It's an ES. And 1400mhz is that sample's lowest clock speed (think CnQ)
Max is 3600mhz if I'm reading that correctly.
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
True, but you're using the 800 series in your comparison which has less L3 cache than the Phenoms being sold now.
Not sure if serious...you're on a forum discussing CPUs and overclocking and you're asking whether it's an enthusiast forum?
Actually I had a Q6600 and sold it recently. It is no match for the Phenom II in anything. Like the rest of the people who tried to justify overclockability and power draw as being a good reason to upgrade to SB, the Phenom II was clearly ahead in both by a good 700-900 Mhz overclockability and half the power draw.Anyway, with Phenom II you're buying performance that could have been had 4-5 years ago with Intel. That's the reason the chips are so cheap. If 4-5 year old performance is good enough for you, you should have probably just bought a Core 2 Quad for ~$200 ish in 2007. Fry's was practically giving away Q6600s on Black Friday then.
Maybe compared to a seriously cut down mobile Phenom II. The Q6600 can't even compete with the lowest spec Athlon II X4 which has no L3 and sucks about 1/3rd the power.Despite the 100 MHz clock speed advantage here, the Phenom II is still generally slower than the Q6600. Yeah, Phenom II doesn't look so hot even compared to a 4-5 year old Intel architecture, does it?
My best mate knows almost nothing about pc's and he still has his chip overclocked.
Actually I had a Q6600 and sold it recently. It is no match for the Phenom II in anything. Like the rest of the people who tried to justify overclockability and power draw as being a good reason to upgrade to SB, the Phenom II was clearly ahead in both by a good 700-900 Mhz overclockability and half the power draw.
Maybe compared to a seriously cut down mobile Phenom II. The Q6600 can't even compete with the lowest spec Athlon II X4 which has no L3.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/105?vs=53
The bit of extra L3 cache doesn't really make a difference.
The Phenom II X4 910 still performs about the same (if not a bit slower) compared to a stock Q6600, despite having more cache than the 800 series and being 200 MHz faster than the Q6600.
Did you even see the benchmarks I posted? I compared the Q6600 to 2.5 and 2.6 GHz desktop Phenom II X4s, with 4 and 6 MB L3 cache, respectively.
With no cache and about 1/3rd the power draw, not to mention 60% less die size?Moreover, did you even look at the benchmarks YOU posted as you were trying to defend the Athlon II X4? It gets beat by the Q6600 in quite a few of those benchmarks despite being 400 MHz faster clocked.
If you mean AMD's cut down budget parts of 2009 vs intels close to range-topping monster power draw chip of 2007 then maybe.And let's not forget we're comparing a 4-5 year old Intel Architecture against what AMD has currently. The best we can really say is that the current AMD range is competitive with Intel's lineup from 4-5 years ago.
It should vs a two gen older chip. The Phenom 940 vs a C2Q 9550 (even though the latter is one gen older) is probably a fairer comparison.Lol yeah show the Sysmark benchmarks who are you trying to kid?
Outside of Sysmark, the Phenom wins 18 and loses 7. No wonder people claim Anand is biased, even just using Sysmark is enough proof of how much crap his benchmarks are.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-871-_-Product
I like that one. Costs 3x less and is nowhere near 3x slower.
Or this one at $115
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-808-_-Product
Both are much "better". Maybe you meant something else though?
The Q6600 can't even compete with the lowest spec Athlon II X4 which has no L3 and sucks about 1/3rd the power.
Actually I had a Q6600 and sold it recently. It is no match for the Phenom II in anything.....the Phenom II was clearly ahead in both by a good 700-900 Mhz overclockability and half the power draw.
SB would win all of them by about 10%, the Phenom II would win some by 10%, lose a few by the same margin.
Both of those chips lose to the $115 i3-2100.
And you're assuming everybody can afford the extra $150 for the chip and mobo? Even the 2500K is well above intels ASP. Well above it. Most people do not buy chips like the 2500K, not even close.In any case, why spend $100-115 on a CPU when it's already outdated? Might as well go with a 2500k since it will easily last 2-3 years @ 4.6ghz.
