We need a new quad showdown

[taltamir]

So now that there are new phenom quads with the TLB fixed, and now that the prices have finally gone down (they used to be significantly higher then intels for some weird obscure reason), how does phenom stack up to intel's quads?

On the egg for example:
Q6600 (2.4ghz) - 224$ + no shipping
2.4 ghz fixed phenom - 215$ - no shipping
2.5 black edition fixed phenom (but poor OC nonetheless) - 235$ - no shipping

I have seen anand compare the new B3 to B2 phenoms and the performance of B3 was slightly better in winrar, but what about other operations? Is there some full suite of benchmark comparisons that can tell me how much faster or slower it is per mhz? cause I am getting the feeling that the Q6600 is still the better buy.

Unless AMD finally finalized their hybrid power offering (video card turns off in 2d and onboard card is used). In which case such a system becomes very attractive.

 

[Tweakin]

That would be an interesting test...but I think we all know the outcome.

 

[harpoon84]

Anandtech has a review, for a start.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...ts/showdoc.aspx?i=3272

With the latest round of pricedrops from Intel I see no reason to get a Phenom at all unless you are already running an existing AM2 mobo.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hexus just did a comparrison not long ago.

I still ordered a 9850BE Friday anyway. Seeing as I don't really need anything faster then my current 939 system, it should be plenty fast for me. I just want to upgrade because the bug bit me, not because I really a need to... it's been so long since I built a new system.

 

[Tweakin]

I just finished the Anad review and it did better then I thought it would...

 

[hokahknow]

The Phenom did pretty well at the HD x264 encoding. Beat the Q6600 and on the heels of the Q9300.

 

[taltamir]

mmm.. .so phenom is much faster for x264, slower than even a Q6660 for everything else.

But its still rather close together. If you already own a AM2 board it is definitely worth it, but otherwise intel is probably a better choice.

 

[myocardia]

The Phenom 9X50's look pretty decent to me. If you're an overclocker, which at least 98% of the planet isn't, then the Q6600/6700 is a much more attractive option, but if you aren't, I see no reason not to buy one, assuming you were in the market for a quad,

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: hokahknow
The Phenom did pretty well at the HD x264 encoding. Beat the Q6600 and on the heels of the Q9300.

Does anyone have an educated guess as to why this is so?

Graysky - what is in x264 encoding that would make K10 architecture superior to a higher clocked Kentsfield?

CTho9305 - what are your expectations? Are we seeing a desktop application realizing the benefit of the monolithic core design here? (the faster interprocessor communications on K10 are benefiting the core/thread scaling) or is this type of application simply enjoy higher IPC on the K10 and the rank results would stand even if these were single-core tests?

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: myocardia
The Phenom 9X50's look pretty decent to me. If you're an overclocker, which at least 98% of the planet isn't, then the Q6600/6700 is a much more attractive option, but if you aren't, I see no reason not to buy one, assuming you were in the market for a quad,

They are far too expensive, for anything OTHER then video editing a higher clocked and CHEAPER C2D OR a higher clocked and MUCH cheaper AMD X2 will perform better.
And for the few things that are faster on quad core, the Q6600 is cheaper AND completely dominates the phenom.

Anand said it nicely. Intel has superior CPU, AMD has superior platform. if you are building something with integrated graphics AMD is a better choice, if you want an HTPC with blu-ray acceleration AMD is a better choice. But if you have a discrete video card then the only choice is the faster, cheaper, and more power efficient intel CPUs. OR A very cheap X2 CPU. the phenom just doesn't make sense for ANYONE except people seeking to upgrade an existing AM2 machine. (and even then, an X2 would be better for most, unless its a video render machine)

 

[Jax Omen]

... Talta, are you crazy or something? Split personality perhaps? You make a topic seeking a compare/contrast between Intel and AMD quads... then one day later you aggressively post that Phenom is a waste of money with faster duals and the Q6600 as options.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: myocardia
The Phenom 9X50's look pretty decent to me. If you're an overclocker, which at least 98% of the planet isn't, then the Q6600/6700 is a much more attractive option, but if you aren't, I see no reason not to buy one, assuming you were in the market for a quad,

Really? Even if the Q6600 is cheaper, faster, and runs cooler?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I really want to see a OC'd Q6600 vs OC'd Q9450 vs a Oc'd e8400 to see what kind of numbers we get. Plus to see what kind of average OC they can get on air on a Q9450.

