesting picture. If true, then as Kari correctly pointed out, the PhII does seem like a good match against the Q9xxx series. If the clock speeds come out as claimed, then these should be good. I'd be slightly more interested in the 2.4ish if it to can overclock to nearly 4GHz. i7 does seem to be faster, wonder if AMD has anything planned for that.


we'll probally see a Dual-Quad core setup like what was planed for last year. Like where you can run 2 Phenom II X4 on one mortherboard.
December 26, 2008 3:09:25 AM

Im not an amd fanboy by any means, as a matter of fact my last 2 builds have been intel, but im building a new one soon and its going to be a phenom 2.

i know its only one build and all, but they are finally back to somewhat competitive and i like crossfire, so a little support their way wont hurt.

i dont want to see them bankrupt anytime soon, competition for intel is needed to keep things cheaper, and technology increasing as much as possible in the future.

Just think if Intel didnt have any competition. We'd prolly still be sitting on 65 nm quad cores right now.

Just a thought.
December 26, 2008 3:13:53 AM

Going by just these benchmarks, the obvious and logical path would be to buy a Q9550 if you already have the proper motherboard.

These combined with the benches in the other big thread have pretty much cast P2 out of the picture for my upgrade, espically with price cuts comming on the Q9xxx's.
December 26, 2008 5:17:15 AM

Looks good. Maybe I'll get an AM3 Phenom. I wonder what that will be called to differentiate the two? My last AMD board was AM2 when it first came out, now I have Intel, and AMD will have its turn again.
December 26, 2008 5:36:54 AM

My guestimate was 2-3% higher than Conroe clock per clock overall. Its looking like this may be true. If anyone downs this cpu, theyre also downing the Q6600s et al as well. We need more info still, and of course pricing and power usage numbers would help, as well as overall ocing abilities, which I see as 3.8 to 4.2, but again time will tell
December 26, 2008 6:03:56 AM

Thats true JDJ, with buts. As youve seen in other post Ive not put down Deneb, I hope and want it to topple the current C2's. But given the speculated $250+ price tag for the 940 combined with price cuts comming in a month or so on Q9xxx's, it seems like its going to fall short.

I was really looking for an excuse to drop this P45 and Q6600 for a AM3 setup with a P2 945, but taking these current benchmarks for what they are currently worth (all we have to go on so far, not to forget these are AM2 deneb numbers), it would be much cheaper and "logical", not to mention easier to just buy a Q9550 which will most definetly be cheaper after the price cuts than a AM2 940 or AM3 945 and be right there with it in the numbers.

But of course thats just the "from Intel" POV, if youve already got a compatable AMD motherboard then you are looking at fine dining.
December 26, 2008 6:07:18 AM

megamanx00 said:
but it looks like the phenom II will be positioned between the Intel Q9000 series and the i7s.


Are we looking at the same numbers? Looks like deneb will will have a hard time beating kentsfield never mind penryn or i7. Major disappointment caused by over hyping by AMD fanboys. Read the review again bearing in mind that the q6600 is 2.4ghz and two years old if you wonder why I am disappointed, the way I see it is that the performance gap is now wider, i7 has more of a lead over phenom2 than penryn had over phenom1.
December 26, 2008 6:11:01 AM

Unfortunately for AMD, this may prove out to be true. Theres still hope yet, as we really dont know the full spectrum of performance yet, tho I somewhat respect these numbers, as a certain poster on XS has some cred in my eyes, and hes partially behind this. A lil faster clock for clock than Conroe, a lil higher oc as well, yea it may not be enough for people already sporting Intel rigs, that is of course, if they dont want something different. Newer buyers from older platforms will find this a suitable platform, so for future growth in marketshare, AMD needs to be price competitive now, as theyve inched the bar higher towards Intels overall height
December 26, 2008 6:16:26 AM

Id also remind people that i7 isnt for everyone, as it holds certain restrictions to its overall performance, and some of that performance is more important to average Joe than other parts. Also, with i7, theres the price gap. i5, if brought in at an overall price drop, and holds the average Joes usage as high as i7s currently do, will be the cpu to get over i7, as its niche for the rich heheh just had to say that
December 26, 2008 6:23:29 AM

Speaking of i5, it will probably crush Deneb. Well, im sure it will being that it will fit between Penryn and i7. But then again it depends on prices. Intel right now is on the path of having way to much stuff all within the same price range, its almost canibalistic.