As most people buy chips below $120, this hardly even matters.Until AMD releases BD, they don't have any chip worth recommending > $120 imo. I can see someone using the 955 for multi-threaded apps, but otherwise it's not that great of a value proposition that you make it to be.
Because a lot of people don't game, and those that don't would be hard pushed to find better value than a propus at $99 or less if you go for a triple core.I especially don't see how you can recommend the Propus when it's very slow in the latest games.
You had no credibility to start with and linking xbit lowers it even further. Especially when you link to sysmark lol. What a joke seriously you're gonna have to try harder than that.You just lost all credibility with that post. Read this entire review and come back with something non-biased to say.
955 wins 16 loses 10
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289
And you're assuming everybody can afford the extra $150 for the chip and mobo? Even the 2500K is well above intels ASP. Well above it. Most people do not buy chips like the 2500K, not even close.
As most people buy chips below $120, this hardly even matters.
Because a lot of people don't game, and those that don't would be hard pushed to find better value than a propus at $99 or less if you go for a triple core.
You had no credibility to start with and linking xbit lowers it even further. Especially when you link to sysmark lol. What a joke seriously you're gonna have to try harder than that.
When people discuss the greatness of the Q6600, they never talk about it at stock speeds. Overclocked, it smokes the Athlon II X4.
At the same clock speed? Not even close.
2nd chart: Final Performance Rating
AMD Phenom II X4 970 3.5ghz = 100%
2500k 2.8ghz = 126%
2500k 3.3ghz w Turbo = 148%
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3ghz + Turbo = 100%
2600k 2.8ghz + HT, no Turbo = 118%
2600k 3.3ghz, no HT, no Turbo = 133%
2600k 3.4ghz, + HT + Turbo = 142%
Links that support your assertions of "many" and "most" people?
You know, I am all for AMD being competitive and all, but people like jimbo75 are the silverlining if Bulldozer falls flat on its face.
Both of those chips lose to the $115 i3-2100.
And you're assuming everybody can afford the extra $150 for the chip and mobo? Even the 2500K is well above intels ASP. Well above it. Most people do not buy chips like the 2500K, not even close.
As most people buy chips below $120, this hardly even matters.
You had no credibility to start with and linking xbit lowers it even further. Especially when you link to sysmark lol. What a joke seriously you're gonna have to try harder than that.
You're just annoyed because you can't handle the truth of your 2600K being somewhat less impressive than intels marketing made you believe. It's not AMD's fault you overpaid for what is basically a minor speed bump over 2 year old technology.
Actually from those benchmarks you linked, 955 wins 16, but loses 13 and ties 1. However, 4 of those wins came from Encoding but the i3 wasn't tested with QuickSync in that scenario. So that's not a win for the 955 in the real world. 5 wins came from 3dMax. The average buyer who spends $115 on a processors uses that program?
i3 wins in games, productivity and general every day usage benchmarks which are more important for people who are buying budget processors.
Did you realize that people who will buy a 6- or 8-core BD are looking to compare it to Sandy Bridge in this thread? You are on an enthusiast forum in a thread where most of us are looking to buy $200-300 chips. There is nothing wrong with $99 CPUs. However, when we are discussing Phenom II vs. Nehalem vs. SB in threads, we are referring to higher-end processors (some consider $200 chips mainstream even).
You are suggesting Xbitlabs is biased?
Jimbo75, I think we have all had pretty much enough of your antagonistic posting for one day, or even a week. This is your one and only warning to tone it down, stop the unnecessarily inflammatory posts, respect your fellow forum members and you should be fine. If not, well then..... Let's hope for the best.
Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr
Except it isn't. The market for $100 chips clearly outweighs the market for $300 chips. In fact intel's ASP in the performance desktop sector is only $132.49 and in mobile it is $108.66
It would seem that the majority of people agree that cheaper chips are "better". By far.
I think almost everyone would agree that "better" means the CPU you would pick if someone offered to give you any ONE of those CPUs for free.
Would you choose a free X4 640 over a free 2600k? Of course you wouldn't, because the 2600k is better. If you did choose the X4 you would just be cutting your nose to spite your face for whatever reason (dislike of intel, trying to prove a point)