That would help with the the dual vs quad argument for the 3.6 Q6600 vs 4ghz e8400.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
... Talta, are you crazy or something? Split personality perhaps? You make a topic seeking a compare/contrast between Intel and AMD quads... then one day later you aggressively post that Phenom is a waste of money with faster duals and the Q6600 as options.

Isn't it obvious, I found good comparison articles and read them and looked up the prices online.

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: myocardia
The Phenom 9X50's look pretty decent to me. If you're an overclocker, which at least 98% of the planet isn't, then the Q6600/6700 is a much more attractive option, but if you aren't, I see no reason not to buy one, assuming you were in the market for a quad,

Really? Even if the Q6600 is cheaper, faster, and runs cooler?

Yea, that is exactly the point. it costs LESS money, it is faster, it runs cooler, it takes less electricity, it overclocks better... there is not a single aspect in which it is NOT better.
The real problem isn't that the phenom is a bad chip (although it does suffer from low clockrates).
The problem is that MAD (I meant to type AMD but decided to leave it since it fits) is overpricing them, if you find the part that performs about the same, you would see the AMD charges more for theirs.

 

[Gikaseixas]

i just think Intel can afford to charge less than what AMD right now. AMD needs the money and to build a Phenom chip is very expensive and we all know why.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I really think the power draw is made into way too big of a deal at times. You'd have to have your CPU's at 100% useage for hours a day to probably see any significant differences I would imagine. It becomes an important point for businesses that may have lots of machines, especially servers. But for the average home user who may not use their PC for more then a few hours a week, I doubt it matters at all.

 

[harpoon84]

Play a game, encode a video and you can easily have a CPU at 100% load for hours a day. Its not just about the power bill though (which I agree is rather insignificant unless you peg the CPU at 100% load all day), from an enthusiasts perspective a hot running CPU heats up the entire case, ambient temps rise and you end up with hotter running components all round, not to mention a noisier PC as you might need more or faster case fans, then theres the fact that the internal PSU fan is often temperature sensitive and spins up as the case temp increases.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really think the power draw is made into way too big of a deal at times. You'd have to have your CPU's at 100% useage for hours a day to probably see any significant differences I would imagine. It becomes an important point for businesses that may have lots of machines, especially servers. But for the average home user who may not use their PC for more then a few hours a week, I doubt it matters at all.

I measure my power draw on an X2 3800+ machine to be 205 watt at idle (for the system).
255 with the CPU at load (orthos). 50 watt difference on a dual core at low speeds.

Anyways, the idle power difference matters much more then the load power difference. Since a computer is typically spending 22 hours a day idle and 2 hours at load.
Or if you turn it off when not in use, only a few hours of each.

And if you multiple it out that makes a difference eventually. Not a huge difference. But more then 10$ a year. Depending on your power cost and useage scenario it can be MUCH more.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really think the power draw is made into way too big of a deal at times. You'd have to have your CPU's at 100% useage for hours a day to probably see any significant differences I would imagine. It becomes an important point for businesses that may have lots of machines, especially servers. But for the average home user who may not use their PC for more then a few hours a week, I doubt it matters at all.

What in gods name is someone doing if they buy a quadcore system just to let it sit idle or completely turned off excepting for a few hours a week?

You are right, for the average home user who uses their computer for 4 hours/week they should not be concerned about the power consumption...nor should they be worried about getting a quadcore in general.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: taltamir

And if you multiple it out that makes a difference eventually. Not a huge difference. But more then 10$ a year. Depending on your power cost and useage scenario it can be MUCH more.

10 dollars / yr comes out to:
0.02739726027397260273972602739726 cents per day. :X

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really think the power draw is made into way too big of a deal at times. You'd have to have your CPU's at 100% useage for hours a day to probably see any significant differences I would imagine. It becomes an important point for businesses that may have lots of machines, especially servers. But for the average home user who may not use their PC for more then a few hours a week, I doubt it matters at all.

What in gods name is someone doing if they buy a quadcore system just to let it sit idle or completely turned off excepting for a few hours a week?

You are right, for the average home user who uses their computer for 4 hours/week they should not be concerned about the power consumption...nor should they be worried about getting a quadcore in general.

DOE you saved me from asking him that.




