Reconsidering Phenom?

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Keep intel outside of AMD threads unless the OP is asking for choices between the Two please.


The fire that lights up from both parties is enough to destory the Post.

So if the title doesnt mention. Intel, please keep out of it.

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

That is because none of them are stable at that overclock to run a performance benchmark. All those numbers are good for is windows bootup. :T

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. The OP wants to reconsider Phenom, meaning that he has experience with Intel processor performance, but he wants to investigate whether AMD has something that could work better for his needs. The only way to determine whether Phenom is better for his needs is to find out what his needs are and do an Intel vs. AMD for his unique situation.

We should just have a list of purposes that AMD can beat Intel on price/performance since honestly that list currently is short. That way people can just go to that thread and see if for their purpose AMD may offer better value.

I want to build myself a Windows Home Server, and since I won't care about graphics, gaming or any of that stuff, AMD might present a better value in my situation so I am considering it. However AFAIK, the E5200 will be the processor of choice for my SFF build due to lower power consumption and less heat. I still need to do more research, since I would love to go back to AMD if they actually have (or will have) an offering that is better for my needs and stands on its merits, not because I have some kind of nostalgia for AMD. Neither AMD nor Intel puts food on my table or replenishes my wallet or pays my rent. I will buy purely on merit.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Keep intel outside of AMD threads unless the OP is asking for choices between the Two please.


The fire that lights up from both parties is enough to destory the Post.

So if the title doesnt mention. Intel, please keep out of it.

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

That is because none of them are stable at that overclock to run a performance benchmark. All those numbers are good for is windows bootup. :T

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. The OP wants to reconsider Phenom, meaning that he knows Intel processor performance, but he wants to investigate whether AMD has something that could work better for his needs. The only way to determine whether Phenom is better for his needs is to find out what his needs are and do an Intel vs. AMD for his unique situation.

We should just have a list of purposes that AMD can beat Intel on price/performance since honestly that list currently is short. That way people can just go to that thread and see if for their purpose AMD may offer better value.

I want to build myself a Windows Home Server, and since I won't care about graphics, gaming or any of that stuff, AMD might present a better value in my situation so I am considering it. However AFAIK, the E5200 will be the processor of choice for my SFF build due to lower power consumption and less heat. I still need to do more research, since I would love to go back to AMD if they actually have (or will have) an offering that is better for my needs and stands on its merits, not because I have some kind of nostalgia for AMD. Neither AMD nor Intel puts food on my table or replenishes my wallet or pays my rent. I will buy purely on merit.

If you're looking for low power consumption then AMD is the way to go at the low end, not Intel. AMD chipsets consume less power in general and when it comes to integrated graphics way, way less power than Intel IGP. Look at the power consumption in the recent Phenom review: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=16

The X4 9350e doesn't consume much more power than the E7200 / E8400. If you had something like an X2 4850e it would probably have the least power consumption there. Something like an X2 4850e will end up consuming less power than an E5200.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Keep intel outside of AMD threads unless the OP is asking for choices between the Two please.


The fire that lights up from both parties is enough to destory the Post.

So if the title doesnt mention. Intel, please keep out of it.

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

That is because none of them are stable at that overclock to run a performance benchmark. All those numbers are good for is windows bootup. :T

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. The OP wants to reconsider Phenom, meaning that he knows Intel processor performance, but he wants to investigate whether AMD has something that could work better for his needs. The only way to determine whether Phenom is better for his needs is to find out what his needs are and do an Intel vs. AMD for his unique situation.

We should just have a list of purposes that AMD can beat Intel on price/performance since honestly that list currently is short. That way people can just go to that thread and see if for their purpose AMD may offer better value.