Hopefully AMD already has something in the pipe.
December 26, 2008 6:40:58 AM

Well, whatll be interesting is, the performance that matters to most people isnt really representative of i7, and if i5 is not at least as good in these areas, Penryn will still be a great option, as well as Deneb. If, on the other hand i5 brings a split of i7s performance between it and Penryn, and still doesnt come thru in gaming, again, Deneb has a chance, as enough is enough for most the things the "i" series brings as to improvements for average Joe, as well as Penryn and thus Deneb. Top spot isnt as important as it once was, just like in gaming, where weve seen inprovements of larger res usage, but not necessarily in game demands, and selling to average Joe has changed in that regard. It wont be the best, but its still closer to what most people seek from their cpus than they were in having a P1 IMHO, and thus, it comes down to price
December 26, 2008 10:01:55 AM

I'm starting to think about getting the Core i7 920 if AMD Phenom II can't beat the Q9xxx series. I'm looking to upgrade my motherboard as well becuase my foxconn dose not like to run in dual-channel.
December 26, 2008 1:31:00 PM

Take a look at the clock speed of the Q6600 400 to 600mhz decrease
compared to both phemon II's, and stays very close in benchmarks.

I feel if you run the Q6600 at the same clock speed as the phemon II's
it will equal or best both phenom chips, thats disappointing,
the phenom II are not better than the Q6600.


jdj
Quote:
Look again, the Intel cpus were clocked higher, to their credit, but its not the same clocks


jdj
Quote:
I know what youre saying, do you understand what Im saying? They arent at the same clocks, so we dont know what percentage Intel is faster than Phenom, and cant really make a true comparison. Its shows the only ocing on the link Ive provided, that page, and again, like I said, they werent at the same speeds.


But nothing said about decrease in clock speed for the intel chip, under this light the phenom II's is a little better but still not beating the 2yr old Q6600.
December 26, 2008 1:47:36 PM

First of all, this is an incomplete review. More real life benches need to be run, then we need 30 thatll both go to 4Ghz...oh thats right, may have trouble finding 30 6600s thatll do 4Ghz on air. Ummm, what was I referring to when I said clock for clock in another thread about totally differing things? So, in essence, its not so bad eh? Or is the 6600 now crap too? Whats it going to be? deneb is crap, which will clock higher , and performance is a lil better, but the 6600 is great? I dont care when 1 came out or whatever else people come in with. Its available, it performs as well as what is still considered Intels greatest cpu, but its crap? Fanboi
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2008 2:57:49 PM

That is utter crap jaydee.
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2008 3:25:50 PM

jed said:
Take a look at the clock speed of the Q6600 400 to 600mhz decrease
compared to both phemon II's, and stays very close in benchmarks.

I feel if you run the Q6600 at the same clock speed as the phenom II's
it will equal or best both phenom chips, thats disappointing,
the phenom II are not better than the Q6600.


I would tend to agree with you according to this review and their benchmarks.
It makes me wonder if this review is a fake because the results seem like those of just an overclocked 3.0 Ghz Phenom 9X50 (or Phenom 1 series).
I have however seen other reviews which show things in a different light and look much better.
I think that the best thing to do would not be for someone to just go out and buy a AM2+ based Phenom II when they are just available but rather wait until we see some more reviews from more legit sources (like Sim HQ or Tom's) and also that show that there are no major problems with the CPU.
I never buy a CPU when it's first available rather I prefer to let others be the guinea pig testers.
I would trust Sim HQ's results if they do a review of it which is a good possibility.
December 26, 2008 3:29:57 PM

LOL, stop speculating and nit picking the small details and just wait a few days. All CPU's suck, except mine...but it will suck eventually. Eventually as in when the NDA is lifted.
December 26, 2008 3:40:15 PM

Quote:
First of all, this is an incomplete review. More real life benches need to be run, then we need 30 thatll both go to 4Ghz...oh thats right, may have trouble finding 30 6600s thatll do 4Ghz on air. Ummm, what was I referring to when I said clock for clock in another thread about totally differing things? So, in essence, its not so bad eh? Or is the 6600 now crap too? Whats it going to be? deneb is crap, which will clock higher , and performance is a lil better, but the 6600 is great? I dont care when 1 came out or whatever else people come in with. Its available, it performs as well as what is still considered Intels greatest cpu, but its crap? Fanboi



The point is everything about deneb wasn't a complete review of the chips,
but you would cherry pick the info twist and use it, when you made the statements about clock speeds it was about phenom 1 which didn't overclock
to 4Ghz at all, so you said they should be run at the same clock speeds as the
intel chips, now they overclock better that the first phenoms your tune has changed. Now take a look at the 9000 series intel chips still lower clock speed
and phenom II still get beat and these chips can over clock to 4Ghz on air.

here's the other thing phenom II is not better than a Q6600 clock for clock it's
equal if nothing else.

Now let talk about platforms the Q6600 will be put to rest by intel, the lower
Q9550 is going for 309.99 from new egg right now, which is less then the top
of the line deneb and beat it clock for clock, and the motherboards are just
as cheap as any board for AMD, so why would anyone buy the phenom II for
anything other than a upgrade.
People getting a new system can buy the 9000 series for less and get more.
December 26, 2008 4:27:48 PM

well I have a sick feeling that the i5 wont overclock that much, i think intel will make i7 the one with all the oveclocking, leaving all us poor c*nts wishing we had the cash for an i7 motherboard, could be wrong, but there was some talk of it b4 the release of i7, intel denied it but i think they are keeping it for i5 to differentiate
December 26, 2008 4:36:45 PM

The point is everything about deneb wasn't a complete review of the chips,
but you would cherry pick the info twist and use it, when you made the statements about clock speeds it was about phenom 1 which didn't overclock
to 4Ghz at all, so you said they should be run at the same clock speeds as the
intel chips, now they overclock better that the first phenoms your tune has changed. Now take a look at the 9000 series intel chips still lower clock speed
and phenom II still get beat and these chips can over clock to 4Ghz on air.

here's the other thing phenom II is not better than a Q6600 clock for clock it's
equal if nothing else.

Now let talk about platforms the Q6600 will be put to rest by intel, the lower
Q9550 is going for 309.99 from new egg right now, which is less then the top
of the line deneb and beat it clock for clock, and the motherboards are just
as cheap as any board for AMD, so why would anyone buy the phenom II for
anything other than a upgrade.
People getting a new system can buy the 9000 series for less and get more. said:
The point is everything about deneb wasn't a complete review of the chips,
but you would cherry pick the info twist and use it, when you made the statements about clock speeds it was about phenom 1 which didn't overclock
to 4Ghz at all, so you said they should be run at the same clock speeds as the
intel chips, now they overclock better that the first phenoms your tune has changed. Now take a look at the 9000 series intel chips still lower clock speed
and phenom II still get beat and these chips can over clock to 4Ghz on air.

here's the other thing phenom II is not better than a Q6600 clock for clock it's
equal if nothing else.

Now let talk about platforms the Q6600 will be put to rest by intel, the lower
Q9550 is going for 309.99 from new egg right now, which is less then the top
of the line deneb and beat it clock for clock, and the motherboards are just
as cheap as any board for AMD, so why would anyone buy the phenom II for
anything other than a upgrade.
People getting a new system can buy the 9000 series for less and get more.


You need to stop assuming things.
1. Phenom 1 was shown at 3.0Ghz, which is 700Mhz above the speeds it had at stock at launch. Phenom II is being shown at 6Ghz, 3Ghz higher than Deneb's supposed launch (hasn't launched, there's always the possibility they won't come out at 3Ghz.). In and of itself, even if it's cherrypicked, you still are showing much MUCH better overclock headroom than Phenom 1 could have dreamed of.

2. You can't say "Phenom II is not better than a Q6600 clock for clock" because IT'S NOT OUT!! (And we don't have good, full reviews). When it is out, and you have numerous full reviews from respectable sites you *might* be able to say this.

3. We don't know initial pricing on Phenom II, so even if motherboards, ram, etc. are equal in price, you can't say people can spend "less and get more."

