Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom II versus all else

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 30, 2009 7:56:25 PM

I don't know about you guys, but I'd really like to see a clock-for-clock comparison between some of the major quads that are out today. A comparison between a Phenom and Phenom II (and possibly the AM3 PII if the review can wait) as well as a Q6600, Q8x00, Q9xx0 and Core i7 @ 2.4 and 3.0 GHz for each one. I'm just really curious to see how each processor fares in an IPC competition. I'm sure we can all interpolate this information by taking a look at numerous reviews and get a decent guess, but nothing substitutes for an all-out test. It's annoying to keep thinking hmm it seems the PII is ~2% faster than Kentsfield IPC blahblahblah :ange:  .

It would also be an excellent addition to this first test to add a complete survey of power and cost efficiency.

Examples:

IPC per watt
Performace per watt
Performance per dollar
Performance per watt per dollar

Stuff like this is fascinating when comparing all of these different processors, platforms and cache configurations. Plus, it appeals to all of us forum-goers out here who like to make informed choices about what suits our needs best.

Anyways, that's my rant. :D 

More about : phenom versus

January 30, 2009 8:16:28 PM

Ok... all of Intel's quadcore processors are clock for clock faster than Phenom 2, but the Q6600 is close to being similar.

The Phenom 2 920 is a decent buy, but the Q6600 can be found for a bit cheaper and usually overclocks a bit higher.

The Phenom 2 940 is at a bad price point as the Q9400 and above are faster clock for clock, overclock better, and the Q9400 is cheaper, however the now discontinued Q9300 is worse as I still maintain that it was not better than the Q6600.

ALL this said, the Phenom 2 is an excellent upgrade for AM2+ owners as it doesn't even need SB750 to overclock to the limits as it is built in. Also between the Q6600 and Ph2 920 or the Q9400 Ph2 940 the Intel CPUs are better, but not by enough to really make much of a difference. Also the Ph2 940 can be found for a decent price point at newegg coupled with a slightly subpar Biostar motherboard, but a good deal none the less.

My recommendation?

Cheap: Phenom 2 920 or Q6600

Midrange: Q9550 or Q9650

High end: i7 920 (requires expensive motherboard and RAM)

I know this is not exactly what you asked for but it is kind of the bottom line at the moment, so hope this helps.
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2009 10:25:24 PM

GEEZ! The_Blood_Raven's comments are excellent. It pretty much sums things up without getting bogged down in details.
Related resources
January 31, 2009 1:18:29 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
The Phenom 2 940 is at a bad price point as the Q9400 and above are faster clock for clock, overclock better, and the Q9400 is cheaper, however the now discontinued Q9300 is worse as I still maintain that it was not better than the Q6600.


What country are you in? The Phenom 2 940 is $229.00 here. The Q9400 is $229.99. That is not cheaper unless you live in an alternate reality. (Or you learned "new math" that doesn't actually apply to the real world.)

The only thing that is important is how far it can overclock. Not how much above stock speed it can be increased. In other words if the Q9400 can overclock a percentage more above it's stock speed than the PHII can... that means nothing when the Phenom II can easily reach a higher final overclock speed.

Reaching that higher speed also cancels out the "clock per clock" argument that is so often thought important. (Especially when it is not really that much. The way many posters on this forum talk you would think that the delta is the same between the Yorkfields and Deneb as it was between the Athlon 64 and the P4. In this reality it is NOT... but anyone with a brain knows that.

And of course the best thing in the world is that if you have something better than air cooling... it's not even a contest. I'm personally looking forward to getting water cooling soon.
January 31, 2009 1:31:11 AM

Wow what country are you in? I've seen the Q9400 for $190 at times, but the Ph2 940 tends to be stuck at $230 because it is new. You are totally wrong, the clock for clock speed and the amount that a processor can overclock past the stock speed is the important part, while the ending clock is irrelevant as the gains become pretty linear. A Q9650 stock will beat a Q6600 at 3.2-3.4 Ghz even though the Q6600 is clocked higher. The difference between the Q9xxx series and the Ph2 940 clock for clock is about 6-7% but the Q9 series can overclock up to 80% better than a Ph2 even though the ending clock is similar. Please go learn about computers and overclocking, and if you don't then just don't post.
January 31, 2009 1:53:30 AM

Q9400 @ 3.8-4.0 Ghz vs Ph2 940 @ 3.6-3.9 Ghz

Guess 3.9 is actually larger than 4.0! Gotta go talk to my trigonometry and calculus teachers, a grave error has been made!
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2009 1:55:04 AM

lol
January 31, 2009 2:18:47 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=349...

Highest air overclocked Ph2 940 in ANY review. Oh do note the voltage, yes that is over the max AMD specs of 1.45-1.5.

Yeah because $150+ for a watercooling setup will allow a Phenom 2 to beat an aircooled stock voltage i7 920 @ 3.6-3.8 for the same price.

