Friday, November 2nd 2007

AMD Phenom GP 7000 vs Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Comparison

Expreview has posted a comparison results between AMD's new Phenom GP 7000 2.0GHz processor and Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core 6400+ 3.20GHz. The systems used was: ATI RD790 motherboard, GeForce 8600 GTS and pair of 1GB Corsair DDR2-1066MHz memory (2x1GB).

Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

53 Comments on AMD Phenom GP 7000 vs Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Comparison

#1
theonetruewill
They better be able to heighten the clock speed or this just isn't going to be good enough. Clock for clock it's good, but it needs to overclock well to really beat Core 2.
Posted on Reply
#2
von kain
even though the clocks are just plain low (2ghz is very low) i thing it sold much greater than this.but why a 8600gts??
Posted on Reply
#3
Mussels
Moderprator
that is a good improvement, but unless they sell them at 3GHz and up, they cant compete with the upcoming intels.

I guess tho, if its really cheap a loooot of gamers will move over to this.
Posted on Reply
#4
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
The first graph is made a bit silly, fps and 3d mark score in the same horizontal line. Graphs are to visualize numbers, with those 3Dmark scores there we're still limited to the numbers.
Posted on Reply
#5
ManofGod
At first I thought that this just plain sucks. :banghead: Then I saw the clock speed difference and realized that I completely misread the chart. :slap: That is absolutely fantastic, I am looking forward to this chip now. :toast:

Joe
Posted on Reply
#6
von kain
i believe (and most people with brains in their head) that comparing a 2 ghz vs a 3.20 is a bit stupid but if you thing the arch difference it suppose to be much more fast than this (plus i thought that phenoms will be named 9400, 9600 ,9700 not 7000)
Posted on Reply
#7
wiak
nice results
Intel Core 2 Quad 2,4 ghz vs core 2 duo 3.0 ghz
is around the same alley
Posted on Reply
#8
Ketxxx
Heedless Psychic
Phenom needs to clock to at least 3.2GHz to have a fighting chance, otherwise.. I think that AMD ship is goiong to sink completely.
Posted on Reply
#9
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
by: von kain
i believe (and most people with brains in their head) that comparing a 2 ghz vs a 3.20 is a bit stupid but if you thing the arch difference it suppose to be much more fast than this (plus i thought that phenoms will be named 9400, 9600 ,9700 not 7000)
Of course not, Intel and AMD are commercial companies and their CPU's are commercial items. Therefor the most logical comparison is performance/price. It is not relevant if the chip runs at 20 terahertz and has a zillion GB cache or not. Company A offers x performance for y dollars, same goes for company B, how they achieve it isn't relevant for the customer. It's not like you'll ever be able to tell if it's 2x2 cores or 4 cores by using the system or how fast it's clocked.
Posted on Reply
#10
jydie
Some of those tests (like 3DMark05) do a bad job of utilizing multi core CPUs. My old Athlon 64 3700+ can beat my X2 3800+ and X2 4200+ in several of these benchmarks simply because it has a higher clock speed. So, remember to take that into consideration when looking at this information.

As far as AMD's future goes... Intel may have the fastest CPUs, but none of my friends own one because the are too expensive. As long as AMD CPUs can compete in the mass market range ($30-$125), I think they will be fine.
Posted on Reply
#11
nflesher87
Staff
lol AMD amazes me sometimes...using an 8800GTS for benchmarking their upcoming CPU when they OWN ATI...:wtf::shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#12
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
by: nflesher87
lol AMD amazes me sometimes...using an 8800GTS for benchmarking their upcoming CPU when they OWN ATI...:wtf::shadedshu
Yup, we all know expreview secretly is AMD.
Posted on Reply
#13
a111087
by: nflesher87
lol AMD amazes me sometimes...using an 8800GTS for benchmarking their upcoming CPU when they OWN ATI...:wtf::shadedshu
...they used 8600 ;)
Posted on Reply
#14
pbmaster
I've been looking forward to the new AMD chips for quite a while. This looks pretty good as long as they will OC well.
Posted on Reply
#15
Kreij
Senior Monkey Moderator
by: DanTheBanjoman
Yup, we all know expreview secretly is AMD.
Is that your sarcasm sneaking out again on an AMD-Type thread? :roll:

On the topic, the multimedia bench looks pretty promising.
Posted on Reply
#17
CrAsHnBuRnXp
How does the Phenom chip win in the 06 bench but not the 05? Seems like it would win in both or fail in both.

Is this Phenom chip the "native" quad core or the dual core Phenom chip? If its the quad core, they really shouldnt compare a quad core to a dual core.
Posted on Reply
#18
theonetruewill
by: Kreij
Is that your sarcasm sneaking out again on an AMD-Type thread? :roll:

On the topic, the multimedia bench looks pretty promising.
But look at the memory scores! They're appalling.
Posted on Reply
#19
rhythmeister
by: Ketxxx
Phenom needs to clock to at least 3.2GHz to have a fighting chance, otherwise.. I think that AMD ship is goiong to sink completely.
Come on dude, you oughta have faith in AMD! Bang per buck I predict it'll laugh at the quad core intels. I'm not gonna pay as much as my car's worth to get a cpu and AMD must've read my mind and designed the perfect cpu accordingly :toast:
Posted on Reply
#20
jydie
by: CrAsHnBuRnXp
How does the Phenom chip win in the 06 bench but not the 05? Seems like it would win in both or fail in both.
3DMARK05 does not benchmark well with multi core CPUs... and instead seems to give better scores based on the clock speed. 3DMARK06 takes advantage of multi core CPUs, so that is why this new CPU loses in 05 and wins in 06. :)
Posted on Reply
#21
DaJMasta
Clock for clock, as said before, looks fine. It should be at least competitive with intel on that scale..... but that means nothing if it's running at 2/3 the speed...





Hopefully some aggressive pricing and clock speed ramps make these chips a real contender.
Posted on Reply
#22
AddSub
No! Say it aint so! Multi-core CPUs are largely useless outside of few games (maybe a dozen or so, total), some specialized video/audio/file management applications and a benchmark or two that are specially designed for em.

I’m really digging the UT2004 scores. ;) What a slip! They actually included a game that was not optimized for multi-cores. I thought it was a standard manner of operation when it came to latest CPU/GPU technology to avoid older games in benchmarking and therefore keep the illusion of progress.
Posted on Reply
#23
WhiteLotus
go AMD - they got got good results if you take into account the clock speeds, and since they're going to be cheaper than most intel chips (i hope) i see them doing well if the market has a brain and takes into account that its cheaper for the performance.
Posted on Reply
#24

4Cores Rulez

Multi-core CPUs aren't useless!
Why are you saying dope things DuDe!
I have a core2 duo and it's realy handy in every day work/play/creative use!
And even programs that doesn't use many threads can utilyse the extra power,
when u wan't u can manualy adjust which program which cores use!
Ctrl+Alt+Del Then in task manager you can adjust running programs cpu affinity!
And that is a cool thing if you think about it...
I definitely wait for Phenoms to buy one!
When U have 4 Cores and hmm 2Monitors(that is no sience fiction novadays I think)
Then You can Play on then first, and on the second you sea your msn, virus scanner, tv

tuner, net rss, p2p, and so on! Or you don't play just doing some photoshop, or maya! I

think I buy a third monitor soon! :D:D:D
MultyCoreRulez! :)
#25
GLD
I don't need no stinkin' benchmark numbers. The AMD Quads will be the $h!t and we all know it. I will be buying one, maybe not on launch day, but I will buy one, or more. So go get you lube ready Intel, so it wont be so rough on ya' :laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment