Phenom In perspective

[DrMrLordX]

Well honestly, K8 and likely K10 do not live or die by memory bandwidth alone. It is reasonable to assume that a K10 chip will be okay as long as it can muster as much or more memory bandwidth as an equivalently-clocked Core 2 Quad.

Latency is another issue. If the memory controller is running slower relative to the CPU than it did in K8 than we may see an increase in memory latency which is a bad thing. Until someone does some latency testing on Phenom chips I'll have to withhold judgement in that area though.

 

[Darkskypoet]

Yeps. Gotcha. Cept... You can for sure oc the HT, and this should raise the L3 speed as well, In fact AMDs own OC video shows the guy bumping the HT freq up, and multiplier to hit 3ghz... (marketing, yes, but indicative of HT O/C capability).

And a few reviews I saw, showed the K10 already besting the q6600 in memory bandwidth. Just by a very slight amount compared to what we're used to though...

 

[Duvie]

Bottomline....

It is a good chip and AMD is at least in the ballpark.....but it didn't live up to the hype....

I told many of you guys a few months back with leaked single benchmarks spelling doom and gloom for INtel's quad cores...and I said WAIT!!!!!! This is why...

I am sorry but it is a bit lackluster to delay it this long to come in at status quo..in most instances clock for clock it was worse....most amd fanboys and overly positive AMD fans from that overhyped benchmark were predicting 15-20% CLOCK FOR CLOCK ADVANTAGE...

 

[Duvie]

By the way...nice to be back to the forums...first post in about 4-5 months

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: bfdd
I realize that about it not adding the ram together and it only uses the ram on the main card, that's the biggest downside to both everyone knows that. But the raw processing power is what's amazing. I only game at 1680x1050 current cards are more than enough in single form or xfire/sli.

Then what exactly is the appeal of Quad CF in a practical sense? As you said, at lower resolutions, 'regular' CF/SLI is already more than enough for playable framerates. Quad CF in this case would purely be for bragging rights. I don't care about raw processing power, if it can't be harnessed in a practical manner.

At higher resolutions, say 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, the 512MB VRAM will become a bottleneck. Just look at 8800GTS 320 SLI benchmarks to see what I mean. Past a certain point, once you run out of VRAM, performance just will not scale, no matter how many GPUs you throw into the mix.

Like again I said I realize this, but for games like Crysis and in the future, not to mention this is the move nvidia and ATI are moving in. Instead of flagship cards, multi card solutions. Even 8800 GTX's in SLI are put on their knees by Crysis in high res situation. Watch 1gb main cards, with upgrades just add in GPUs coming in the future if this is the direction they really want to start heading in and I think it will be awesome.

 

[taltamir]

I would agree with the OP. I can really relate to being forced to do something wrong because management has "theories"... I think what happened is that in AMD, rather then getting the engineers and asking "how do we make it better, cheaper, fasters" they said "NO, we will NOT do it the way you are suggesting, we will do it this way. Get it done, I know you can" and then raised a toast at their awesome ability to "handle human resources" by getting them to work extra hard, or some stupid theory like that.

I am assuming it is the result of too much TV... where the engineer is always somehow able to create a magic fix when the captain says "you have half this amount of time". In the real world you can't just throw out the laws of physics to make something work.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Duvie
By the way...nice to be back to the forums...first post in about 4-5 months

Duvie, where you been, man?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Duvie
By the way...nice to be back to the forums...first post in about 4-5 months

Good to have you back. These shall be an interesting few months as AMD attempts to hammer out problems with Phenom.

 

[thekernel]

Look, I realize that people want to see Phenom as something other than a failure, but people really need to look at the cold hard numbers involved here.

Taking Anandtech benchmarks I made a quick spreadsheet on performance deltas, along with the average performance disadvantage for a Phenom 9700 vs. a Q6600. Note that this matchup gives AMD a lot of advantages:

1) The 9700 isn't even out yet, I selected it purely because it made a good clock-for-clock comparison at 2.4 Ghz each.
2) The Q6600 is currently cheaper than either the 9700 or even the 9600, so although I didn't do a price/performance comparison, you can extrapolate as you wish.
3) Q6600 is based on a core that will be replaced with a 45-nm Penryn counterpart about the time that the 9700 ships (maybe later, but probably a matter of weeks).
4) Penryn will drastically improve the performance per watt comparison in Intel's favor.