To the OP and anyone who might actually think keith has any idea of what he is talking about, my first post still hold true. While the Q9400 is generally faster either one works and they are virtually the same.
January 31, 2009 2:22:21 AM

some depend on the mobo fsb and some do not

the first is the qx6700 - early mobos could not power this cpu. that is why you see 16phase cpu power know - 8 phase was tops and rare back then.

q6600 at 3.6ghz is cake - i wrote this 1.5 years ago:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244351-28-61ghz-1ghz

q9650 at 4.2ghz requires a good mobo or the right mobo and skill
at qx9650 (or 9770) at 4.2-4.6ghz is easy

8000 series is useless marking

new amd tops out at 4ghz and rarely go past it

i7's the 920 runs past 4.4ghz not all do but many do - there is article of one stuck at 3.8ghz but i think that is a rare event. or since so many 920's are sold and so few 940's the binning may be very wide ranged

i7 is much different cpu's in the past and that the 920 will require water, tec, phase or hybird cooling to max out.

we do hybrid with tec and water

-------------

performace per watt

all the air cooling is max temps

so a q6600@3.6ghz=3.8ghz = qx9650 at 4.2ghz = q9650 at 4.3ghz slight improvemtns with effeciency due to throtling control etc

same with amd a 3.8ghz amd phenom II is in the same area

q9550 eo = q9650 but its hard to clock to 100% stablity
----------------------

fsb - fsb performace tops out at 400-425

optimal settings are 1600mhz - 1700mhz in most chipsets

that is why the $1500 reference cpu is a 1600mhz part
January 31, 2009 2:34:18 AM

we are custom builder - you see claims of wolrds fastest - well any takers?

we shipped 4.3ghz air cooled i7 systems since mid dec -- it is the fastest system made once again. it takes balls to notch it up. 5-6 years ago it was cake few did what we do. 2006 we shipped 4.5ghz air cooled systems 965EE with dual core and hyperthreading - looks like a quad in the task manger.

it quacks like a quad, it looks like a quad? its must be a swan!

I add all this, since i could add a lot more detail about your questions, then again i could write 100 page book on your question too!

performance per watt per dollar -------------> age + speed/n
n= fix number that is unkown but constant dependin on the group of cpu's


the prgression of intel quads each same speed 3.6ghz is faster
qx6700<Q6600 g0 <qx9650<q9650

at the highest number is reached with right mobo and the right bios and dam good overclocker - not me - what i do is not crazy oc or LN2 - i do 3 year warranty and 100% stablity and i warranty it for 3 years!

so your answer lies inbetween the qx9650 and q9650 for C2D -- that is because your fsb is too high with the q9650. with fixed cooling the qx9650 will win

i7 will beat them all with hybrid cooling - send me $7000 and send you your answer you seek, grasshopper!
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2009 2:37:34 AM

I7>P2>Q6600

thread finished.
January 31, 2009 2:43:56 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=349...

Highest air overclocked Ph2 940 in ANY review. Oh do note the voltage, yes that is over the max AMD specs of 1.45-1.5.

Yeah because $150+ for a watercooling setup will allow a Phenom 2 to beat an aircooled stock voltage i7 920 @ 3.6-3.8 for the same price.

To the OP and anyone who might actually think keith has any idea of what he is talking about, my first post still hold true. While the Q9400 is generally faster either one works and they are virtually the same.


If two chips cost the same price then they need to perform exactly the same at their stock speeds. Clock per clock is something invented by losers to make an argument because they know that they hate riding the short bus.

Guess what? At stock speeds the PHII 940 kills the Q9400 and is almost has no problem with the Q9550.

Overclocked the Q9400 is no problem at all. The PHII easily overclocks more than the Q9400. And if you are an "enthusiast" and have better than air cooling.. then the Q9400 is relegated to the next lower category. It is a "has been". Especially if you consider that it is the older architecture... but we shouldn't got there... it might hurt some feelings.

So we'll go back to your comment that you added without thinking: So a $150.00 water cooling system on a PHII will allow it to beat an i7 at 3.6-3.8Ghz on air? I'll definitely take the PHII water cooled system. I don't want to HEAR the noise of the fans on that system or feel the heat created by that spaceheater.
January 31, 2009 2:46:14 AM

you like how i get 3 posts - but each is worth as much as any other post - and all three answer your question.

performance is cost, at a fixed cost what is the best i can get

p = performance = ($ spent on cpu parts (mobo and ram may or may not apply) parts + total price/ total price)n

if you buy an 965EE i7 you get a small peformace boost over a 920 i7 at the same speed.
n = binding ratio of the group of parts probably the curve of a graph of performance - guessing


q6600 is the best part unitl you buy a qx9650 which is best until you buy an i7


i7 920 does not follow intels usual progression or its old marketing - i am suprised the base clock was not locked lower

920 = max 166 bc
940= max 200bx
965 = unlocked base clock

the reason its not like this is another nail in AMD's coffin - intel is giving amd no room but the low end and low power (forget this intel has new lower power chips)

intel is giving amd no breathing room - the true quad bs, 64bit boosting and sucess of the may 05 launch of fx-60 is still in intels mind.

while some thing the atlon was leading part in 03-05 it was not - true multitasking test where not done - in fact you only see in 05 the start of dual apps - this bs. intel p4 is better real world part - IMHO - i joined this site just to argure that point. all the amd people left - amd "true quad" fiasco was too much they all hide in oc site?

anyways......... page 3 of the 100 page book.


you find most of this is dead on or just needs to be correct in wording



more you spend on the system the better the system - $2000 in water cooling and tec cooling will give you more performace
January 31, 2009 2:51:49 AM

So we'll go back to your comment that you added without thinking: So a $150.00 water cooling system on a PHII will allow it to beat an i7 at 3.6-3.8Ghz on air? I'll definitely take the PHII water cooled system. I don't want to HEAR the noise of the fans on that system or feel the heat created by that spaceheater.


this makes no sence - you can not run an i7 on orthos but if do not run orthos and even with quad apps like 3d over 4ghz is do able on air with the 920.

also do not forget the phenom is 2 it is phenom II

i gurentee when i7-2 comes out the temps will drop sharply - i trust intel long term R&D you can read like a road map. if i give you road make from iowa to il you sill make it to michgane staying the same road right through indiana

i7 will black the power down next round - this is round 1 intel. this is round 3 or 4 for amd. --> for the "true quad" the native quad"

ya phenom II is a great cpu and good deal AMD has positioned it well and we are building amd again because of it.