4. Also, AMD boards are often better than Intel ones. At least in my opinion, since lots of people use integrated graphics, AMD has Intel beat hard on those, therefore AMD boards are better. But either way it's pretty minor, both have/make excellent featured and stable boards.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just stop stating things as fact that aren't known by anyone who hasn't signed an NDA. You can't know, so stop acting like you do.
December 26, 2008 5:53:44 PM

Dekasav
Quote:
You need to stop assuming things.
1. Phenom 1 was shown at 3.0Ghz, which is 700Mhz above the speeds it had at stock at launch. Phenom II is being shown at 6Ghz, 3Ghz higher than Deneb's supposed launch (hasn't launched, there's always the possibility they won't come out at 3Ghz.). In and of itself, even if it's cherrypicked, you still are showing much MUCH better overclock headroom than Phenom 1 could have dreamed of.

2. You can't say "Phenom II is not better than a Q6600 clock for clock" because IT'S NOT OUT!! (And we don't have good, full reviews). When it is out, and you have numerous full reviews from respectable sites you *might* be able to say this.

3. We don't know initial pricing on Phenom II, so even if motherboards, ram, etc. are equal in price, you can't say people can spend "less and get more."

4. Also, AMD boards are often better than Intel ones. At least in my opinion, since lots of people use integrated graphics, AMD has Intel beat hard on those, therefore AMD boards are better. But either way it's pretty minor, both have/make excellent featured and stable boards.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just stop stating things as fact that aren't known by anyone who hasn't signed an NDA. You can't know, so stop acting like you do.


You have a point, i shouldn't talk about how bad i think the phenom II
chips are compaired to anything because it's not out yet.
so everyone that's posting how great this chip perform shouldn't be
posting things like that, being the phenom II is not out yet, right.
December 26, 2008 6:46:12 PM

we'll have to wait till next week maybe the following to see tom's and all the other sites to do a review of Phenom II.
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2008 7:03:36 PM

more poo from jaydeepoopookitty
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2008 7:06:06 PM

I have no idea how you guys already know what processor you are going to buy be it AMD or Intel unless you know the prices of the Phenom 2 already. If you do, please post. If you don't then quiet down fanboy.
December 26, 2008 7:34:22 PM

Dekasav said:
At least in my opinion, since lots of people use integrated graphics, AMD has Intel beat hard on those, therefore AMD boards are better.


How many people are going to buy a quad-core Phenom... and then use integrated motherboard graphics?

Sure, there are people who want that kind of CPU performance and don't care about graphics; for servers, video encoding or 3D rendering, for example. But the majority of people looking for a fast quad-core CPU in a desktop machine will be buying it to run games, not for email and web-browsing.
December 26, 2008 8:22:10 PM


jaydeejohn is a AMD fanboy, Or at the very least, I am sure he will agree,slanted towards AMD. But he is also well mannered and replied to any post with at least a bit of logic, I actually quite enjoy his posts as they give a different perspective and if you look at his post history he has replied to all of my posts politely. A lot of other pro AMD or Intel people could learn a lot. You don't have to agree to hold a good conversation, Evolution has seen to that.

On topic, I think we can all agree that this review makes phenom 2 look very average. Competing slightly worse than q6600 clock for clock is not an achievement to be proud off, Even the most hardcore of AMD fans will admit they hoped for more.
December 26, 2008 8:31:25 PM

MarkG said:
How many people are going to buy a quad-core Phenom... and then use integrated motherboard graphics?

Sure, there are people who want that kind of CPU performance and don't care about graphics; for servers, video encoding or 3D rendering, for example. But the majority of people looking for a fast quad-core CPU in a desktop machine will be buying it to run games, not for email and web-browsing.



The answer to you question is: People who buy OEM computers.

Dell currently sells desktops that have Q6600's paired with Intel IGP's, as does HP. HP also sells Phenom systems with Nvidia IGP's (not sure why they don't use ATI IGP's especially since they are better than the Nvidia ones) . Acer sells desktops with Q6600's paired with Nvidia IGP's.