I want to build myself a Windows Home Server, and since I won't care about graphics, gaming or any of that stuff, AMD might present a better value in my situation so I am considering it. However AFAIK, the E5200 will be the processor of choice for my SFF build due to lower power consumption and less heat. I still need to do more research, since I would love to go back to AMD if they actually have (or will have) an offering that is better for my needs and stands on its merits, not because I have some kind of nostalgia for AMD. Neither AMD nor Intel puts food on my table or replenishes my wallet or pays my rent. I will buy purely on merit.

If you're looking for low power consumption then AMD is the way to go at the low end, not Intel. AMD chipsets consume less power in general and when it comes to integrated graphics way, way less power than Intel IGP. Look at the power consumption in the recent Phenom review: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=16

The X4 9350e doesn't consume much more power than the E7200 / E8400. If you had something like an X2 4850e it would probably have the least power consumption there. Something like an X2 4850e will end up consuming less power than an E5200.

Thanks I'll look into the 4850e, it looks like a nice processor.

 

[nerp]

Dude, I just got one. Check my sys #2. It flies. I paid $220 for the board, cpu, memory and a slim microATX case with 300W PSU. Honestly, it's as fast as my #1 system for basic tasks. You seriously don't notice much of a difference.

 

[corsa]

Synthetic Benchmarks do nothing for me.... lets see some "Real World Applications" Anandtech :frown:

example: AMD Phenom 8750 Triple-Core vs Core Duo E8400 in "Real Game Resolution "@extremetech.com

2.4Ghz x3 on Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H vs 3.0Ghz Duo on ASUS Blitz Formula

for High resolution gaming..... AMD

 

[bryanW1995]

I think that the q6600 is the natural competitor for 9950. the current crop of q6600's aren't as good at oc'ing as the older g0's were, at least according to a lot of anecdotal evidence. even so, the q6600 is still faster clock/clock and should still oc to an equal or greater level with a cheaper mobo, so it's still a strong win for intel imho.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: corsa
Synthetic Benchmarks do nothing for me.... lets see some "Real World Applications" Anandtech :frown:

example: AMD Phenom 8750 Triple-Core vs Core Duo E8400 in "Real Game Resolution "@extremetech.com

2.4Ghz x3 on Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H vs 3.0Ghz Duo on ASUS Blitz Formula

for High resolution gaming..... AMD

Thats a very flattering review for the X3 8750 IMO. I wouldn't declare an X3 8750 'better' for high res gaming just yet though... http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-quad-core-processors/

 

[corsa]

Crysis @ 1920 x 1200 anyone? :laugh:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Review @ Overclockers Club. com

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: corsa
Synthetic Benchmarks do nothing for me.... lets see some "Real World Applications" Anandtech :frown:

example: AMD Phenom 8750 Triple-Core vs Core Duo E8400 in "Real Game Resolution "@extremetech.com

2.4Ghz x3 on Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H vs 3.0Ghz Duo on ASUS Blitz Formula

for High resolution gaming..... AMD

Thats a very flattering review for the X3 8750 IMO. I wouldn't declare an X3 8750 'better' for high res gaming just yet though... http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-quad-core-processors/

One benchmark is using a 3870, the other is using an 8800gtx. 3870 is a slower card, yes? The 2nd article also appears to be using overclocked memory.
I'd say if phenom has advantages, it's going to be in memory constrained (small vram size and slow sys memory) systems.

 

[SlowSpyder]

All I can really get out of the above benchmarks is that in real world games the Phenom is perfectly capable in real world resolutions. Intel still has other advantages for many people (less power consumption, higher clocks available, cheaper motherboards to get a decent overclock) but I don't think the overall performance of the Phenom is really that poor.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: corsa
Crysis @ 1920 x 1200 anyone? :laugh:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Review @ Overclockers Club. com

There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks, since it does better@1680x1050 and it does @ 1280x1024

 

[TaylorTech]

I like Phenom's about as much as paying $500 a month for an electric bill.

Damn power hogs.

 

[ZootyGray]

How do you spell HIJACK?

