Yes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there: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:
Originally posted by: aigomorla
the only gaurentee you have is that it will run stock at what it was designed for.
Anything after is a matter of luck.
EDIT:
This APPLIES to BOTH AMD and INTEL and ANY OTHER CPU you can find on the market.
Originally posted by: ZootyGray
Perhaps you could try err..after "reading" my post for the first time.
Also who is the "you" that YOU are talking about? What YOU say certainly doesn't describe ME - and has naught to do with my post. I doubt that makes sense to YOU.
YOU, I see as a typical flamer - I could be wrong about YOU; but I have MY opinion, and other thoughts which I will keep private, because they, like your response are also OFF TOPIC - which was my original point - and thank you for so skillfully illustrating the problem.
Are you reconsidering Phenom?
I am!!!! And I would appreciate a discussion without disruption from YOU and too many OTHERS.
Looking at your system details that you spew at the end of all your posts - I question how you would have anything to say about "reconsidering Phenom". I suspect you would take issue with my private thoughts also - alas, they are private; and inaccessible to you.
Yes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there:
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).
Lower res is NECESSARY to properly bench CPU performance in games. The higher the res, the less the CPU is doing and the more the GPU takes over. If it shows huge differences, then the review is suspect. The OCC review you linked to even has the Intel chips far surpassing the X3 at 1920x1200, which in my view is questionable, at that res, these CPUs should be about equal.Originally posted by: corsa
Originally posted by:amenxYes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there:
Because the Majority of reviews test @ low resolution, like all those u have kindly linked us to
Intel needs to play @ 1024 x 768 ...because once we hit reality @ 1680 x 1050 and above with max settings....its game over.
Motto to this story, Buy a high end video card, run high resolutions.....so u can be bottle necked by ur Core Duo. :brokenheart:
edit: and yes, I'm definitely considering Phenom.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: amenx
Lower res is NECESSARY to properly bench CPU performance in games.
Originally posted by: ZootyGray
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).
I really have to disagree with too many of you. Unbelievable!!!!
THIS THREAD clearly, if you read the OP, is NOT ABOUT INTEL AT ALL.
This is about Phenom:
= "I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far."
= "Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz".
= "running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge".
= "with the "new" south bridge"
THIS OP IS ALL ABOUT PHENOM!!!!
ANYTHING INTEL is simply off-topic!!!!
Pardon me; but I really value the ENGLISH language. If you are so illiterate as to believe that this is, IN ANY WAY, about intel crawp - then I have no additional time to waste trying to convince you otherwise.
You can justify FLAMEWAR all you like - flamers need no justification. It's all bs. So thank you very little for trashing a thread that's clearly
(if you speekada eengleeeshh)
all about AMD recent news about PHENOM
and the best test report is RIGHT HERE ON ANANDTECH. (hello?)
- I don't need your illiterate apologies either - but I would like to be able to discuss the AMD PHENOM without disruption. And that is clearly impossible in THIS HIJACKKEDD THREAD - thank you very little mr moderator, SIR (salutes der geshtapoh and walks away in disgust)
I readily cop to my mistakes - but not this. This is all yours to decipher - hint - it's in code - real esoteric stuff.
I bet you think I have a bad attitude also. You a shrink? Get away from me, cos I did not ask for that. That's all your problem. You think I am supposed to like it?
Read it ALL again for the first time >>> Then have a flame party - at your own expense, not mine.
(leaves knowing the illiterates in the group will find a way to justify continuance of same)
(somebody had the audacity to utter the word "objective") (my opinion of 'objective' is already subjective) (don't think too hard about this)
I feel like I should apologize for somebody elses problem; but the problem is I already dealt with my codependency issues. So it's all yours. You see, I truly DO NOT CARE. Thx for your help "brother".
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-quad-core-processors/Originally posted by: corsa
Intel needs to play @ 1024 x 768 ...because once we hit reality @ 1680 x 1050 and above with max settings....its game over.
Motto to this story, Buy a high end video card, run high resolutions.....so u can be bottle necked by ur Core Duo. :brokenheart:
Originally posted by: harpoon84
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-quad-core-processors/Originally posted by: corsa
Intel needs to play @ 1024 x 768 ...because once we hit reality @ 1680 x 1050 and above with max settings....its game over.
Motto to this story, Buy a high end video card, run high resolutions.....so u can be bottle necked by ur Core Duo. :brokenheart:
Really? I don't see it.
Call of Duty 4 @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 50fps / Q6600 - 49fps / 9850BE - 49fps
World in Conflict @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 69fps / Q6600 - 58fps / 9850BE - 60fps
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 79fps / Q6600 - 78fps / 9850BE - 78fps
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 51fps / Q6600 - 51fps / 9850BE - 51fps
F.E.A.R. @ 1920 x 1440
Q9450 - 67fps / Q6600 - 67fps / 9850BE - 67fps
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 63fps / Q6600 - 57fps / 9850BE - 57fps
Crysis (v1.2) @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 40fps / Q6600 - 40fps / 9850BE - 41fps
Average framerate @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 59.86fps
Q6600 - 57.14fps
9850BE - 57.57fps
I guess numbers speak louder than fanboy fantasies...