SPACE HEAT? wow back to the P4 days


what ever the i7 blows amd out of the water on apps, and every other test .............................


thats it i am done! 100 pages not kiddding
January 31, 2009 2:58:43 AM

dragonsprayer said:

you find most of this is dead on or just needs to be correct in wording


BTW: Off topic.

Where are you from? I've had about 6 drinks tonight.

For some reason your wording makes me remember an Italian guy I met on a cruise a few weeks ago. We drank and drank and drank and drank. Until both of us looked at each other and said. "Okay: We're done you win." Then we had to get help to find our cabins.

My bar tab was almost a $700.00. Great fun was had by all. (EDIT: I only paid for what I bought. He bought just as much.)
(Clarification: That was the tab for 1 week of this type of activity.)

ANYWAY... sorry... but your grammar seemed to make me remember talking to him. SO perhaps English is not your first language... or you suck at grammar. (But thanks for making me remember my pathetic night of drinking expensive stuff and smoking expensive cigars. Did I really spend almost $200.00 on shots so 4 college guys could probably get lucky? My wife wasn't amused. Actually I lie. She laughed her butt off. At me.)

Oh... what were we talking about again?

Edit #2: Makes me realize if I had spent that money on really fancy water cooling system instead of having fun... then I would be much happier in this conversation. Could I get even better results with an i7? Perhaps. But then a nice water cooling system on a PHII will still pwn most posters on this forum regardless of their forum arguments. End of story. And I still won't buy into the "plastic" feeling that the hyperthreading and dynamic overclocking give me. (I.e., by "plastic" I believe those benefits are mostly just marketing hype and will soon be forgotten.)
a c 127 à CPUs
January 31, 2009 7:31:04 AM

Wow lovely fight. Love Keiths comments on the CPu I am pretty damn sure hw has yet to even try, aka the Core i7. I mean dynamic OCing is normally turned off when OCing. 3.8Ghz on stock voltage, btw Dragon thats what it was was seeing how far 1.3v would get the Core i7 920 not how far it would OC, is pretty damn impressive from 2.66GHz.

Clock per clock seems pretty important to me as does stock voltage OCing and no overpriced water cooling solutions. Some people like it, I prefer not to.

And yes keith we get it. You love AMD and even if Intel made the best damn CPu or hell even released their Terascale 80 core CPu that used only 62 damn watts to reach 2.5GHz per core while putting out 1TFlop of performance you would still find some negative way to trash it because they somehow violated you.

BTW, why don't you OC your PH II then post CPU-Z validations and unedited screenshots of it running so damn fast on air, along with some actual stability screens from say Prime95 with at least 8 hours + non error testing and with some pics of the air cooler you are using (in your case preferably)? Would be nice if you finally put up since you obviously wont shut up.
January 31, 2009 7:36:29 AM

dude i just got done building this - its a 4ghz i7 bad boy - can you match it?
its got 2 sets of lights, lighted feet and some more cool stuff - see how pissy i get after i work late

dream you could build and design one after another! lol! <--- ok i being a smarty pants but hey its sweet

January 31, 2009 7:39:54 AM

anyone who thinks they got a faster one, that is 100% stable and is wired up as good with a 3 year warranty for under $3000 - lets do a build off - i got a few sites that have requested test systems from us. we are too small still - 6 months you see my ads on THG < ok i am hoping i can afford it!
January 31, 2009 7:51:04 AM

keithlm - newbie gramer is not key - info is, typing is not my thing - look at the photo - if it sucks GO HEAD AND TELL ME I TAKE IT LIKE A MAN IF YOU THINK ITS NOT BUILT BETTER THE CSX, CP, IBP, DELL OR WHO EVER!

YOU CAN GET FOR $5K FROM NORTWEST - THIS ONE WLL BEAT IT!

i got 20k in test and demo systems so anytime you got a real pc - that you build and you sell lets to a head to head! lol!

i just come here to help people and write these post really fast while i am building - i jsut finised building the above system. #3 for that customer so if want to take it on! lol!

ya i write like crap - but i solve a lot peeps problems and enjoy helping people - i wrote all the crapola so the thread starter could desephier my crap writing and get his answers..

so any time you want to take on a 100% stable 4.6ghz quad - let meknow - i even bring dual water cooled 4870x2 and nvidia gx2 (i have 295 around soon) so you pick your posion!


lol!

really seriously what you can see - is how fast you can repair that system and how much stuff is in it - you there is 3 sets of lights and 3 drives.

most newbie can build something like that and it takes longer to remove a wire harness or light or what ever then it took to build - the beauty in that is that any part can be replaced in 10 mins or so.

so if you got 4ghz i7 great with 260 216 sli - if not drewl over the buyer who got it for under $3k! with a life time labor warranty a 3 year cpu warranty on the oc cpu and not restrictions - no volt modding - free upgrades for life!
he can send it back and have some GTX 395's installed next year! at parts cost!

wow another book - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz bed time

by newbie!
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2009 7:59:16 AM

dragon you always have the sweetest setups bro... im totally jealous.
January 31, 2009 8:01:47 AM

dude (keithlm) your amd guy and your slamming me! wow is that so unorginal

2 raptors on a raid card?

here is 4 raptors and 8 x 750 on areca built 3 years ago i am sure it some your amd




i am so bad when i am tired!