I swear people are hired by ntel to scatter bs logic like this all over discussions about AMD products. I think there are a very few posts in this thread that address the topic offered. It seems even the mod has been seduced to 'off topic'.

My position is unique, it seems. I will not buy ntel. SO I am quite immune to the inconsistent logic offered by 'what's his name, the "ntel employboy" '. Hey, you heard it first right here = 'ntel employboy'.

I was genuinely interested in this topic but it has been trashed.

I am a self-confessed AMD fanboy for ethical and personal reasons.

FLAME THAT 'employboy'. And if you try real hard you could take your insecurities elsewhere, and allow other people to speak freely without your gross and obvious interference. You are transparent.

Thanx to the OP for suggesting this topic - obviously more controls are need to discuss such a topic. These could be simply stated, or requested - but for people to respect the interests of others may require an adjustment in meds. Or maybe mod censorship of deliberate off-topic posts. How do you spell OBVIOUS?

Meanwhile the benchmarks have not yet been presented - and this is the website where anyone can find them - soon. And to me, the results will be interesting, and hopefully, indicative of progress. As has been indicated, if progress is indicated, Deneb will be even better; as any future tek should be - also obvious.

An elevation of intelligence is something worth promoting - but this bull, this sick logic, this bias? No thanks 'employboy'.

Wake up and smell the coffee people. You support antitrust? Good luck. But when you hijack free speech and creative thinking - that's really a problem - contrary to pop culture bs propaganda, we are not all morons.

 

[ZootyGray]

I was well on my way to designing a 4850e + AMD 780G system.

But now I am seriously looking at Phenom and SB750. The upcoming benchmarks will be of great interest to me.

Also, Asus has apparently addressed the "3 amigos" "pop goes the mosfet" issues presented here on AT; by offering some mobos that support 125-watt cpu's. I would love to see some reports on those boards, or others perhaps offered by other board mftrs.

Things are obviously changing for AMD. Accurate information is valuable and the sooner it is available, the better. It would appear that many of the problems might be approaching resolution.

I strongly advocate open discussion on this topic - but flamewar, and misinformation, and unfair comparison, no!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ZootyGray
I am a self-confessed AMD fanboy for ethical and personal reasons.

but this bull, this sick logic, this bias?

Errr..after reading your post, im wondering who works for who now. Because you so strongly dislike Intel, you pretty much have to take your posts about them with a grain of salt. Alot of people here prefer AMD over Intel, but they dont call them "Anti-trusters" and other inflammatory remarks right out of the EU playbook.


Edit: Hell, if Intel locks the mid-range OC ability which is a rumour at this point, that will be a AMD in my sig next year. But I wouldnt "hate" them.

 

[TaylorTech]

If that post was referred to me in any case Zooty, fail.

I am currently running an AMD processor. I have no problem with AMD, at all.

I back up what I'm saying.

The fact of the matter is, they consume a lot more power = higher energy bills, and they run hot.

It's not being a fanboy of Intel, I can pull up some links if you want.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: TaylorTech
If that post was referred to me in any case Zooty, fail.

I am currently running an AMD processor. I have no problem with AMD, at all.

I back up what I'm saying.

The fact of the matter is, they consume a lot more power = higher energy bills, and they run hot.

It's not being a fanboy of Intel, I can pull up some links if you want.

They certainly consume more power then their Intel counter parts. But, I doubt 99.9% of people would ever notice a difference on their electric bill on say a 70 watt CPU vs. a 140 watt CPU. Now, there are people who may run things like folding 24/7 or when you consider a corporate environment where you may have a large number of multisocket servers, the potential savings certainly may add up and make a lot of sense to take into consideration. But for the vast majority of users who may use their PC for maybe a few hours a day (an probably not have all 4 cores on their CPU @ 100% load for the time they do use their machine) I doubt there's going to be any real tangible difference on their electric bill.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: corsa
Crysis @ 1920 x 1200 anyone? :laugh:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Review @ Overclockers Club. com

There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks, since it does better@1680x1050 and it does @ 1280x1024

LOL... i was thinkn the same, but im not gonna comment since its gonna stir fire again.

