Phenom II against intels old and new chips all oced to 3.7ghz

[Darren]

Originally Posted by farlex85

The enthusiasts tend to have a love affair w/ AMD, even though intel provides faster processors. It's ass-backwards I tell you.

Your ass backwards..

Not everyone is rich enough to afford Intel processors, in the UK Intel CPUs and motherboards are bloody expensive, I am I ass backwards for not having money?

DDR3 prices are stupid here in the UK, I can buy 16 GBs of PC6400 DDR2 for the Price of 4 GBs of DDR3. Again is it assed-backwards because I don't have money for DDR3?

If AMD is offering a cheaper solution that performs faster than the Kentfields, Yorkfields and sometimes the Nehalem what is the big deal.

If someone was to buy a Q6600 Kentfield you would not call them ass-backwards, so if someone buys a Deneb which performs faster than a Kentfield for cheaper its ass-backward.

You have a serious AMD grudge and you need to sort it out.

[trt740]

Originally Posted by Paulieg

I'm just about new hardware from either side, and I had an opportunity to get a "special" chip at a good price, so I jumped on it. If I had the same opportunity with i7, I would have done that too.

P2 is as fast as Cor2duo chips and I've has 3 Qx9650 at 4.0+ ghz and these are as fast or very close.

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by Darren

Your ass backwards..

Not everyone is rich enough to afford Intel processors, in the UK Intel CPUs and motherboards are bloody expensive, I am I ass backwards for not having money?

DDR3 prices are stupid here in the UK, I can buy 16 GBs of PC6400 DDR2 for the Price of 4 GBs of DDR3. Again is it assed-backwards because I don't have money for DDR3?

If AMD is offering a cheaper solution that performs faster than the Kentfields, Yorkfields and sometimes the Nehalem what is the big deal.

If someone was to buy a Q6600 Kentfield you would not call them ass-backwards, so if someone buys a Deneb which performs faster than a Kentfield for cheaper its ass-backward.

You have a serious AMD grudge and you need to sort it out.

Don't respond insultingly or defensively, try logic. I have nothing at all against AMD other than what I already stated in the previous page. In the US it is not cheaper to get the denab than the q6600, which is not right. This processor also does nothing to aid the intel-dominant market and prices stay high. At least in the US. That's all I have "against" AMD. Don't take it so personally. Ass-backwards was in reference not to AMD but the situation I described. Read it again if you missed it.

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Please keep the flavor of this thread neutral, thanks

[AltecV1]

Originally Posted by Paulieg

I'm just about new hardware from either side, and I had an opportunity to get a "special" chip at a good price, so I jumped on it. If I had the same opportunity with i7, I would have done that too.

Originally Posted by ShadowFold

If you're saying he didn't have it then you are wrong. He has a 945BE but his biostar board kicked the can.

it was joke! your system specs was pre ordered PII 940

[Paulieg]

Originally Posted by AltecV1

it was joke! your system specs was pre ordered PII 940

LOL. Didn't realize I hadn't changed that yet.

[AltecV1]

anyoff you now when the am3 boards will be apearing in stores?

[Darren]

Originally Posted by farlex85

Don't respond insultingly or defensively, try logic.

It wasn't suppose to be an insult, but to be frank you started throwing the ass-backward statement around, so I thought it was fair game to throw it back.

Originally Posted by farlex85

Ass-backwards was in reference not to AMD but the situation I described. Read it again if you missed it.

Fair enough, I agree with the fact that people buy with what they think is the fastest e.g. Dell computer with Intel. But I don't agree that AMD have a love affair, we just like cheap and fast processors, nothing more.

Originally Posted by farlex85

In the US it is not cheaper to get the denab than the q6600, which is not right.

Not a valid excuse, because the Phenom 9950 BE is cheaper than the Q6600, performs on par too.

Also, the Denebs have just been released, most retailers dont have them so its obvious that the prices will be expensive because they are rare and e-penises are willing to spend extra for the rare items to show off in forum. Wait a few weeks when all the retailer's stock them, the prices will fall.

This happens with all products. I can remember the 3870 being £170 on release, give it a few weeks it was £130, a couple of months £120. You cannot base pricing on the release price.

Edit:

Also I hate the way Americans think the world revolves around them, like because Intel is god in America with uber pricing this is a reflection elsewhere, because its not.

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by Darren

It wasn't suppose to be an insult, but to be frank you started throwing the ass-backward statement around, so I thought it was fair game to throw it back.