lol!

want to take it on? its a crappy 965EE running 4.6ghz i bet smokes ya?
January 31, 2009 8:04:20 AM

ok i am being nice for the next 24 hours - no more nasty!

thank you werxen - funny thing is just whipped it up tonight - ok it was started a week ago but i just did all the wiring and its not even the final wiring.

thx! dude!

know i can go to bed and be in zen happy mode!

ok fine - yes i can not type and i bad at gramer but i i got an a average in engineering at u of i, 92 on the serious 7 .... wow i think he really hurt my fellings ....lol!
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2009 8:10:55 AM

grammar* but its all good ;) 
January 31, 2009 9:44:33 AM

keithlm said:
If two chips cost the same price then they need to perform exactly the same at their stock speeds. Clock per clock is something invented by losers to make an argument because they know that they hate riding the short bus.

Guess what? At stock speeds the PHII 940 kills the Q9400 and is almost has no problem with the Q9550.



What was the reason to buy an A64 over a P4 back in the days then?

Where's the murder? I see a trade of blows between the green 920 and the blue Q9400, so, if some 5% here and there are a "kill", then what does an i7 do to both? Doesn't it spank, rape, tie, torture, kill, resurrect, kill, go to hell, re-kill?

Overall, the green 920 and 940 are very interesting, but many times they still fall short - if not for their price. Price/performance does not reveal everything. For instance, you can argue that 5-15% are not noticeable in "real-world usage", so that the difference between a PII 940 and a Q9550 would be meaningless. But then, you can have an X2 6000 already. You'll improve something like that in "most" - not all - apps when going for the 940, so, why bother to upgrade at all, unless it shows a "better [loser] performance clock per clock" in what you use or you can take advantage of those extra cores? Now, on the other hand, if you go for a 15-30% increase with other CPU, then you start to get into something.

Supposing what you really care about is Price/Performance, that is.

BTW, there was an universe-cli (or x) run at Phoronix in which an overclocked Q6600 (3.36, but I don't remember, so go search if you want) "killed" your 940@ 3.6 + 2.4 NB. But that's while some Q9650 and Q9550 had different results.

BTW, I'm glad to have discovered the site by you, but they have a huge amount of flaws in order to be really considered as "a means of comparison". Among them: you can use many of the 1.348.439 (yeah, how many) Linux distros to perform the tests, what invalidates almost every comparison you can make by going there. RAM also is an important factor, since on the "Apache compilation test" (I guess), even "low-end" CPUs paired with 8 GBs of RAM destroyed the overclocked CPUs paired with 4. So, it's nice as an "own benchmark", but pretty much useless for most comparisons. But nice, nonetheless.
January 31, 2009 9:58:46 AM

AMD still has yet to catch the Q6600 in some benchmarks. Just think a 3 year old CPU still chugging along against AMD's new Phenom 2. I switched form my Phenom 9850 to this Core 2 Quad Q9650 and I love it. 4GHz 1.31v on air at 58c max load and I still can go higher. But because I can't see the difference between 3GHz and 4GHz i decied to go back to 3GHz. Think it has to do with the Hard drive. But think about it. P2 at 3.8-3.9 at 1.55v. The Q9650 at 4GHz 1.31v. I think I would go with Intel. And if it was not for the FSB I think the Q9400 can overclock past 4GHz on air. Like if you could ajust the Multiplier between the CPU bus speed and the FSB from like 4 to 3. Overclocking means nothing still becuase it lies in the Archutecture. Intel's Arcutecture is far more Supoirer than AMD's and that is why you see AMD's CPU's less than $250. Oh and LN2 means nothing too because who here is going to use LN2 to overclock their CPU?
January 31, 2009 10:20:29 AM

sseyler said:
I don't know about you guys, but I'd really like to see a clock-for-clock comparison between some of the major quads that are out today.


Hwbox.gr, who had the first comprehensive Phenom II review, did such a review comparing Phenom II vs Kentsfield vs Yorkfield vs i7 at 3.7GHz. The review is in Greek but the charts are English.

http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253&garpg=2


January 31, 2009 2:09:45 PM

Quote:
Hwbox.gr, who had the first comprehensive Phenom II review, did such a review comparing Phenom II vs Kentsfield vs Yorkfield vs i7 at 3.7GHz. The review is in Greek but the charts are English.

http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253&garpg=2




Thanks these benchmarks show what i've ben saying all along, clock for clock
all of the phemon chips are still inferior to kentsfield.

Again phenom 2's is a good chip not a great one, and in my book kentsfield
is retiring the champ that's 4 to 0 for kentsfield.
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2009 4:40:29 PM

^ You'll never convince the "Cockroach Company" fanbois that AMD doesn't make the greatest CPUs, instead of profits :) .
January 31, 2009 7:08:07 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Wow lovely fight. Love Keiths comments on the CPu I am pretty damn sure hw has yet to even try, aka the Core i7. I mean dynamic OCing is normally turned off when OCing. 3.8Ghz on stock voltage, btw Dragon thats what it was was seeing how far 1.3v would get the Core i7 920 not how far it would OC, is pretty damn impressive from 2.66GHz.

Clock per clock seems pretty important to me as does stock voltage OCing and no overpriced water cooling solutions. Some people like it, I prefer not to.

And yes keith we get it. You love AMD and even if Intel made the best damn CPu or hell even released their Terascale 80 core CPu that used only 62 damn watts to reach 2.5GHz per core while putting out 1TFlop of performance you would still find some negative way to trash it because they somehow violated you.