So even though this comparison gives Intel the disadvantage of taking out their newer core which will be faster and much cooler, comparing against a pre-release product on AMD's side, and doesn't factor in price/performance, we still get the below. Sorry I couldn't format this better, but I don't know a good way of inlining a table. Please note: I used Anandtech's average power usage at load for the Q6600 and 9700 in factoring performance per watt. These numbers are completely arbitrary for each benchmark and can only be compared to others in the same benchmark. If I screwed up something in Excel (it's possible as it is late) I apologize and nothing ill was intended.

Phenom 9700 | Core 2 Quad Q6600 | Difference % | Performance per watt (9700) | Performance per watt (Q6600) | Difference %


Sysmark 2007 126 137 -8.73 2.00 1.63 -18.61
Photoshop CS3 30.6 31.7 -3.59 8.24 7.03 -14.58
Divx 10.21 12.55 -22.92 24.68 17.77 -28.01
WM9 75.6 77.2 -2.12 3.33 2.89 -13.34
AutoMKV 57.6 57.6 0.00 4.38 3.87 -11.51
Cinebench 1CPU 2028 2466 -21.60 0.12 0.09 -27.23
Cinebench XCPU 7704 8691 -12.81 0.03 0.03 -21.56
3ds 7.54 8.43 -11.80 33.42 26.45 -20.85
Lightwave 1 (lower) 142.5 128.2 -10.04 1.97 1.56 -20.39
Lightwave 2 (lower) 20.9 16.9 -19.14 14.91 10.67 -28.44
POV-Ray 1632.9 2119.33 -29.79 0.15 0.11 -31.82
Oblivion 76.1 74 2.76 3.31 3.01 -9.00
Half Life 2 145.3 158.2 -8.88 1.73 1.41 -18.72
UT3 158.1 184.4 -16.64 1.59 1.21 -24.13
Crysis 57.6 58.4 -1.39 4.38 3.82 -12.72

Average performance disadvantage % -11.11
Average performance per watt disadvantage % -20.06

The most important point here is that Phenom has an 11.11% performance deficit on average at the same clock rate and a 20.06% deficit in performance per watt.

We can talk about new steppings and lowered prices all day, but Intel has a lot more gains to make here than AMD, especially in performance per watt. I'm sorry to say this, I'd really enjoy it if Intel wasn't clobbering the competition like this, but AMD is thoroughly outclassed in this matchup. This thread wants to put Phenom in perspective? Well I just did and it ain't very pretty at all.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: thekernel
Phenom 9700 | Core 2 Quad Q6600 | Difference % | Performance per watt (9700) | Performance per watt (Q6600) | Difference %


Sysmark 2007 126 137 -8.73 2.00 1.63 -18.61
Photoshop CS3 30.6 31.7 -3.59 8.24 7.03 -14.58
Divx 10.21 12.55 -22.92 24.68 17.77 -28.01
WM9 75.6 77.2 -2.12 3.33 2.89 -13.34
AutoMKV 57.6 57.6 0.00 4.38 3.87 -11.51
Cinebench 1CPU 2028 2466 -21.60 0.12 0.09 -27.23
Cinebench XCPU 7704 8691 -12.81 0.03 0.03 -21.56
3ds 7.54 8.43 -11.80 33.42 26.45 -20.85
Lightwave 1 (lower) 142.5 128.2 -10.04 1.97 1.56 -20.39
Lightwave 2 (lower) 20.9 16.9 -19.14 14.91 10.67 -28.44
POV-Ray 1632.9 2119.33 -29.79 0.15 0.11 -31.82
Oblivion 76.1 74 2.76 3.31 3.01 -9.00
Half Life 2 145.3 158.2 -8.88 1.73 1.41 -18.72
UT3 158.1 184.4 -16.64 1.59 1.21 -24.13
Crysis 57.6 58.4 -1.39 4.38 3.82 -12.72

Average performance disadvantage % -11.11
Average performance per watt disadvantage % -20.06

The most important point here is that Phenom has an 11.11% performance deficit on average at the same clock rate and a 20.06% deficit in performance per watt.

Welcome to anandtech, thekernel. I decided to try to make your table readable. Admittedly, it's not that pretty, but now I can read it, at least.