You are correct in that the majority of people who build a system with a quad core processor will pair it with a discrete GPU, but the number of people doing this is likely dwarfed by that of the unwashed masses buying quad-core systems from the OEM's with only an IGP for graphics.
December 26, 2008 9:02:00 PM

gallag said:
jaydeejohn is a AMD fanboy, Or at the very least, I am sure he will agree,slanted towards AMD. But he is also well mannered and replied to any post with at least a bit of logic, I actually quite enjoy his posts as they give a different perspective and if you look at his post history he has replied to all of my posts politely. A lot of other pro AMD or Intel people could learn a lot. You don't have to agree to hold a good conversation, Evolution has seen to that.

On topic, I think we can all agree that this review makes phenom 2 look very average. Competing slightly worse than q6600 clock for clock is not an achievement to be proud off, Even the most hardcore of AMD fans will admit they hoped for more.


I wouldn't go so far as to cal Jaydeejohn a fanboy as he has had a number of pro-Intel posts to his credit is many of the Nehalem threads and I have never seen him go out of his way to bash Intel. I definitely agree that he is one of the more polite members here and sets an example in that respect that I wish more of the posters would follow.

I don't put much stock in this review at all as it is mainly synthetic benchmarks, many of which don't mean diddly in terms of real-world performance. I was impressed that the Phenom II processors beat the Yorkfield chips in both x264 and winrar, two programs that the average person may actually use. The gaming benchmarks look a little fishy to me. In the FC2 benchmark the Phenom II has a significant diasadvantage compared to Yorkfield at low resolution but the handicap completely disappears at high resolution, which is strange considering that the same video card is being used. The same could be said about the WIC benchmark. In the CW benchmark the Phenom II takes a disadvantage at low resolution and actually somehow becomes faster than Yorkfield at high res. Again, very strange considering that the same graphics card is being used for all processors.

Does anybody actually believe that the Q6600 should be faster than the Q9450 in FC2 as is suggested by this review?

December 26, 2008 9:10:21 PM

No a chance in hell the Q6600 will beat a Q9450 in ANYTHING. I overlooked that on the first time around, had to go back and check since you mentioned that....odd.
December 26, 2008 9:51:41 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
The answer to you question is: People who buy OEM computers.


If they care that little about what they buy, they won't notice the difference between an AMD IGP and an Intel IGP, and their choice of CPU will be based on what's cheapest, not what's best; even if the buyers would pay more for a better CPU, the OEMs will stick in the cheapest that they can sell into that part of the market.

Claiming that Chip A is better than Chip B because clueless people will buy them in OEM systems is bizarre; on that basis Phenom would be better than Core 2. as I'm sure many clueless people bought a quad-core Phenom over a faster dual-core Intel chip.
December 26, 2008 9:53:05 PM

spathotan said:
No a chance in hell the Q6600 will beat a Q9450 in ANYTHING. I overlooked that on the first time around, had to go back and check since you mentioned that....odd.


My point exactly. The only possible explanation I can think of for these results is that maybe they used FRAPS for the gaming benchmarks instead of a real demo.
December 26, 2008 10:04:59 PM

MarkG said:
If they care that little about what they buy, they won't notice the difference between an AMD IGP and an Intel IGP, and their choice of CPU will be based on what's cheapest, not what's best; even if the buyers would pay more for a better CPU, the OEMs will stick in the cheapest that they can sell into that part of the market.

Claiming that Chip A is better than Chip B because clueless people will buy them in OEM systems is bizarre; on that basis Phenom would be better than Core 2. as I'm sure many clueless people bought a quad-core Phenom over a faster dual-core Intel chip.


I'm not claiming that one chip is better than another, just stating that many people do in fact pair quad core processors with IGP's despite your claims to the contrary.
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2008 11:43:01 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
I wouldn't go so far as to cal Jaydeejohn a fanboy as he has had a number of pro-Intel posts to his credit is many of the Nehalem threads and I have never seen him go out of his way to bash Intel. I definitely agree that he is one of the more polite members here and sets an example in that respect that I wish more of the posters would follow.

I don't put much stock in this review at all as it is mainly synthetic benchmarks, many of which don't mean diddly in terms of real-world performance. I was impressed that the Phenom II processors beat the Yorkfield chips in both x264 and winrar, two programs that the average person may actually use. The gaming benchmarks look a little fishy to me. In the FC2 benchmark the Phenom II has a significant diasadvantage compared to Yorkfield at low resolution but the handicap completely disappears at high resolution, which is strange considering that the same video card is being used. The same could be said about the WIC benchmark. In the CW benchmark the Phenom II takes a disadvantage at low resolution and actually somehow becomes faster than Yorkfield at high res. Again, very strange considering that the same graphics card is being used for all processors.