Yes... I drank way too many margaritas last night while being bored running some loads for work. I'm almost done today. (Of course the AMD test box would have been done last night even though it is 500Mhz slower.)

If the faster Intel box could actually run the job faster then I would not say a word. But you don't seem to realize it is not about a few percent in a benchmark: It is about hours of my time wasted. But according to you I guess I'm supposed to just ignore that fact.

I must admit you are correct about something even though you didn't know anything about it because I didn't mention it: at 3.5Ghz on stock voltages Prime95 will fail after about 26 hours. Personally I find that to not be acceptable.

But I do love the fact that the Cool'n'Quiet feature works with overclocking. You can't overclock as high if you use it... but it is very nice having it automatically drop to 800Mhz and 1V when you aren't doing anything.
January 31, 2009 7:16:14 PM

dattimr said:

Where's the murder? I see a trade of blows between the green 920 and the blue Q9400, so, if some 5% here and there are a "kill", then what does an i7 do to both? Spank, rape, tie, torture, kill, ressurrect, kill, goes to hell, re-kill?


Sorry... I'm reverting to using words I've seen used by Intel fanboys to describe such a difference. I've sunk down to their level. I feel so dirty.
January 31, 2009 9:12:15 PM

Keith... you said:

1) Clock for Clock comparisons doesn't matter, while they are about the most important comparison possible.

2) The amount of increase over stock does not mean as much as the final clock speed, which is totally wrong as there is a major loss of increased performance after 3.4-3.8 Ghz.

3) The Phenom 2 can easily hit 4.0 Ghz or more on air which is wrong, since most can't go past 3.8 Ghz with anything below the max suggested voltage, a whopping v1.5 or more!

4) The Q9400 can't overclock as well as a Phenom 2 on air, which is false since 3.8 ghz is almost a given with them and 4.0 Ghz is semi common.

5) The Q9400 is slower stock than a Phenom 2 940 at stock, while the Q9400 tends to be slightly faster but both are damn near equals.

6) A watercooled Phenom 2 @ 4.2-4.4 will out perform an i7 920 at 3.8-4.0 Ghz, that's totally wrong not only since a Phenom 2 940 can't hit 4.2-4.4 at any reasonable or sustainable voltages and the i7 rig will easily beat it even if it could since the difference between 3.8 and 4.4 is almost nonexistent.

7) The Phenom 2 940 is even faster than the Q9550 and overclocks higher. I have seen Q9550s hit 4.2 Ghz on air, and yes a Q9550 is faster clock for clock and in a stock speed comparison.

8) A real enthusiast would have a watercooling setup, that's not even close to true as an air cooled setup does just fine anymore. For the record I own an $800 240 + 480 rad loop that I only use for fun, but that is not what makes me an enthusiast.

You need to lay off the alcohol apparently. I don't mean to be so hard, but I really don't care what you think personally, but you are spreading false information that could confuse or mislead people, and that's not right.

I hope we can all agree just to let this one die.
January 31, 2009 9:32:50 PM

keithlm said:
Sorry... I'm reverting to using words I've seen used by Intel fanboys to describe such a difference. I've sunk down to their level. I feel so dirty.


No problem at all, but yes, it was quite a "Netbursted" comment. By the way, are you running stable with that NB clocked 2.4? Have you tried to increase the volts, Keith? I have read at Xtreme that your mobo couldn't do that and some other posters said sometimes you lose performance if you increase the NB frequency too much without also increasing the volts.
January 31, 2009 10:43:32 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Keith... you said:

1) Clock for Clock comparisons doesn't matter, while they are about the most important comparison possible.

2) The amount of increase over stock does not mean as much as the final clock speed, which is totally wrong as there is a major loss of increased performance after 3.4-3.8 Ghz.

3) The Phenom 2 can easily hit 4.0 Ghz or more on air which is wrong, since most can't go past 3.8 Ghz with anything below the max suggested voltage, a whopping v1.5 or more!

4) The Q9400 can't overclock as well as a Phenom 2 on air, which is false since 3.8 ghz is almost a given with them and 4.0 Ghz is semi common.

5) The Q9400 is slower stock than a Phenom 2 940 at stock, while the Q9400 tends to be slightly faster but both are damn near equals.

6) A watercooled Phenom 2 @ 4.2-4.4 will out perform an i7 920 at 3.8-4.0 Ghz, that's totally wrong not only since a Phenom 2 940 can't hit 4.2-4.4 at any reasonable or sustainable voltages and the i7 rig will easily beat it even if it could since the difference between 3.8 and 4.4 is almost nonexistent.

7) The Phenom 2 940 is even faster than the Q9550 and overclocks higher. I have seen Q9550s hit 4.2 Ghz on air, and yes a Q9550 is faster clock for clock and in a stock speed comparison.

8) A real enthusiast would have a watercooling setup, that's not even close to true as an air cooled setup does just fine anymore. For the record I own an $800 240 + 480 rad loop that I only use for fun, but that is not what makes me an enthusiast.

You need to lay off the alcohol apparently. I don't mean to be so hard, but I really don't care what you think personally, but you are spreading false information that could confuse or mislead people, and that's not right.

I hope we can all agree just to let this one die.