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

-------------Phenom 9700 | Q6600|Difference|Perf/W- 9700|Perf/W- Q6600| Difference

Sysmark 2007-------126 | 137------| -8.73 | 2.00 | 1.63 | -18.61
Photoshop CS3-----30.6 | 31.7------| -3.59 | 8.24 | 7.03 | -14.58
Divx-----------------10.21| 12.55-----| -22.92 | 24.68 | 17.77 | -28.01
WMV-----------------75.6 | 77.2------| -2.12 | 3.33 | 2.89 | -13.34
AutoMKV------------57.6 | 57.6-------| 0.00 | 4.38 | 3.87 | -11.51
Cinbench 1CPU----2028 | 2466------| -21.60 | 0.12 | 0.09 | -27.23
Cinbench XCPU----7704 | 8691------| -12.81 | 0.03 | 0.03 | -21.56
3dsMax-------------7.54 | 8.43-------| -11.80 | 33.42 | 26.45 | -20.85
Lightwave 1-low---142.5| 128.2------| -10.04 | 1.97 | 1.56 | -20.39
Lightwave 2-low---20.9 | 16.9-------| -19.14 | 14.91 | 10.67 | -28.44
POV-Ray---------1632.9 | 2119.33---| -29.79 | 0.15 | 0.11 | -31.82
Oblivion-------------76.1| 74----------| 2.76 | 3.31 | 3.01 | -9.00
Half Life 2---------145.3 | 158.2------| -8.88 | 1.73 | 1.41 | -18.72
UT3----------------158.1 | 184.4------| -16.64 | 1.59 | 1.21 | -24.13
Crysis---------------57.6| 58.4--------| -1.39 | 4.38 | 3.82 | -12.72

Phenom 9700's average performance disadvantage %--------------------11.11
Phenom 9700's average performance/watt disadvantage %--------------20.06

edit: Okay, it just isn't possible to do with this new software they're using. Of course, maybe if I spent all day editing it, I could get it somewhat readable.:laugh:

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: thekernel
*snip*
Phenom 9700 | Core 2 Quad Q6600 | Difference % | Performance per watt (9700) | Performance per watt (Q6600) | Difference %


Sysmark 2007 126 137 -8.73 2.00 1.63 -18.61
Photoshop CS3 30.6 31.7 -3.59 8.24 7.03 -14.58
Divx 10.21 12.55 -22.92 24.68 17.77 -28.01
WM9 75.6 77.2 -2.12 3.33 2.89 -13.34
AutoMKV 57.6 57.6 0.00 4.38 3.87 -11.51
Cinebench 1CPU 2028 2466 -21.60 0.12 0.09 -27.23
Cinebench XCPU 7704 8691 -12.81 0.03 0.03 -21.56
3ds 7.54 8.43 -11.80 33.42 26.45 -20.85
Lightwave 1 (lower) 142.5 128.2 -10.04 1.97 1.56 -20.39
Lightwave 2 (lower) 20.9 16.9 -19.14 14.91 10.67 -28.44
POV-Ray 1632.9 2119.33 -29.79 0.15 0.11 -31.82
Oblivion 76.1 74 2.76 3.31 3.01 -9.00
Half Life 2 145.3 158.2 -8.88 1.73 1.41 -18.72
UT3 158.1 184.4 -16.64 1.59 1.21 -24.13
Crysis 57.6 58.4 -1.39 4.38 3.82 -12.72

Average performance disadvantage % -11.11
Average performance per watt disadvantage % -20.06

The most important point here is that Phenom has an 11.11% performance deficit on average at the same clock rate and a 20.06% deficit in performance per watt.

We can talk about new steppings and lowered prices all day, but Intel has a lot more gains to make here than AMD, especially in performance per watt. I'm sorry to say this, I'd really enjoy it if Intel wasn't clobbering the competition like this, but AMD is thoroughly outclassed in this matchup. This thread wants to put Phenom in perspective? Well I just did and it ain't very pretty at all.

Nice post :thumbsup:.

Originally posted by: DarkskypoetNot another wait till the next stepping thread, however B3 will be better, as most later steppings are. I waited to get a G0 over a B3 from intel for client's Q6600's... Something wrong with that? Made it easier to hit 3.6ghz on air.... So If I get to the same on AMD B3... is that bad? or wrong?

Nothing wrong with waiting if you want to wait or if you're curious about the chip's promise going forward (aren't we all?), but for someone purchasing before the new year, advising them to wait doesn't make must sense. Also, we knew well ahead of time what advantages G0 would bring (i.e. slightly lower temps, basically identical performance, etc...) and no one at Intel was touting it as the next coming.

Why is it so hard to accept the basic facts that AMD promised a 40% win over Conroe in some tests months and months ago, early test results were subpar, but everyone kept saying "just wait for retail stepping, it's going to clock way higher and be faster clock-for-clock." Now, retail stepping is here, and it's late, bugged, and slow. Those are just the basic facts - I'm not taking "sides," just telling it like it is.