Originally posted by: ZootyGray
How do you spell HIJACK?

I swear people are hired by ntel to scatter bs logic like this all over discussions about AMD products. I think there are a very few posts in this thread that address the topic offered. It seems even the mod has been seduced to 'off topic'.

WOW talk about a BANG of an intro.

1. No, i tried to keep it on track for AMD. As you can see i made a bold comment.
2. I owned a spider system. It was quite expensive, still carried a 4 figure price tag to it.
3. I was dogging Intel 2-3yrs ago when AMD owned. I guess its AMD's turn now from me. (i dont have loyalty to anyone but myself).
4. The start of the post was people who wanted to educate. Im sorry if person A said i need a computer intel or AMD, i would ask him what purpose. If it was a primary rig, with gaming and cpu power, it would be intel. If it was the low power, HTPC, or just cheap form, i would push AMD.

5. Would you prefer us being a facist forum in general and go all Hail Intel *hand up* (this is sacrasm)


Seroiusly all machines have there own niche in where they dominate and rule. You just need to be sure you plot that niche carefully. (no fanboy attached)

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: ZootyGray
How do you spell HIJACK?

I swear people are hired by ntel to scatter bs logic like this all over discussions about AMD products. I think there are a very few posts in this thread that address the topic offered. It seems even the mod has been seduced to 'off topic'.

WOW talk about a BANG of an intro.

Im sorry if person A said i need a computer intel or AMD, i would ask him what purpose.

I certainly hope you are not sorry, there be no needing to apologize when a poster makes a vile vengeful post such as zooty's as a thinly veiled personal attack on anyone not singing AMD's praises from a soapbox (including the mod call-out as it most certainly is).

 

[Markfw]

ZootyGray, this thread is about whether people are reconsidering AMD over Intel, so all discussions about why people would consider this, and all performance comparisons and feedback about it, unfortunately become ON-TOPIC, which makes for a lot of heated debate.

And truth is always a valid defense.

ALL - I see this as a real flamer type thread, and if it gets out of hand, it will have to be locked, but so far, its not horrible. Just please stay away from personal attacks. And note: my only post was a comment as an observation on a benchmark that didn't make sense.

 

[corsa]

yes..this thread is about whether people are reconsidering AMD over Intel

but.... If Phenom won, would anyone notice?

Looking at the results here,, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution. It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's here.

:music: "There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks" :music: ..a very familiar tune round here.. :laugh:

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
They certainly consume more power then their Intel counter parts. But, I doubt 99.9% of people would ever notice a difference on their electric bill on say a 70 watt CPU vs. a 140 watt CPU. Now, there are people who may run things like folding 24/7 or when you consider a corporate environment where you may have a large number of multisocket servers, the potential savings certainly may add up and make a lot of sense to take into consideration. But for the vast majority of users who may use their PC for maybe a few hours a day (an probably not have all 4 cores on their CPU @ 100% load for the time they do use their machine) I doubt there's going to be any real tangible difference on their electric bill.

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
All I can really get out of the above benchmarks is that in real world games the Phenom is perfectly capable in real world resolutions. Intel still has other advantages for many people (less power consumption, higher clocks available, cheaper motherboards to get a decent overclock) but I don't think the overall performance of the Phenom is really that poor.

Well, P4/PDs were 'perfectly capable' in real world resolutions too... and sure they ran hotter, but the difference in power consumption probably won't be noticed on the bill, right?

I wonder if any AMD fans used that logic to consider the P4 when A64 was on top? Nah, didn't think so!

Seriously, I see a lot of excuses in this thread, but still no convincing reason why someone should consider a Phenom over a C2Q other than pure bias / fanboyism - which I have no problem with, btw. In fact, I wish there were more AMD fans around who stick with them no matter what - god knows AMD needs the money right now.