Does anybody actually believe that the Q6600 should be faster than the Q9450 in FC2 as is suggested by this review?



What are you smoking? Show me one pro intel post from the poo poo kitty.

Edit: Not that I agree with these benchmarks.
December 26, 2008 11:52:36 PM

BadTrip said:
What are you smoking? Show me one pro intel post from the poo poo kitty.

Edit: Not that I agree with these benchmarks.

I think some one is telling lie's, you obviously cant be 31(poo poo kitty) go get a life
December 27, 2008 12:46:23 AM

jed said:
Take a look at the clock speed of the Q6600 400 to 600mhz decrease
compared to both phemon II's, and stays very close in benchmarks.

I feel if you run the Q6600 at the same clock speed as the phemon II's
it will equal or best both phenom chips, thats disappointing,
the phenom II are not better than the Q6600.


jdj
Quote:
Look again, the Intel cpus were clocked higher, to their credit, but its not the same clocks


jdj
Quote:
I know what youre saying, do you understand what Im saying? They arent at the same clocks, so we dont know what percentage Intel is faster than Phenom, and cant really make a true comparison. Its shows the only ocing on the link Ive provided, that page, and again, like I said, they werent at the same speeds.


But nothing said about decrease in clock speed for the intel chip, under this light the phenom II's is a little better but still not beating the 2yr old Q6600.




The Q6600 is comprised of two dual cores placed side-by-side making it a Multi Chip Module. Each of the two cores has 2 - 64 bit FPUs. The Phenom is a Native Quad Core CPU with four 128-bit FPUs and does not suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like the Q6600 does. Intel used the same old FSB. AMD engineered a better solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

That's one of the reasons why the Q6600 loses in that video comparison. And you're saying if the Q6600 was clocked higher it would equal the Phenom II? Dream on! Phenom II is second gen Phenom unlike the one seen in the video. It has greater performance then the one in the video.

You assume too much.
December 27, 2008 12:49:58 AM

................

Im just waiting for the mad hatter to show up any time now.
December 27, 2008 12:55:51 AM

Quote:
The Q6600 is comprised of two dual cores placed side-by-side making it a Multi Chip Module. Each of the two cores has 2 - 64 bit FPUs. The Phenom is a Native Quad Core CPU with four 128-bit FPUs and does not suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like the Q6600 does. Intel used the same old FSB. AMD engineered a better solution.


i think intel's first attempt at a Native Quad Core is way better than AMDs first
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2008 12:55:51 AM

Yeah, I really wish they'd officially release the things already. All of this vicious arguing over incomplete/fake benchmarks is getting old. On the plus side though, they should start selling soon (tomorrow if you trust the online retailers) and all of this will be answered. Either way I'm too far in now (have everything but the CPU) so the only choice I have to make is 940 or 920.
December 27, 2008 1:20:50 AM

BadTrip said:
What are you smoking? Show me one pro intel post from the poo poo kitty.


Here's a pro-Intel thread JDJ started last month: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/254861-28-28ghz-super-super

Not everyone agrees with Jaydee's opinions but I personally respect the way he conducts himself by being generally respectful in his posts even when he is being viciously flamed by people with dissenting opinions. You on the other hand are quick to stoop to childish name calling and frequently seek to start flame wars which is why I don't and likely never will have any semblance of respect for you or your opinions.
December 27, 2008 1:39:54 AM

rangers said:


i think intel's first attempt at a Native Quad Core is way better than AMDs first

that is becuase Intel stole AMD's Archutecture. :p 

well if you look closly it dose look a lot more like a Phenom chip than an Intel but with the edition of HyperThreading and 8MB Shared L3 rather than 6MB.
December 27, 2008 1:46:18 AM