Originally posted by: AlabamaCajunActually I think intel would be selling some Itanic based junk with HT still in it that would barely beat a Sempron. To be more respectful, while I personally thought Conroe sucked, I admire the Harper-Yorks. Neha intrigues me but not enough to cross the bus divide.

Conroe sucked, you're right. Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this post. There is ZERO chance that Intel would be pushing chips that "barely beat a Sempron." Why would anyone upgrade if that were the case? And if no one were upgrading, how would Intel make money? I've seriously never seen such blind fanaticism as is present in this thread - it's pretty shocking.

 

[manowar821]

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=4334&Itemid=1

 

[Darkskypoet]

The questions about performance, and scaling come down to other issues. Is this silicon still broken? And with some of the results I've seen, it does look that way. With results being kind of screwy... Thats all, speed bumps, headroom, respins are whatever. I want to know if B2 has errata that are effecting some of the benchmark scores. And so far it seems it does have some, just a question of what it is doing to performance, and to what extent... AS its behaviour isn't quite consistant with just sucking out loud. Especially minimum framefrates in certain games being twice as high as intel system... yet avg and max slightly lower... As well 9700 is directly effected by TLB issue, as are all B2's I guess... Just non sensical results tend to make me ask questions.... AS it should for most here, not in it for fanboyist rush...

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Darkskypoet
The questions about performance, and scaling come down to other issues. Is this silicon still broken? And with some of the results I've seen, it does look that way. With results being kind of screwy... Thats all, speed bumps, headroom, respins are whatever. I want to know if B2 has errata that are effecting some of the benchmark scores. And so far it seems it does have some, just a question of what it is doing to performance, and to what extent... AS its behaviour isn't quite consistant with just sucking out loud. Especially minimum framefrates in certain games being twice as high as intel system... yet avg and max slightly lower... As well 9700 is directly effected by TLB issue, as are all B2's I guess... Just non sensical results tend to make me ask questions.... AS it should for most here, not in it for fanboyist rush...

Source please? I have not seen anything remotely like this. I do recall TechReports review showing Phenom to have ~1fps higher minimum framerate but slightly lower avg/max framerates.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: manowar821
http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=4334&Itemid=1

Yeah, comparing a dual core to a quad core, nice one!

I wonder why Fuad was scared to compare it to a Q6600. Actually, I don't wonder, because I already know why...

 

[Aiden]

While the amd processor is not horribly bad, its initial processor that launched is not that good either. When you compared preformance, price, and quality intel still has a significant lead over AMD, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

The Phenom launch as it stands is a failure, due to low quality , overblown pricing,and lower preformance to cheaper intel cpus. If amd can no longer compete on the price/preformance area which was the mainstay of their buisness, they are going to be in serious trouble, and potentially lose more market share.

The enthusiest area of the market can probably do alot with the CPUs, but that is really meaningless in business terms. AMD has to close the preformance gap on comparable intel products and be able to compete in OEM/mainstream market sales.

While the 38xx series video cards are a good launch, the Phenom is not. What concerns me most at this point, is if amd cant close the competitive gap, were going to continue seeing nvidia and intel do just enough to stay ahead, and prices overall will go up.

 

[Om51]

thekernel
Good work

Phenom 9700's average performance disadvantage %--------------------11.11
Phenom 9700's average performance/watt disadvantage %--------------20.06

Speaks for it self .
AMD is in trouble and Phenom ( Currently ) is disappointing .

 

[Duvie]

Agreed with a bunch of what was said above....once one does figure in price I dont see even AMD getting a nod for a budget system....In the past AMD could take a deficit (which isn't huge by any means) and could parlait it into a victory by dominating low and lower cost solutions. I dont see this with this current line.

With Penryn round the near future if any prices take a slight nudge down will be the Intel kentsfield cores and give more of an advantage to Intel in this market.


With all of the hype I was expecting 10% better clock for clock in favor of the phenom, but losing out in overall performance title to the kenstfield due to sure mhz muscle of the more refined 65nm process of intel. AMD losing out clock for clock was the big surprise for me. I am not surprised the early process wont OC much. I all but expected that as well. So with samples of phenoms not being able to do much over 2.6ghz stable yet INtel has been able to routinely hit 3.2ghz on air with G0 stepping, that makes a whopping deficit of performance.

The bright spot was ofcourse looking at some of the better scaling ability of AMDs "true quadcore" design in multithreaded apps. Now if the software I and most use would start taking advantage of that.