Let's address your "issues" one by one.
1. Clock for clock comparisons are not as important as dollar per dollar. (Just because you want them to be.)
2. The older Intel chips do not scale linearly as frequency is increased. How is that important to overclocking a Phenom?
3. Who cares about the max voltage as long as the chip doesn't get too hot. (You care because it ruins your argument.)
4. I can do my own searches to find out what speeds the Q9400 can reach. (Not just take your word for it.)
5. The stock Q9400 vs PHII 940 results are not as close as you seem to want them to be.
6. I guess you aren't really an enthusiast if you are going to worry so much about voltages See #3 above.
7. Some people have hit 4.2 on air with a PHII. Big deal. These chips compete just fine. (You may not want them to compete but that's just too bad.)
8. Yeah nobody that is an enthusiast would want quality water cooling. Real men only overclock using air.


Actually I have to laugh at you because you actually believe many of the things you say. You do realize that you are the one spreading false information that could confuse or mislead people. And yes: you should stop doing that. But I know that on this particular forum there are a lot of people that will actually buy into your misguided beliefs giving you the illusion that you are correct.

Let me review some of the quality information I would have received on this forum if I had not done my own research:
  • A phenom (65nm or 45nm) will never be able to do 4.0Ghz.
  • DDR2-1066 is never needed and there is never a reason to purchase it over DDR2-800.
  • To get to 3.6Ghz a Phenom (Agena OR Deneb) would need 1.6V or more.
  • Even if you did manage to get to 4.0 the temperature would be hotter than a nuclear reactor.
  • Super Pi is actually a very important measure of performance between brands.
  • AMD will never release a Phenom clocked at more than 3.0Ghz.
  • The Q6600 still beats any Phenom when compared at stock speeds or overclocked speeds.
  • The Q9300 beats any Phenom when compared at stock speeds or overclocked speeds.
  • The i7 will be so far ahead of AMD that results won't be in the same galaxy.

    Sorry but I'm sure I've forgotten a few of the important tidbits of propaganda... er... information posted on this forum. I guess I'll stop doing my own thinking and just buy anything said by anyone that is part of the Intel fan club.


    dattimr said:
    No problem at all, but yes, it was quite a "Netbursted" comment. By the way, are you running stable with that NB clocked 2.4? Have you tried to increase the volts, Keith? I have read at Xtreme that your mobo couldn't do that and some other posters said sometimes you lose performance if you increase the NB frequency too much without also increasing the volts.


    Actually I can set the NB to 2.6Ghz if I accept that it will fail a Prime95 in about 18 hours. I don't find that acceptable... so I drop the NB to 2.4Ghz. (Yes: at stock NB voltages... the bios won't allow it to be changed. I might try the old Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 board... but I'm still angry with them for not supporting their product. But at least they did release a bios to support the PHII.)
    January 31, 2009 11:09:36 PM

    Im confused
    If uve gotten such great info....y are u still here?
    January 31, 2009 11:42:50 PM

    i got quit making posts after i am done working at 2am and drink one or 2 or 4 too many beers.


    my p4 3.0c rules at 3.6ghz in my little shuttle - i keep it in a box like a pet rock - think smithsonian might want it some day?

    no beer yet!

    January 31, 2009 11:59:00 PM

    keithlm said:
    Let's address your "issues" one by one.
    1. Clock for clock comparisons are not as important as dollar per dollar. (Just because you want them to be.)
    2. The older Intel chips do not scale linearly as frequency is increased. How is that important to overclocking a Phenom?
    3. Who cares about the max voltage as long as the chip doesn't get too hot. (You care because it ruins your argument.)
    4. I can do my own searches to find out what speeds the Q9400 can reach. (Not just take your word for it.)
    5. The stock Q9400 vs PHII 940 results are not as close as you seem to want them to be.
    6. I guess you aren't really an enthusiast if you are going to worry so much about voltages See #3 above.
    7. Some people have hit 4.2 on air with a PHII. Big deal. These chips compete just fine. (You may not want them to compete but that's just too bad.)
    8. Yeah nobody that is an enthusiast would want quality water cooling. Real men only overclock using air.


    Actually I have to laugh at you because you actually believe many of the things you say. You do realize that you are the one spreading false information that could confuse or mislead people. And yes: you should stop doing that. But I know that on this particular forum there are a lot of people that will actually buy into your misguided beliefs giving you the illusion that you are correct.

    Let me review some of the quality information I would have received on this forum if I had not done my own research:
  • A phenom (65nm or 45nm) will never be able to do 4.0Ghz.
  • DDR2-1066 is never needed and there is never a reason to purchase it over DDR2-800.
  • To get to 3.6Ghz a Phenom (Agena OR Deneb) would need 1.6V or more.
  • Even if you did manage to get to 4.0 the temperature would be hotter than a nuclear reactor.
  • Super Pi is actually a very important measure of performance between brands.
  • AMD will never release a Phenom clocked at more than 3.0Ghz.
  • The Q6600 still beats any Phenom when compared at stock speeds or overclocked speeds.
  • The Q9300 beats any Phenom when compared at stock speeds or overclocked speeds.
  • The i7 will be so far ahead of AMD that results won't be in the same galaxy.

    Sorry but I'm sure I've forgotten a few of the important tidbits of propaganda... er... information posted on this forum. I guess I'll stop doing my own thinking and just buy anything said by anyone that is part of the Intel fan club.




    Actually I can set the NB to 2.6Ghz if I accept that it will fail a Prime95 in about 18 hours. I don't find that acceptable... so I drop the NB to 2.4Ghz. (Yes: at stock NB voltages... the bios won't allow it to be changed. I might try the old Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 board... but I'm still angry with them for not supporting their product. But at least they did release a bios to support the PHII.)


  • 1) Umm... I'm pretty sure clock for clock comparisons mean a lot when you are comparing processor for very similar or the exact same price.

    2) All I said was that the gains of increasing clocks drop at a certain area... So if you can gain more Mhz before that area then you are gaining more perfomance.

