Phenom II X4 Reviewed

[mdm-adph]

Not a bad chip at all -- eagerly awaiting fanboys comments as to how "it's not fastest as Intel's fastest."

Yeah, well my GTI isn't as fast as a Ferrari, but it's a damn good deal.

That being said, that cheapest Core i7 processor is a damn fine chip -- it's too bad the cost of their motherboards and DDR3 make it so prohibitive to buy.

[Rebo&Zooty]

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php...1&limitstart=2

older games, older benches, showing gaines from 2 to 4gb ram jump.......

[DrPepper]

I'd say [h] did a pretty wierd review. I read it this morning and I remember the core 2 used ddr3 1600 and the P2 used ddr2 800. One set is twice as fast as the other and has twice as much, Surely that makes a difference even if the intel chip still lost in the memory benchmarks it just doesn't look as bad as it should.

I also think that the difference in the motherboards, could be a minor contributing factor not huge but damn that asus rampage certainly isn't required to run a q9770 at stock, so the could have used a similar motherboard for the test between them with ddr2. He also says at the start that people will whine about intels flagship is more than amds and that any other intel chip will reach 3.2ghz, So why doesn't he use any other intel chip.

I also hate the review they did of the games bound by cpu, Surely lost planet doesn't use 8 threads and they should have tried supreme commander which the intel chips would have won anyway.

The phenom two though is very very cheap compared to the yorkfields and am2 motherboards are very cheap as well so it has good bang for buck value <- I hate that term.

[Rebo&Zooty]

http://www.tbreak.com/articles/37/1/...940/Page1.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3492

another 2 reviews to add to the first page

According to tomshardware the PII 920 @2.8GHz is around 10% faster than the Q6600, but the Q6600 stock is only @2.4GHz though, clock for clock its closer to the a Kentfield than the slightly faster Yorkfield core.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by insider

According to tomshardware the PII 920 @2.8GHz is around 10% faster than the Q6600, but the Q6600 stock is only @2.4GHz though, clock for clock its close to the a Kentfield than the slightly faster Yorkfield core.

According to tomshardware far cry 2 has better graphics than crysis even though that is an opinion anyway the point is I don't trust tomshardware with the time never mind whatever else they say.

True but there is a few clock for clock performance graphs floating around over at XS a few days now with the PII/Kentfield/Yorkfield/i7 cores all @3.7GHz that shows a pretty similar picture.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by insider

True but there is a few clock for clock performance graphs floating around over at XS a few days now with the PII/Kentfield/Yorkfield/i7 cores all @3.7GHz that shows a pretty similar picture.

Maybe they copied it

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

Not a bad chip at all -- eagerly awaiting fanboys comments as to how "it's not fastest as Intel's fastest."

Yeah, well my GTI isn't as fast as a Ferrari, but it's a damn good deal.

That being said, that cheapest Core i7 processor is a damn fine chip -- it's too bad the cost of their motherboards and DDR3 make it so prohibitive to buy.

Sometimes our views clash mdm-adph. This time you're spot on!

Originally Posted by DrPepper

According to tomshardware far cry 2 has better graphics than crysis even though that is an opinion anyway the point is I don't trust tomshardware with the time never mind whatever else they say.

Whats wrong with toms? I like reading their reviews.......not as much as TPU mind you. Damn it Wizz do a PII review already!

[DrPepper]

Tomshardware used to be really good, then after a while the reviews began to slip. It started with spelling mistakes then ended up using tests that were rediculous like comparing a dual core and quad core with the only similarity being the power consumption. Both test setups were different in almost everyway.

[Rebo&Zooty]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

Tomshardware used to be really good, then after a while the reviews began to slip. It started with spelling mistakes then ended up using tests that were rediculous like comparing a dual core and quad core with the only similarity being the power consumption. Both test setups were different in almost everyway.

you need to know the history of toms, the changes for the bad happened when tom sold the site, it went to hell, for a while it was like Hard, so bias you could just about taist it, its gotten better then it was for a while but i still trust NOTHING they show/say.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by Rebo&Zooty

you need to know the history of toms, the changes for the bad happened when tom sold the site, it went to hell, for a while it was like Hard, so bias you could just about taist it, its gotten better then it was for a while but i still trust NOTHING they show/say.

I figured something happened that changed everything, I mean I used to love toms then I grew tired of its bias and incosistency.

At >£200 for the PII its a total dud, drop it to around £150 and it'll compete against the Q6600 which can be found for as cheap as £120, the overclocking potential of the PII is higher.