I for one have been bored of late and was looking for a new pet project. AMD sadly at this time wont be that project. I think I will wait for a penryn to arrive before I upgrade.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Duvie
By the way...nice to be back to the forums...first post in about 4-5 months

Duvie, where you been, man?

Working, Bro......Huge job has taken a sizeable chunk of my time. Throw in the computer hardware upgrades has been a bit stagnant of late and I just left my computer alone for a change....Still running my QX6700 at 3.2ghz with low vcore and low temps....and pretty content about it.

NOt happy with the Asus deluxe board. Has some quirks with multiple HDDs and DVD burners on SATA....can't get unlocked multis on the QX chip...though I should be able to....have to run 10x320 which is fine...Also has some quirks in the bios.


....I think it is crap....Thinking about doing a fresh install to my DFI Infinity board I have never used. Get some new AS on the chip, and try for lower temps and maybe try 3.5ghz again for the fun of it....

 

[gOJDO]

To the OP:

1) P35 + Q6600 + 8800GT 512MB
2) 790FX + X4 9600 + HD3870

If 1) and 2) are costing same, why should I choose 2)?

 

[thekernel]

Originally posted by: Darkskypoet
The questions about performance, and scaling come down to other issues. Is this silicon still broken? And with some of the results I've seen, it does look that way. With results being kind of screwy... Thats all, speed bumps, headroom, respins are whatever. I want to know if B2 has errata that are effecting some of the benchmark scores. And so far it seems it does have some, just a question of what it is doing to performance, and to what extent... AS its behaviour isn't quite consistant with just sucking out loud. Especially minimum framefrates in certain games being twice as high as intel system... yet avg and max slightly lower... As well 9700 is directly effected by TLB issue, as are all B2's I guess... Just non sensical results tend to make me ask questions.... AS it should for most here, not in it for fanboyist rush...

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. AMD is not going to make up an 11% clock-for-clock disparity due to stepping improvements. They might get another 1-2% by Q1.

And you know what? This doesn't help AMD. The reason is that because when Penryn arrives the clock-for-clock deficit gets BIGGER, not smaller.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: thekernel
Look, I realize that people want to see Phenom as something other than a failure, but people really need to look at the cold hard numbers involved here.

Taking Anandtech benchmarks I made a quick spreadsheet on performance deltas, along with the average performance disadvantage for a Phenom 9700 vs. a Q6600. Note that this matchup gives AMD a lot of advantages:

1) The 9700 isn't even out yet, I selected it purely because it made a good clock-for-clock comparison at 2.4 Ghz each.
2) The Q6600 is currently cheaper than either the 9700 or even the 9600, so although I didn't do a price/performance comparison, you can extrapolate as you wish.
3) Q6600 is based on a core that will be replaced with a 45-nm Penryn counterpart about the time that the 9700 ships (maybe later, but probably a matter of weeks).
4) Penryn will drastically improve the performance per watt comparison in Intel's favor.

So even though this comparison gives Intel the disadvantage of taking out their newer core which will be faster and much cooler, comparing against a pre-release product on AMD's side, and doesn't factor in price/performance, we still get the below. Sorry I couldn't format this better, but I don't know a good way of inlining a table. Please note: I used Anandtech's average power usage at load for the Q6600 and 9700 in factoring performance per watt. These numbers are completely arbitrary for each benchmark and can only be compared to others in the same benchmark. If I screwed up something in Excel (it's possible as it is late) I apologize and nothing ill was intended.

Phenom 9700 | Core 2 Quad Q6600 | Difference % | Performance per watt (9700) | Performance per watt (Q6600) | Difference %


Sysmark 2007 126 137 -8.73 2.00 1.63 -18.61
Photoshop CS3 30.6 31.7 -3.59 8.24 7.03 -14.58
Divx 10.21 12.55 -22.92 24.68 17.77 -28.01
WM9 75.6 77.2 -2.12 3.33 2.89 -13.34
AutoMKV 57.6 57.6 0.00 4.38 3.87 -11.51
Cinebench 1CPU 2028 2466 -21.60 0.12 0.09 -27.23
Cinebench XCPU 7704 8691 -12.81 0.03 0.03 -21.56
3ds 7.54 8.43 -11.80 33.42 26.45 -20.85
Lightwave 1 (lower) 142.5 128.2 -10.04 1.97 1.56 -20.39
Lightwave 2 (lower) 20.9 16.9 -19.14 14.91 10.67 -28.44
POV-Ray 1632.9 2119.33 -29.79 0.15 0.11 -31.82
Oblivion 76.1 74 2.76 3.31 3.01 -9.00
Half Life 2 145.3 158.2 -8.88 1.73 1.41 -18.72
UT3 158.1 184.4 -16.64 1.59 1.21 -24.13
Crysis 57.6 58.4 -1.39 4.38 3.82 -12.72

Average performance disadvantage % -11.11
Average performance per watt disadvantage % -20.06

The most important point here is that Phenom has an 11.11% performance deficit on average at the same clock rate and a 20.06% deficit in performance per watt.