Anyhow, if your not an overclocker, i cant see how a phenom HTPC machine on a 790i could possibly lose. Even a dualcore AMD with a 790i would give the HTPC market a good run for the money on intel.

If your an average user, the 179 dollar pricetag on a Q6600 is insanely hard to beat.

If your a hardcore overclocker, your stupid to be looking AMD. Sorry intel's will spank any AMD machine.

So 2/3. :T

 

[taltamir]

and that 10$ less in electricy a year is for INTEL...

So after a year the 179$ Q6600 saved you 10$ in electricity compared to the more expensive AMD.
The only reason I mentioned it is because sometimes electricity saving can be an equalizer. In the past more efficient AMD chips could have been more expensive, but would eventually end up cheaper due to electricity cost. I wanted to point out that there is no such "balancing" effect this time. It just makes the gap even larger.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Really? Even if the Q6600 is cheaper, faster, and runs cooler?

Hah, I forgot I had posted in this thread. Anyway, yeah, for the average Joe/Jane sixpack, I can see it being attractive now. I don't want one, because I'm an overclocker, but for the average Joe Schmoe (who neither knows nor cares about any processor's TDP or overclockability), I would no longer try to talk them out of buying one, like I probably would have a few months ago. Today they are cheaper, somewhat faster, and no longer have that TLB problem, that cost even more performance to workaround. As a matter of fact, I hope AMD can sell alot of them; they need the money.

 

[bfdd]

I have somethign to ask, how come people say the phenom is a good upgrade option if you already have an AM2 board. I mean if someone is running an older AM2 board even if the phenom can run it in, don't they have power problems or is that just one chipset? I mean I'd figure the older boards have a much harder time considering the phenom uses so much damn power.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I measure my power draw on an X2 3800+ machine to be 205 watt at idle (for the system).
255 with the CPU at load (orthos). 50 watt difference on a dual core at low speeds.

Wow, just goes to show how much technology has improved power consumption.

My Q6600 system at 3.3GHz measures 220W at the wall with prime95 small FFT running.

I can't imagine how low the loaded power consumption would be if I dropped in a Q9450 and clocked it at 3.3Ghz...(well I can, but just say'en)

I wish I had measured the power consumption of my old 2.8GHz P4 system (Northwood). I bet it was much higher than your X2 3800+.

Originally posted by: bfdd
I have somethign to ask, how come people say the phenom is a good upgrade option if you already have an AM2 board. I mean if someone is running an older AM2 board even if the phenom can run it in, don't they have power problems or is that just one chipset? I mean I'd figure the older boards have a much harder time considering the phenom uses so much damn power.

I think it became one of those few remaining "pros" to getting a Phenom in the wake of all the "cons". True it turned out to be mostly marketing spin, but it hangs around nonetheless.

Toms did an interesting article early on regarding AM2 board support for K10 (conclusion: paltry) and Anandtech's most recent article on power consumption blowing boards makes it all the more understandable now...why write a BIOS for Phenom if its likely to blow-out the mobo and cause a rash of warranty requests?

Best to just avoid letting consumers upgrade their existing systems with Phenoms and make them buy a new mobo if they are so hot-to-trot for a Phenom. (from the mobo makers perspective)

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: taltamir
and that 10$ less in electricy a year is for INTEL...

So after a year the 179$ Q6600 saved you 10$ in electricity compared to the more expensive AMD.
The only reason I mentioned it is because sometimes electricity saving can be an equalizer. In the past more efficient AMD chips could have been more expensive, but would eventually end up cheaper due to electricity cost. I wanted to point out that there is no such "balancing" effect this time. It just makes the gap even larger.

You brought up a good point. You guys know I am an intel guy. Here is the way I remember it. Please tell me I got this wrong.

When AMD64 and X2 were leading in performance. Power usage and heat output were always brought up by AMD fans. Now that intels leads in all areas . The power usage thing isn't a factor anymore to these AMD fans.

But fear not us Intel fans will continue to carry the power efficiency banner. That the AMD fans have now decided isn't a factor.

What goes around comes around.

Here is a review thats gross. Injustice to intel . Take note of the power consumption numbers were X3 uses less energy that Q6600. Out of the 10 reviews I read this was the only one that showed X3 beating Q6600 in efficiency. I seen more problems with this review but this one really got me . LOL I am for sale. I will say whatever you pay me to say. LOL @ tweaktown

http://www.tweaktown.com/artic...le_core_cpu/index.html