Fair enough, I agree with the fact that people buy with what they think is the fastest e.g. Dell computer with Intel. But I don't agree that AMD have a love affair, we just like cheap and fast processors, nothing more.



Not a valid excuse, because the Phenom 9950 BE is cheaper than the Q6600, performs on par too.

Also, the Denebs have just been released, most retailers dont have them so its obvious that the prices will be expensive because they are rare and e-penises are willing to spend extra for the rare items to show off in forum. Wait a few weeks when all the retailer's stock them, the prices will fall.

This happens with all products. I can remember the 3870 being £170 on release, give it a few weeks it was £130, a couple of months £120. You cannot base pricing on the release price.

Again it's all relative. The 9950be is as fast as the q6600 in a subjective sense (just browsing around), and in gaming, but in raw power it is behind. That raw power isn't important to most though, especially strictly gamers, but for hardware enthusiasts it would seem to matter, thus what I was saying before. And it's true perhaps prices are inflated now, and hopefully they will drop quickly. The PII 940 around $200 is excellent (can't speak to UK prices) as it competes enough w/ yorkie that it will probably cause significant price drops at that level. Over that though and it just seems like AMD bring in a proc at the same price and w/ the same performance as the competitions year old tech (in some cases 2 year old tech, imagine if ATI just now released competition to G80 and G92), which just isn't very exciting. There's still more reviews to look at though, AM3, and price drops, so there is still things to come in the near future.

Edit: Everyone is ethnocentric and nationalistic to a certain degree, I could accuse you of the same fallacy, it is intrinsic to our experience (unless you travel a lot). We can only be enlightened by others through the webz.

[HolyCow02]

so how can I get the new chip with a good price? Special favors?!?!

But I'll only go so far

[BloodTotal]

talk your gf into going to AMD headquarters

[Darren]

Originally Posted by farlex85

Again it's all relative. The 9950be is as fast as the q6600 in a subjective sense (just browsing around), and in gaming, but in raw power it is behind.

That depends on how one measures raw power.
The two CPUs trade blows in an un-predictable manner, it's not as cut and dry as saying the 9950BE is only better in two tasks, browsing and gaming.
Although the conclusion of the experiment might favour AMD for browsing and gaming no doubt that in encoding, rendering, file compressing etc the 9950BE would win the odd test as well as loose the odd test, again most likely in an unpredictable manner. The margin the Q6600 might win will be very small, again the margin the 9950BE might win will also be small.
It does not matter how you dress it up the Q6600 and 9950BE are equivalent CPUs. Although I agree that the average user doesn't need CPUs this powerful anyways, hence why I'm still happy on my overclocked 3800+ X2

Originally Posted by farlex85

competitions year old tech (in some cases 2 year old tech, imagine if ATI just now released competition to G80 and G92), which just isn't very exciting. There is still more reviews to look at though, AM3, and price drops, so there is still things to come in the near future.

The GPU market is different, in the sense that two years is the typical life span of a GPU. After 2 years a high-mid range GPU would be reaching the end of its shelve life as far as competing goes, whether you like it or not you'll be forced to play games at a low detail or a lower resolution.
However we are in a climate where the CPU can last a few years, maybe 3-4 years without replacement or bottleneck. E.g. the Athlon X2 series has been out for about 4 years, I bought my 3800+ X2 almost 3 years ago granted I've got the newer energy efficient version and a better core revision, but its enough for day to day applications, gaming, Adobe CS3 collection etc. In fact despite all these new CPUs that are being release I don't even feel the need to replace it. I could not say this about a midrange GPU after 4 years, or even 3 years.

Originally Posted by farlex85

Edit: Everyone is ethnocentric and nationalistic to a certain degree, I could accuse you of the same fallacy, it is intrinsic to our experience (unless you travel a lot). We can only be enlightened by others through the webz.

Fair enough. We can both be in the wrong about this one

[kid41212003]

I remember the Athlon x2 4800+ was selling at $1000 when it just released... (because at that time there is no other cpu that faster than it).

If Phenom II outperformed Intel's CPU, I'm sure you will see the Phenom II at $1000 right now. They want to put up a good fight and get back market share first, that's why the Phenom II platform is at "not too sky high" price. But at $250 and $280, It's still clearly a rip off in my sense. I expect Phenom II 920 at $200, and 940 at $230.

It's obvious that DDR3 is bloody expensive, but is that Intel's fault? I don't see anything wrong of putting the best/newest technology on a brand new chip.