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: ZootyGray
How do you spell HIJACK?
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.
Originally posted by: amenx
Yes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there: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:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...m-x3-8750_6.html#sect0
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/...pu&id=610&pagenumber=3
http://www.digit-life.com/arti...phenom-x3-8750-p3.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Artic...md_phenom_8750/11.html
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/h...le.php/3261_3742726__8
And heres a review where the x3 8750 takes a "severe beating" at the hands of an e8400 in Crysis:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/568/10
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: harpoon84
1. A more complete platform in the low cost area (HDMI, more USB, better onboard graphics, etc...)
2. NO DAMN PUSHPIN HSF!! (sorry, pet peeve... )
3. If you play Company of Heroes, the Phenom is just plain faster...
Other than that, it's all about the money (which is near equal this week...)
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: harpoon84
1. A more complete platform in the low cost area (HDMI, more USB, better onboard graphics, etc...)
2. NO DAMN PUSHPIN HSF!! (sorry, pet peeve... )
3. If you play Company of Heroes, the Phenom is just plain faster...
Other than that, it's all about the money (which is near equal this week...)
+3
ROFL on 2 but i totally agree with you on these 3.
Originally posted by: v8envy
Nope, still not reconsidering.
The 9850BE is now a worthy competitor to the 6600 at stock clocks and still lags a little at the typical and EXXTREEM overclocks. But as pointed out multiple times it is more expensive in both initial outlay and operating costs. It's no longer 'you pay more for a lot less' with the Phenom. But it is definitely 'a little more for a little less.' Whether that little more or that little less is significant to the typical consumer is irrelevant to me -- I still see it as a suboptimal solution.
One more go-around and it'll be a contender vs the 6600. But at $190 vs $235 CPU, $170 vs $90 board and higher ongoing operating costs for the same or slightly lower performance I see no reason to get one yet.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison. My E8400 beats the Phenom 9500 I had before, even in Cinebench rendering, when both are overclocked.
You can insert the Q6600 there if you want, Phenom still ends up slower and more expensive. And what bothers me is that you can't run Vista x64 with a Phenom unless you want to sacrifice overclocking potential.
Originally posted by: tamaron
Originally posted by: Extelleron
When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison. My E8400 beats the Phenom 9500 I had before, even in Cinebench rendering, when both are overclocked.
You can insert the Q6600 there if you want, Phenom still ends up slower and more expensive. And what bothers me is that you can't run Vista x64 with a Phenom unless you want to sacrifice overclocking potential.
No way! apples to apples man!
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Yup, Intel cleans up at 1024x768. Intel also seems to be quicker in most non-gaming benches. Phenom does plenty fine if you plan on using any modern video card and game above 1280x1024 (not that the frames you get would be slow below that res on Phenom, they'd just be slower then the C2D's). I'm not saying the Phenom is better, I'm just saying it's better then most people here seem to realize.
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: tamaron
Originally posted by: Extelleron
When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison. My E8400 beats the Phenom 9500 I had before, even in Cinebench rendering, when both are overclocked.
You can insert the Q6600 there if you want, Phenom still ends up slower and more expensive. And what bothers me is that you can't run Vista x64 with a Phenom unless you want to sacrifice overclocking potential.
No way! apples to apples man!
The debate seems to be generated by people defining apples differently.
Apples can be clockspeed, or cores, or total system cost, or system level power consumption, etc.
You want apples-to-apples at a core-to-core level, or at a price-comparative level, or a power-consumption equivalent level?
Originally posted by: Viditor
Just to keep it straight...at NewEgg it's
9850BE boxed for $205
Q6600 boxed is $195
AM2+ motherboards start at $65
Quad core capable Intel boards start at $45
Alright, let me start off with the pricing, the processor as tested today will cost you roughly 170 USD in e-tail at this very moment. Guys, for a quad-core processor that's just extremely good value. In most scenarios this processor is definitely faster compared to a Core 2 Quad Q6600, and Intel knows it as they recently adapted their pricing strategy to match this product. Intel however already moved on towards the Penryn based quad-cores, and though we still need to test it, the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Quad Core Processor is likely a better match to this processor, yet sells for ~ 250 USD. So value wise... this processor wins.
:beer:Looking at it from another side, ironically there's no quad-core platform more power efficient that the combo of a Phenom X4 with a 790GX based mainboard. Overall these four logical CPU cores are hardly stressed at all, let alone four of them simultaneously. Our tests showed that the PC in IDLE was only consuming 115 Watts, which was an all-time low.