    3) Are you serious?! You got to be kidding me! Don't you understand that a lot of voltage can ruin a CPU easily!? A CPU can be running at -100c and if the voltage is too high it will still die in a month or less, one of the countless reasons LN2 cooling is useless for the consumer. The reasons CPUs die is because the electric current slowly degrades the nodes and transistors. At about 1.5 you get into an extremely dangerous area where the CPU can no longer compensate for the electric current.

    4) Do your own research... whether I tell you or a website tells you the same thing makes no difference to me...

    5) They are close, they trade blows in many areas but at the end of the day perform great in either instance.

    6) Even enthusiasts like working CPUs bro...

    7) Some reputable sources have reported 4.0 Ghz, but the reviewers and the general consumers don't get so lucky, the Phenom 2 seems to be hit or miss. I NEVER SAID THE PHENOM 2 IS NOT COMPETITIVE!!! All I said was that the Phenom 2 is a competitor for the Q9400 and both come in pretty close, you said that the Phenom 2 was even better that i7 at times and that the Phenom 2 940 easily makes the Q9400 eat dirt when they are plainly and simply very similar. I'm not being biased towards either one, I'm going off what I have read from many reviewers and users.

    8) No... again you change the meaning of my words. Watercooling is an enthusiast's art, but is not REQUIRED to be an enthusiast as you had said.

    Honestly if we are so biased then never post in this forum again, that will show us!

    As for the other false information that has been spread, you do realize that it has been on every other forum. You see I read many forums to get my information, not just one.

    Please try to understand that I am NOT saying Phenom 2 sucks, I'm saying that the Q6600 and Ph2 920 are pretty decent competitors with the Ph2 920 pulling slightly ahead and the Q9400 and the Ph2 940 are great competitors as they are basically the same. You posted that they Ph2 940 was so much better and I corrected you. The Q9400 does have some slight advantages in overclocking, but the Phenom 2 has its own advantages such as compatibility and combo deal value. Honestly, WHERE IS THE BIAS!?
    February 1, 2009 12:05:22 AM

    Man keithlm. Just because you love your Little Phenom 2 dose not make it a bargin. I went form a Phenom 9850 to Intel Q9650 and it smokes it. Phenom 2 is not a new arcutecture so it can't posiblly be better than YorkField's. Simply because Phenom 2 should have been the performance of the original Phenom then maybe it'll be on par with the Q9xxx series. And voltage dose matter. At 1.5v your Phenom would burn out beofore a Q9650 at 1.31v and 4GHz.
    February 1, 2009 12:29:33 AM

    The_Blood_Raven said:
    Ok... all of Intel's quadcore processors are clock for clock faster than Phenom 2, but the Q6600 is close to being similar.

    The Phenom 2 920 is a decent buy, but the Q6600 can be found for a bit cheaper and usually overclocks a bit higher.

    The Phenom 2 940 is at a bad price point as the Q9400 and above are faster clock for clock, overclock better, and the Q9400 is cheaper, however the now discontinued Q9300 is worse as I still maintain that it was not better than the Q6600.

    ALL this said, the Phenom 2 is an excellent upgrade for AM2+ owners as it doesn't even need SB750 to overclock to the limits as it is built in. Also between the Q6600 and Ph2 920 or the Q9400 Ph2 940 the Intel CPUs are better, but not by enough to really make much of a difference. Also the Ph2 940 can be found for a decent price point at newegg coupled with a slightly subpar Biostar motherboard, but a good deal none the less.

    My recommendation?

    Cheap: Phenom 2 920 or Q6600

    Midrange: Q9550 or Q9650

    High end: i7 920 (requires expensive motherboard and RAM)

    I know this is not exactly what you asked for but it is kind of the bottom line at the moment, so hope this helps.


    =


    The Q6600 is no where near as powerful as the Phenom I or II.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

    The Q6600 is commprised of two dual core processors placed side-by-side making it a multi-chip module.
    It also has two 64-bit floating point units in each of those two processors.

    The Phenom is comprised of four processors on a single die and each of those cores has a 128-bit floating point unit. This means it can crunch numbers faster then the q6600. That's why the Q6600 lost in the video.

    The 940 is $850 less then the Core i7:

    X4 940 / 3.00GHz Socket AM2+ 1800MHz (3600 MT/s) $239.99

    Ci7 965EE/3.2GHz LGA1366 6.4 GT/s $1079.99
    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Category/catego...

    I mean, if any one were to buy a machine now, they'd be a fool not to
    see the logic in this argument. What can he buy with such HUGE savings?

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

    Personally I think he should get an AMD Dragon with a 4870 x 2. It's a no brainer!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EJKifq6JM
    February 1, 2009 12:44:11 AM

    Ur saying that a 940 is equivalent to a 965EE?? :heink: 

    And ur using Youtube videos posted by AMD to justify ur statement?
    I mean im in World History and learning about Bias and PoV. U obviously missed that part
    And Bluray playback is a judgment of performance...thats new to me

    Lastly, the first vid is the dumbest "benchmark" ive ever seen...the Intel one has much more rendering. Notice the AMD one is mostly black with 0 things to render.
    February 1, 2009 12:59:32 AM

    Quote:
    The Q6600 is no where near as powerful as the Phenom I or II.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

    The Q6600 is commprised of two dual core processors placed side-by-side making it a multi-chip module.
    It also has two 64-bit floating point units in each of those two processors.

    The Phenom is comprised of four processors on a single die and each of those cores has a 128-bit floating point unit. This means it can crunch numbers faster then the q6600. That's why the Q6600 lost in the video.