However, from an objective POV, looking at performance, power, price, overclocking - C2Q has Phenom covered. This isn't saying Phenom is 'crap', C2Q is simply better, and when its a two horse race, you don't put your money on the losing horse.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: corsa
yes..this thread is about whether people are reconsidering AMD over Intel

but.... If Phenom won, would anyone notice?

Looking at the results here,, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution. It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's here.

:music: "There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks" :music: ..a very familiar tune round here.. :laugh:

In that first link, it LOOSES 5 of 7 times, and the 2 times it wons, doesn't make sense, as, as the reslution goes up, so does the fame rate. Even for AMD that doesn;t make sense.

And in the second bench, they compare a C2d to a triple, yea, thats fair....

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
and when its a two horse race, you don't put your money on the losing horse.

I make it a rule not to put my money on the losing horse no matter how many are fielded

(just having fun, your post was spot on :thumbsup

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: ZootyGray
How do you spell HIJACK?

I swear people are hired by ntel to scatter bs logic like this all over discussions about AMD products. I think there are a very few posts in this thread that address the topic offered. It seems even the mod has been seduced to 'off topic'.

My position is unique, it seems. I will not buy ntel. SO I am quite immune to the inconsistent logic offered by 'what's his name, the "ntel employboy" '. Hey, you heard it first right here = 'ntel employboy'.

I was genuinely interested in this topic but it has been trashed.

I am a self-confessed AMD fanboy for ethical and personal reasons.

FLAME THAT 'employboy'. And if you try real hard you could take your insecurities elsewhere, and allow other people to speak freely without your gross and obvious interference. You are transparent.

Thanx to the OP for suggesting this topic - obviously more controls are need to discuss such a topic. These could be simply stated, or requested - but for people to respect the interests of others may require an adjustment in meds. Or maybe mod censorship of deliberate off-topic posts. How do you spell OBVIOUS?

Meanwhile the benchmarks have not yet been presented - and this is the website where anyone can find them - soon. And to me, the results will be interesting, and hopefully, indicative of progress. As has been indicated, if progress is indicated, Deneb will be even better; as any future tek should be - also obvious.

An elevation of intelligence is something worth promoting - but this bull, this sick logic, this bias? No thanks 'employboy'.

Wake up and smell the coffee people. You support antitrust? Good luck. But when you hijack free speech and creative thinking - that's really a problem - contrary to pop culture bs propaganda, we are not all morons.

This is an open forum where all opinions are welcome, but do remember that this is not AMDzone. Spreading crazy conspiracy theories and ranting about how evil Intel is, is not encouraged here. Crazy ranting about how everyone who doesn't bow to AMD is an Intel employee is also not encouraged here. Very few people here are biased one way or the other. But we know what is fastest and right now that is Intel, and nobody is going to pretend otherwise. It is interesting that you are talking about other people being biased or insecure given the way you seem to need to lash out at others for challenging what you believe.

Originally posted by: corsa
yes..this thread is about whether people are reconsidering AMD over Intel

but.... If Phenom won, would anyone notice?

Looking at the results here,, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution. It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's here.

:music: "There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks" :music: ..a very familiar tune round here.. :laugh:

As Mark points out, those results are just not consistant at all. Performance does not go up when you increase the resolution, no matter what CPU you are on.

Phenom isn't a bad gaming solution per clock, if you look at Anandtech's review the X4 9950 manages to beat the 2.5GHz Q9300 in 2 out of 3 tests and is virtually tied in Crysis. But it is no magical solution and it does not beat Core 2 in per clock gaming performance and certainly a 2.3GHz Phenom does not beat a 3.2GHz C2Q.

So yes, there is something wrong with those benches. Whether something is fudged or the reviewer doesn't know what he is doing, I don't know. But those are not representative of either gaming benchmark performance nor real world gaming performance of Phenom vs Core 2.