We can talk about new steppings and lowered prices all day, but Intel has a lot more gains to make here than AMD, especially in performance per watt. I'm sorry to say this, I'd really enjoy it if Intel wasn't clobbering the competition like this, but AMD is thoroughly outclassed in this matchup. This thread wants to put Phenom in perspective? Well I just did and it ain't very pretty at all.

You forgot to mention that the phenom is also more expensive AND has a max speed of 2.4ghz, making that clock for clock, watt for watt, and dollar for dollar under performance even worse.

The whole point though isn't that the phenom isn't a collosal failure, but that it is amazing that it is ONLY that much of a failure considering all the artificial limitations placed on its design by marketing/management. Basically AMD is being mismanaged right now.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: thekernel

Originally posted by: Darkskypoet
The questions about performance, and scaling come down to other issues. Is this silicon still broken? And with some of the results I've seen, it does look that way. With results being kind of screwy... Thats all, speed bumps, headroom, respins are whatever. I want to know if B2 has errata that are effecting some of the benchmark scores. And so far it seems it does have some, just a question of what it is doing to performance, and to what extent... AS its behaviour isn't quite consistant with just sucking out loud. Especially minimum framefrates in certain games being twice as high as intel system... yet avg and max slightly lower... As well 9700 is directly effected by TLB issue, as are all B2's I guess... Just non sensical results tend to make me ask questions.... AS it should for most here, not in it for fanboyist rush...

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. AMD is not going to make up an 11% clock-for-clock disparity due to stepping improvements. They might get another 1-2% by Q1.

And you know what? This doesn't help AMD. The reason is that because when Penryn arrives the clock-for-clock deficit gets BIGGER, not smaller.

if they come WAY down in price and offer equal performance in games I could see gamers or cheap gaming systems moving towards them. I would since that's mainly what I do on my PC. I do like encoding movies though...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Duvie
By the way...nice to be back to the forums...first post in about 4-5 months

Duvie, where you been, man?

Working, Bro......Huge job has taken a sizeable chunk of my time. Throw in the computer hardware upgrades has been a bit stagnant of late and I just left my computer alone for a change....Still running my QX6700 at 3.2ghz with low vcore and low temps....and pretty content about it.

NOt happy with the Asus deluxe board. Has some quirks with multiple HDDs and DVD burners on SATA....can't get unlocked multis on the QX chip...though I should be able to....have to run 10x320 which is fine...Also has some quirks in the bios.


....I think it is crap....Thinking about doing a fresh install to my DFI Infinity board I have never used. Get some new AS on the chip, and try for lower temps and maybe try 3.5ghz again for the fun of it....

Yeah, but don't you have the P5B Deluxe? The P965 boards were awesome for Conroe's and Allendales, but most don't do very well with the Kentsfield's, it seems. Plus, they don't support the Penryn's, like almost all of the P35 boards do. You should probably look into either a Gigabyte P35-DQ4, an Abit IP-35 Pro, or an Asus P5K Deluxe. Those are the best boards out right now.

I recently replaced my DFI Ultra-D & 2.8 Ghz Opteron 170 with a Gigabyte P35C-DS3R and a G0 Q6600, and I couldn't be happier with it. I just need to get my Ninja B on it. Hey, maybe I'll do that now.

Originally posted by: taltamir
You forgot to mention that the phenom is also more expensive AND has a max speed of 2.4ghz, making that clock for clock, watt for watt, and dollar for dollar under performance even worse.

I think one of the things that people around here are forgetting is that most people on the planet only buy dual-cores, if they can afford one. I personally think that AMD will be fine, if they can make Phenom decent, at least by the end of Q1 08.

What's really hurting them, though, are the Phenom's prices. If the price doesn't come down quite a bit, they may not sell very many Phenom's at all in Q1 & Q2 of next year, no matter how good they might or might not be.

 

[taltamir]

Yes... I have a dual core, a year and a half old X2 3800+ (2ghz)... what exactly can I upgrade to? Most likely a C2D.