Phenom II got murdered in 1280X1024; the Core i7 got murdered in 1680X1050... Could that be HT issues, or is it getting FSB bottleneck? A lead over Core i7 in 1680X1050 couldn't all be Hypertransport, could it?
December 27, 2008 2:02:08 AM

blackpanther26 said:
that is becuase Intel stole AMD's Archutecture. :p 

well if you look closly it dose look a lot more like a Phenom chip than an Intel but with the edition of HyperThreading and 8MB Shared L3 rather than 6MB.



they may have copied it, but i dont know about stealing, but that still does not make up for the fact, that it was AMDs architecture (as you point out) and yet intel's first attempt was better than AMDs, you've got to wonder why intel can make a better attempt at AMDs architecture than AMD
December 27, 2008 2:53:53 AM

enigma067
Quote:
That's one of the reasons why the Q6600 loses in that video comparison. And you're saying if the Q6600 was clocked higher it would equal the Phenom II? Dream on! Phenom II is second gen Phenom unlike the one seen in the video. It has greater performance then the one in the video.

You assume too much.


Let me get this rite i assume too much, here you are praising a chip you
can't get and no one else have, now you can beleive everything AMD tells
you, but you need to know they played this game already & i mean the
same game. So i think you are the one who assume too much.

Now your native core nonsense mean nothing , it's ben proven already
theres nothing you can buy from AMD today that can beat the Q6600.
December 27, 2008 2:54:21 AM

Just something to add, someone said no one will notice the difference between Intel's IGP and AMD's (or Nvidia's, they're roughly equal). I find that very wrong. AMD's HD 3200 IGP used in their 780G and 790GX chipsets can run blu-ray with the worst of processors, and are fully DX10 compliant. The HD 3200 can even manage light gaming on older games on medium settings, which isn't including their sideport memory option (which takes away any bandwidth bottlenecking that might be occuring). People will notice the difference the moment they load up Sims 2 and play it on low or high(er).
December 27, 2008 3:24:53 AM

HERE'S SOMETHING TO LOOK AT

Now real people are touching these chips, read this article before you
beleive the hype.
December 27, 2008 3:37:38 AM

MODERATOR EDIT

Please dont cut and paste material form sites with out proper formating, it violates copyrights......essentially plagarism....even from THG


From THG Two Interesting Overclocking Results

Quote:


We have a little surprise for the overclocking lovers reading this report. In addition to the Core i7, our contestants were able to try out a Phenom II, from the next generation of 45 nm Phenoms expected in January.

4.95 GHz for the Phenom

Though AMD claims they’ve reached close to 6 GHz, we were able—with the help of JMax—to reach “only” 4.957 GHz. We should point out, though, that the factory speed of the processor in question, a Phenom II X4 940 BE, is only 3 GHz. We used the processor on a Gigabyte AMD 790GX motherboard, with DDR2 RAM (as required by the AM2+), and a liquid-nitrogen cooling system. This processor may have the potential for higher clock rates, but it had the unfortunate tendency to freeze as soon as the temperature dropped below -70°C.

To see what the processor was able to do, we ran a few tests at a stable frequency (4 GHz). The processor was able to perform a SuperPi 1M in 17.769 sec. During other tests using samples, the processor was able to boot up even when chilled to close to -200°C!

(Ed.: In preparation for benchmarking Phenom II, I asked AMD about the overclocking results garnered for our Phenom II sample under the influence of LN2. The answer was that the HyperTransport link was limiting scalability. If you're going to take the chip to extreme frequencies, you'll want to drop down to 1 GHz or so on the HT interconnect rather than its default HT3 speeds. On air, however, HyperTransport shouldn't be a limiting factor.)

5.28 GHz For Core i7
With a limited amount of time left—the contest was over and the other competitors were packing their gear—and with a limited quantity of nitrogen, we asked the French team to overclock the Core i7 for maximum frequency. They managed to log 5.287 GHz with the Core i7 965 test sample, and even went as high at 5.3 GHz (though not stably). The cooling system used liquid nitrogen and the motherboard was an MSI Eclipse, obviously using the X58 I/O hub. The memory was DDR3 supplied by Kingston, and no problems were encountered with it. In fact, with a frequency of 5.287 MHz, our processor placed in the Top 10 worldwide, copping ninth place (according to Ripping.org). It’s a result our overclockers can be proud of.
    • 1 / 8
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!