I think the Q6600 is still Intel's top quadcore seller, if AMD had priced the PII sub £160 it would wipe the floor in terms of best bang for buck, which the Q6600 still holds.

The Q9xxx series is still way overpriced, the Q6600 averages around 3.4GHz overclock on air compared with 3.8GHz~ on a Q9xxx, difference in performance is too small even with a Yorkfield @4GHz to justify the huge price difference.

[DrPepper]

If you check overclockers.co.uk you would see the q6600 is actualy selling in excess of £160.

[Paulieg]

Originally Posted by insider

At >£200 for the PII its a total dud, drop it to around £150 and it'll compete against the Q6600 which can be found for as cheap as £120, the overclocking potential of the PII is higher.

I think the Q6600 is still Intel's top quadcore seller, if AMD had priced the PII sub £160 it would wipe the floor in terms of best bang for buck, which the Q6600 still holds.

The Q9xxx series is still way overpriced, the Q6600 averages around 3.4GHz overclock on air compared with 3.8GHz~ on a Q9xxx.

I think if you read all of the reiviews listed, you'll see that the PII is more competitive with the Q9400 and up. The Q6600 argument would hold up to a point with very early batches that would overclock to 3.6 easily. Later batches at times stuggled to get to 3.2ghz stable.

Overclockers has always been a ripoff, I bought my Q6600 under 2 months ago from a ebay business seller (retail sealed) for £110 delivered, there were some places selling them on offer for £125.

The recent price hike (on all pc components) is due to the pound dropping against the dollar but that trends seems to be reversing in the last 2 days.

Originally Posted by Paulieg

I think if you read all of the reiviews listed, you'll see that the PII is more competitive with the Q9400 and up. The Q6600 argument would hold up to a point with very early batches that would overclock to 3.6 easily. Later batches at times stuggled to get to 3.2ghz stable.

I have the later batch (pack date 11/12/08), it does 3GHz with stock cooler undervolted and 3.4GHz with Ultima 90i (72C load with IBT, 60C with Prime95), 3.6GHz definitely requires water with my chip, at this speed clocking it higher gains very little, compare it to a 3.8GHZ Yorkfield the difference is extremely small, at HALF the price of a Q9xxx.

For the price there is nothing to touch it, if AMD dropped the PII prices closer to £150 it would wipe the floor against Intel's offering price/performance wise.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by insider

Overclockers has always been a ripoff, I bought my Q6600 under 2 months ago from a ebay business seller (retail sealed) for £110 delivered, there were some places selling them on offer for £125.

The recent price hike (on all pc components) is due to the pound dropping against the dollar but that trends seems to be reversing in the last 2 days.

I got mine about 4 months ago from overclockers at the low low price of £120 what my point is the price is going up since they stopped making them making a new gap in the market for cheap quads.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Sometimes our views clash mdm-adph. This time you're spot on!

mdm-adph, flanked on both sides by cheering forum members on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, upon learning that he and TheMailMan78 are have now achieved an armistice due to the release of the Phenom II microprocessor.

(all in good fun )

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

mdm-adph, flanked on both sides by cheering forum members on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, upon learning that he and TheMailMan78 are have now achieved an armistice due to the release of the Phenom II microprocessor.

(all in good fun )

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[Steevo]

So did anyone actually look at the gaming reviews........ Or does everyone here just zip stuff up and jerkoff as it is decompressed?


And as one reviewer mentioned, $700 for a intel board, chip and memory. $500 for a AMD. That will make the difference between a medicore GPU, and a high end GPU. So great gaming for AMD, or decent gaming for Intel.


Or with the new integrated offerings from ATI you can have a great workstation system for quite a bit less.


Anyway for the jerkoff crew http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node...61&ref=prid-20 here is some handlotion to use while you are doing the deed.

[btarunr]

Fair enough, but if gaming performance is all that you're looking at, for the same $500, you also get Core 2 Duo E8600 + a decent P45 board and the same graphics card to end up with the same level of performance.

[Steevo]

Gta4

[kid41212003]

Check the gaming benchmarks from Techreport, they included a HyperThreading off benchmark for Core i7, which boost performance in gaming up to 10%, because the faulty threads management of Windows Vista.

Well, anyone can see that i'm an Intel guy... but, I just want to point that out...

[TheGuruStud]

Looks like FPS are better on AMD when running even at a meager 1600x1200....

640, 800 and 1024 are not real world lol. That used to give a good representation, but now the benchies show AMD pulling ahead a higher rezs.