    The 940 is $850 less then the Core i7:

    X4 940 / 3.00GHz Socket AM2+ 1800MHz (3600 MT/s) $239.99

    Ci7 965EE/3.2GHz LGA1366 6.4 GT/s $1079.99
    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applica [...] ?name=CPUs

    I mean, if any one were to buy a machine now, they'd be a fool not to
    see the logic in this argument. What can he buy with such HUGE savings?

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

    Personally I think he should get an AMD Dragon with a 4870 x 2. It's a no brainer!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EJKifq6JM



    Clock for clock the Q6600 is still putting the wood to all phenoms.

    The i7 920 can be had for 229.99 @2.66 and will beat both phenom 2
    hands down.

    February 1, 2009 1:08:56 AM

    enigma067 said:
    =


    The Q6600 is no where near as powerful as the Phenom I or II.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

    The Q6600 is commprised of two dual core processors placed side-by-side making it a multi-chip module.
    It also has two 64-bit floating point units in each of those two processors.

    The Phenom is comprised of four processors on a single die and each of those cores has a 128-bit floating point unit. This means it can crunch numbers faster then the q6600. That's why the Q6600 lost in the video.

    The 940 is $850 less then the Core i7:

    X4 940 / 3.00GHz Socket AM2+ 1800MHz (3600 MT/s) $239.99

    Ci7 965EE/3.2GHz LGA1366 6.4 GT/s $1079.99
    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Category/catego...

    I mean, if any one were to buy a machine now, they'd be a fool not to
    see the logic in this argument. What can he buy with such HUGE savings?

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

    Personally I think he should get an AMD Dragon with a 4870 x 2. It's a no brainer!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EJKifq6JM


    are you trying to fool us? The Q6600 is better than Phenom. It's not about two dual-cores side by side on one chip. AMD did the same thing for their Athlon X2 64 CPUs. It's about real world performance.
    February 1, 2009 1:21:21 AM

    I must be blind. Is somebody still crying about pre-i7 quads being two duals put together?
    February 1, 2009 2:51:51 AM

    blackpanther26 said:
    are you trying to fool us? The Q6600 is better than Phenom. It's not about two dual-cores side by side on one chip. AMD did the same thing for their Athlon X2 64 CPUs. It's about real world performance.


    I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I do believe the Athlon X2 64's are all on a single die (native). Intel Pentium D was MCM design, much like Core 2 Quads.

    Not that it matters.
    a c 127 à CPUs
    February 1, 2009 4:18:34 AM

    keithlm said:
    Yes... I drank way too many margaritas last night while being bored running some loads for work. I'm almost done today. (Of course the AMD test box would have been done last night even though it is 500Mhz slower.)

    If the faster Intel box could actually run the job faster then I would not say a word. But you don't seem to realize it is not about a few percent in a benchmark: It is about hours of my time wasted. But according to you I guess I'm supposed to just ignore that fact.

    I must admit you are correct about something even though you didn't know anything about it because I didn't mention it: at 3.5Ghz on stock voltages Prime95 will fail after about 26 hours. Personally I find that to not be acceptable.

    But I do love the fact that the Cool'n'Quiet feature works with overclocking. You can't overclock as high if you use it... but it is very nice having it automatically drop to 800Mhz and 1V when you aren't doing anything.


    You don't seem as bad drinking so try to stay away from the alcohol while posting.

    Intel has yet to release their server version of Core i7. So no idea what it can and cannot do. But from what it can do in most apps non game wise on the desktop is a nice indication of performance.

    Besides the server chip will have quad channel DDR3. So maybe it will blow everything away, maybe it wont.

    And Sorry bout the post. But TBH, I would like to see how far YOU can OC your PH II. Only because user experience may be different than others.
    February 1, 2009 3:40:50 PM

    im confused what the point of that post is dragon??

    U basically just restated what enigma said...no contribution or other p.o.v. Just copy and paste
    a b à CPUs
    February 1, 2009 3:48:37 PM

    i think he had to get his point across so people like you can understand where AMD is coming from Silverion :) 
    February 1, 2009 4:59:56 PM

    Quote:
    dudes: what is an engima? it is: ?
    enigma067 is an amd plant

    this is total bs:

    only an amd employee would sell the marketing crap - my guess is he is marketing!


    Silverion77 said:
    im confused what the point of that post is dragon??

    U basically just restated what enigma said...no contribution or other p.o.v. Just copy and paste


    He (dragonsprayer) wanted to state that enigma067 is nothing but an AMD plant, spouting out marketing stuff.
    February 1, 2009 7:24:42 PM

    The_Blood_Raven said:
    My recommendation?

    Cheap: Phenom 2 920 or Q6600

    Midrange: Q9550 or Q9650

    High end: i7 920 (requires expensive motherboard and RAM)

    I know this is not exactly what you asked for but it is kind of the bottom line at the moment, so hope this helps.


    that DDR3 RAM is getting more & more affordable.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    $224 for 3 x 2 GB. that's $75 for a 2 GB module.

    but it's true, it does add $200 to the cost of a system. you can get Phenom 2 + Asus M3A79 + 2 x 2GB DDR2 for right around $400.

    i have an Opteron 175 dual core system and a Core2Duo dual core system. i was expecting great things from the Core2Duo, e6700, but the Opteron 175 is about the same speed. i could swear the Opteron system is harder to lock up, if you're using it to do renderings for 3D Studio Max.

    anyway, they're all good. the Phenom2's are no longer the embarassment that some of the first Phenom's were.
    !