So, there are Phenom II AM2+ (DDR2, to comfort AMD's fan, old mobo new CPU), and Phenom II AM3 (DDR2/3).

You will have to choose what kind of memory you gonna use, and then depend on the memory, you will choose a mobo for it. But in the end, If you use DDR3, it still gonna be blooody expensive.

The Phenom II offers dual-channel DDR2/3 (1333, need to OC for higher speed).
While Core i7 offer triple-channel DDR3 (any speed), and Hyper Threading.

The current application/games can't take advance of triple channel memory or hyper threading, but is that Intel's fault?

Phenom II is clearly a rip off, yeah sure it can run as fast as Intel's CPU in most current application/games, but if you look at it as the "technology" point of view, which brand offer more advanced technologies?

Remember when Phenom I just released? Those processors priced at Q6600 range, they performed similar at stock speed, but who here use stock speed CPU?

In the last 2-3 years, who was the one that offer processors with good performance/money ratio for gamers?

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by Darren

That depends on how one measures raw power.
The two CPUs trade blows in an un-predictable manner, it's not as cut and dry as saying the 9950BE is only better in two tasks, browsing and gaming.
Although the conclusion of the experiment might favour AMD for browsing and gaming no doubt that in encoding, rendering, file compressing etc the 9950BE would win the odd test as well as loose the odd test, again most likely in an unpredictable manner. The margin the Q6600 might win will be very small, again the margin the 9950BE might win will also be small.
It does not matter how you dress it up the Q6600 and 9950BE are equivalent CPUs. Although I agree that the average user doesn't need CPUs this powerful anyways, hence why I'm still happy on my overclocked 3800+ X2


The GPU market is different, in the sense that two years is the typical life span of a GPU. After 2 years a high-mid range GPU would be reaching the end of its shelve life as far as competing goes, whether you like it or not you'll be forced to play games at a low detail or a lower resolution.
However we are in a climate where the CPU can last a few years, maybe 3-4 years without replacement or bottleneck. E.g. the Athlon X2 series has been out for about 4 years, I bought my 3800+ X2 almost 3 years ago granted I've got the newer energy efficient version and a better core revision, but its enough for day to day applications, gaming, Adobe CS3 collection etc. In fact despite all these new CPUs that are being release I don't even feel the need to replace it. I could not say this about a midrange GPU after 4 years, or even 3 years.

Fair enough. We can both be in the wrong about this one

I suppose that perhaps is true, from what I have seen the 9950 measures up in games and some encoding benchmarks, but falls behind in Sandrasoft and most other encoding which I consider (perhaps erroneously so) to be an indication of a processor's raw power (I suppose it's really all about the algorithms and instructions sets, it's made to be a certain way). It does indeed depend on the user though and what they will be doing, as in certain areas they seem to perform better than others.

And I agree the cpu and gpu market are different, especially since cpu's have reached a point where many don't need their power. I'm w/ you on that one, my e6750 still probably has a good 6 months or so at least until I change it out, although I may still snag a 45nm if the price is right. It still doesn't keep me from hoping AMD will do the same thing in the cpu market as the did in the gpu market with the 4000 series, come in at similar performance and a far lesser price than the competition. In some ways, they have accomplished that (gaming performance is top-notch), but in others they seem to have settled for not challenging intel at all but rather simply working on their own schedule and pricing (relative to themselves as opposed to intel), which won't drop the market's prices. AMD is usually pretty good about dropping prices though so we'll see.

[Paintface]

I dont want to add feul to the fire but i got to respond to some of the posters here.

The clock per clock comparison is cool for us enthousiasts to compare the technologies, also comparing a phenom 940 to a core i7 940 gives us an idea just how much faster/slower the cpus are from both companies.

But what we should focus on is 2 things which consumers are concerned about

- Performance out of the box

- Price of the CPU + ram/mainboard

The phenom 2 wins compared to a Core 2 Quad in price and performance, even against the Q9550 which sells for $320 compared to the PII which is supposed to sell for $280, both use DDR2 ram and with AMD you can go a tad cheaper on the mainboard too.

This is what AMD was always good at since the first AMD i bought in 1994, for the performance i was looking for AMD was always cheaper + faster than a comparable Intel, its the very reason AMD still sells CPUs, and why they have such a dedicated userbase.

To the notion that a Phenom 2 is "good enough for the ones happy with that kind of speed" is rediculous, the PII is a very fast CPU and faster than comparable intel setups, i can live with it that a core i7 with expensive DDR3 and expensive mainboard is faster, cause my budget is $250 max for a CPU, and for that money the best choice is amd.
Hell i have a 6000+ currently and i play any game i throw at it at max settings without a hickup, besides gaming i only do some desktop work which could be done by a 3 year old cpu without noticing the difference, so much for the ones happy "with that kind of speed".

[B1gg3stN00b]

I see no reason to worry about upgrading to either. Right now a C2d or Athlon x2 is still more than enough to handle most tasks.... Unless you're playing Crysis, then you need to upgrade to better taste in gaming :P

[oli_ramsay]

Originally Posted by B1gg3stN00b

I see no reason to worry about upgrading to either. Right now a C2d or Athlon x2 is still more than enough to handle most tasks.... Unless you're playing Crysis, then you need to upgrade to better taste in gaming :P

lol

I agree. I'm not gonna bother upgrading for a few years because I get awesome performance for every day tasks and gaming. Nice to see PII's performance over PI though, should get a few AMD user's excited, especially as they've sorted out the overclocking issues.

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by Paintface

I dont want to add feul to the fire but i got to respond to some of the posters here.

The clock per clock comparison is cool for us enthousiasts to compare the technologies, also comparing a phenom 940 to a core i7 940 gives us an idea just how much faster/slower the cpus are from both companies.

But what we should focus on is 2 things which consumers are concerned about

- Performance out of the box

- Price of the CPU + ram/mainboard

The phenom 2 wins compared to a Core 2 Quad in price and performance, even against the Q9550 which sells for $320 compared to the PII which is supposed to sell for $280, both use DDR2 ram and with AMD you can go a tad cheaper on the mainboard too.

This is what AMD was always good at since the first AMD i bought in 1994, for the performance i was looking for AMD was always cheaper + faster than a comparable Intel, its the very reason AMD still sells CPUs, and why they have such a dedicated userbase.

To the notion that a Phenom 2 is "good enough for the ones happy with that kind of speed" is rediculous, the PII is a very fast CPU and faster than comparable intel setups, i can live with it that a core i7 with expensive DDR3 and expensive mainboard is faster, cause my budget is $250 max for a CPU, and for that money the best choice is amd.
Hell i have a 6000+ currently and i play any game i throw at it at max settings without a hickup, besides gaming i only do some desktop work which could be done by a 3 year old cpu without noticing the difference, so much for the ones happy "with that kind of speed".

I'm not sure who your quoting there b/c I didn't see anyone say any of the things you have in quotes. As for the better price/performance, this apparently is a subjective matter. According the bencies on the previous page, yorkfield is still a decent amount faster than denab in most applications (other than games really) and uses less power (and I'm assuming they mean full-fledged yorkfield w/ 12mb L2, although they are not specific). Now LGA 775 and AM2 mb's and ddr2 prices are similar across both platforms, so really all you have is price of the cpu. You say the q9550 is more expensive, well I say it's faster and uses less power, warranting the extra dough. So they are really on about the same price/performance level. B/c PII isn't dramatically cheaper, only a little bit, intel can likely ignore it all together as it won't take much more than it would anyway being a new proc. However, if they want to, they can drop it $20-30, not that big. If the PII comes in at $200, now that's something to cheer for imo. There's still more benchies to be done and it depends on application, but perhaps you see what I'm saying.

And really, it is just what someone is happy with. Others would not be happy w/ your 6000+ or my e6750, but for me and you they work fine, I am perfectly happy w/ "that kind of speed." That is not to say I wouldn't take more, but it's all about price/performance. I think intel usually wins that category atm though, but it depends on price and situation (for instance in my case upgrading to a yorkfield is more logical, as I already have the board, in your case upgrading to PII is better, it just depends).

[r9]

I`m looking at different point of view. It is not just current price, but what it means. If AMD put
PII 940 at 200$ it will be the best CPU on the market price-performance vise. But what it means for the big picture that AMD wont make any money out of it that it will continue to drown and with no pressure from AMD intel will keep the prices high.
And I want to present two facts.

First:
You are complaining about DDR3 prices being high do I need to remind you when DDR II prices fall down compare to DDRI when AMD switched to AM2 and DDRII it is the same for DDRIII.

Second:
Only reason why there are still C2DUOs is because of AMD. If AMD delivered what they promised C2DUOS would be long gone.

And what is deneb ?
big shit >shrinked>little shit

It is the same if ATI instead of producing 3870 4870 they just shrinked 2900XT.
Intel made 3 series of quads and AMD only managed to shrink the die of agena.

AMD need to wake up stories don`t sell cpu performance sell them.

And all funboys out there you are very easy to spot every user that has agena phenom is either missinformed or AMD funboy.

And AMD are trying to present them selfs as people company, how they try to save you money. Who are they keeding if PII 940 was 20% faster than 3GHz i7 beleve me AMD would asked 1000 $ for it.

[eidairaman1]

hate to tell you but the 3870 is a shrinked 2900XT
Also i recall in the past AMD never asked for 1000 USD for their FX Lineup, so why would they now, because their fastest i believe only costed 500 USD at the time, its always been Intel charging 1000 USD for their EE parts when their lowerend always outdid their EE lineup, and that is FSB only.

Originally Posted by r9

I`m looking at different point of view. It is not just current price, but what it means. If AMD put
PII 940 at 200$ it will be the best CPU on the market price-performance vise. But what it means for the big picture that AMD wont make any money out of it that it will continue to drown and with no pressure from AMD intel will keep the prices high.
And I want to present two facts.

First:
You are complaining about DDR3 prices being high do I need to remind you when DDR II prices fall down compare to DDRI when AMD switched to AM2 and DDRII it is the same for DDRIII.

Second:
Only reason why there are still C2DUOs is because of AMD. If AMD delivered what they promised C2DUOS would be long gone.

And what is deneb ?
big shit >shrinked>little shit

It is the same if ATI instead of producing 3870 4870 they just shrinked 2900XT.
Intel made 3 series of quads and AMD only managed to shrink the die of agena.

AMD need to wake up stories don`t sell cpu performance sell them.

And all funboys out there you are very easy to spot every user that has agena phenom is either missinformed or AMD funboy.

And AMD are trying to present them selfs as people company, how they try to save you money. Who are they keeding if PII 940 was 20% faster than 3GHz i7 beleve me AMD would asked 1000 $ for it.

[r9]

Originally Posted by Paintface

I dont want to add feul to the fire but i got to respond to some of the posters here.

The clock per clock comparison is cool for us enthousiasts to compare the technologies, also comparing a phenom 940 to a core i7 940 gives us an idea just how much faster/slower the cpus are from both companies.

But what we should focus on is 2 things which consumers are concerned about

- Performance out of the box

- Price of the CPU + ram/mainboard

The phenom 2 wins compared to a Core 2 Quad in price and performance, even against the Q9550 which sells for $320 compared to the PII which is supposed to sell for $280, both use DDR2 ram and with AMD you can go a tad cheaper on the mainboard too.

This is what AMD was always good at since the first AMD i bought in 1994, for the performance i was looking for AMD was always cheaper + faster than a comparable Intel, its the very reason AMD still sells CPUs, and why they have such a dedicated userbase.

To the notion that a Phenom 2 is "good enough for the ones happy with that kind of speed" is rediculous, the PII is a very fast CPU and faster than comparable intel setups, i can live with it that a core i7 with expensive DDR3 and expensive mainboard is faster, cause my budget is $250 max for a CPU, and for that money the best choice is amd.
Hell i have a 6000+ currently and i play any game i throw at it at max settings without a hickup, besides gaming i only do some desktop work which could be done by a 3 year old cpu without noticing the difference, so much for the ones happy "with that kind of speed".

How about my E5200 it is cheaper than yours Athlon64 6000+. And who says that Intel boards are more expensive. My cpu could go 3.75 on P31 mobo 50$. And if you want to oc yours phenom 100 MHz you need 200$AMD mobo with sb750. How Intel boards more expensive no one are forcing you to buy x48 for C2Q you can go by with P35 just fine.
And only reason why Intel are making i7 platform so expensive is not hurt old series of quads.

[r9]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

hate to tell you but the 3870 is a shrinked 2900XT

Hate to tell you but it is not just shrinked because 3870 is 256bit and is as faster as 2900XT whitch is 512bit with better AA AF performance that is some thing that cant achive with simple die shrink.
Nice to join in the thread you may learn something.

[r9]

i believe only costed 500 USD at the time, its always been Intel charging 1000 USD for their

Only reason FX costed 500$ ( I beleve it was more ) is because it is AMD chip not Intel old proven CPU maker and AMD wanted to make share. Why they did not sell it 230$ like PII ?

[eidairaman1]

boy even winners are sore losers

since you have a e5200 and love it so much, stop bashing the people who are goin with what they prefer, that to me is trolling.

[BloodTotal]

How much better would a overcloked phenom 2 945 or 940 be over a overclocked q6600?