q9x50 clock for clock vs Deneb WHO wins?

[3volvedcombat]

This is a thread wondering what is faster clock for clock when it comes to encoding and video gaming. I seem to be confused on the fact of what is faster clock for clock.

I did think a q9x50 12mb cached yourkfield is faster clock for clock then a Phenom II deneb core. Am i right, is it true, i know there not that close, because i swear reading reviews of a q9550 beating or within 5-0% of a Phenom II 940 deneb core which is almost 200Mhz faster clocked?

So which is faster

Also which is smoother at gaming, in your opinion do you belive the 12mb cache yorkfields clock for clock are smoother then Phenom II deneb cores in video gaming in general ?

 

[erocker]

Too bad you didn't have a 5850 or we could find out. We could go off of purely synthetic CPU benchmarks?

 

[newtekie1]

Anandtech's 940 vs. 9650 both @ 3.0GHz
Deneb: 4 Q9650: 27

Tomshardware's 945 vs. QX9650 both @ 3.0GHz
Deneb: 2 QX9650: 24

 

[3volvedcombat]

Too bad you didn't have a 5850 or we could find out. We could go off of purely synthetic CPU benchmarks?

I might get a HD 5850 in exchange for some 260's in the future, we would never know >.>

 

[3volvedcombat]

Anandtech's 940 vs. 9650 both @ 3.0GHz
Deneb: 4 Q9650: 26

Tomshardware's 945 vs. QX9650 both @3.0GHz
Deneb: 2 QX9650: 24

And with you try, finding a q9550 review against a Phenom II 940 my freind. Im just wanting to see'z

 

[newtekie1]

Anandtech 940@3.0GHz vs. 9550@2.83GHz
Deneb: 7 Q9650: 24

Tomshardware's 945@3.0GHz vs. 9550@2.83GHz
Deneb: 4 Q9550: 22

Though not exactly a clock for clock comparision considering the 940/945 are clocked higher than the 9550.

 

[Fourstaff]

Are Phenom II architecture that bad?

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Are Phenom II architecture that bad?

I wouldn't call it bad, just Intel's architecture is better. While the Phenoms due fall behind the i7's and some of the higher end Core2Quads, it is by no means slow. And while I hope they come up with some competition for the highest end of processors, the currently available ones are priced accordingly well.

 

[fatguy1992]

Its a shame AMD is so far behind Intel these days, I really don't see anything reason to buy an AMD system.

 

[Melvis]

Its a shame AMD is so far behind Intel these days, I really don't see anything reason to buy an AMD system.

Huh? where does it even show in those reviews that AMD are so far behind?

Yes AMD is behind the Core i7 that's a no brainer but behind skt 775? they was behind for a while till the Phenom II came out and have been very competitive against that skt ever since, in Dual core and Quad core, and for a unreal Price that it makes it hard (for us in AUS) to consider going Skt 775 at times.

 

[3volvedcombat]

Huh? where does it even show in those reviews that AMD are so far behind?

Yes AMD is behind the Core i7 that's a no brainer but behind skt 775? they was behind for a while till the Phenom II came out and have been very competitive against that skt ever since, in Dual core and Quad core, and for a unreal Price that it makes it hard (for us in AUS) to consider going Skt 775 at times.

Thats true, but phenom II architectures cant compete with the 12mb l2 cache yorkfields in clock vs clock, and even in stock performance. Thats the facts, and you can get a yorkfield Q9x50 for 180-140 dollars if you know were your buying from(in USA)(I know its hard everywere is aust.). And for people competing with actual platforms, gigabyte has already released a USB 3.0 p45 lga 775 *ep45-ud3p* motherboard called the GIGABYTE GA-EP45T-USB3P. And thats good enough for me because i will never be maxing out sata 2.0 capabilitys.

I think intel's i3's/i5's/i7's are taking the lime light right now, but the underneath seen with the q9450/q9550/q9650 and some new secret motherboards are showing that they are made to outperform AMD platforms, with ddr3/usb 3.0/ and 140-210 dollar processors, which is bassicly the same as a Phenom II 955 for 160-180 dollars, usb 3.0, ddr3 to isnt it? Just a thought

****NOTE*****My new upgrade could be, a GIGABYTE GA-EP45T-USB3P and 2gb of DDR3 Gskill Trident, for 230 out the door, and that comes with with USB 3.0 and newest support and a future platform, and the help of a RAID Card i could be rolling all over ports for SATA 3.0 drives for the future to, + watercooling the q9550 to 4.3Ghz 24/7 if the motherboard can do it will make my system a beast for the future !

 

[newtekie1]

Its a shame AMD is so far behind Intel these days, I really don't see anything reason to buy an AMD system.

There are plenty of reasons and situations where I would go with an AMD rig over an Intel right now. Yes, AMD has nothing to compete with the high end of Intel, but that area is overpriced anyway, which is why I don't have an i7 system right now.

Besided that, there are some rather good deals from AMD right now. The lower end dual-core market is one of the areas where AMD shines. Intel has the Celeron E3000 series, but it is outshined by the Athlon II X2 series.

Intel doesn't have a $100 quad, but the 620 fits the bill perfectly, and really outclasses anything Intel has in the price point if you are doing things that benefit from 4 cores. And really the 620 is fast enough to play any game on the market today maxed out.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I am by no means a "Team Red" guy or a fanboy, but my money has and will continue to go to the best bang for my buck. When I bought my system I have now, a i7 920 was $270 for just the processor, while the AMD 955 was $199. Same goes for every part in my computer.

In the real world, you will not notice 90% of the speed differences in synthetic benchmarks. And lets face it, there are only 2 companies really for personal desktop computer CPU's, so someone has to be in second. If things went a little different in the past and AMD was king of the mountain, this would be the same discussion bad mouthing Intel. And it would be just as pointless.

To answer your question. Gigabyte has the exact same motherboard with a 780GX and 785G for AMD that came out at the same time. The mobo is no matter in your choice cause you can get the same features for AMD as well with the same DDR3 RAM.

I am not saying go Team Red, buy what you want. I honestly don't see or can't tell a difference in games between my 955 and my friends i5 750. And as far as clock for clock who is better, as always, it depends on the task.

 

[brandonwh64]

even the 965BE is lacking against the 9550 in some benches

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=50&c=1

 

[fatguy1992]

Huh? where does it even show in those reviews that AMD are so far behind?

Yes AMD is behind the Core i7 that's a no brainer but behind skt 775? they was behind for a while till the Phenom II came out and have been very competitive against that skt ever since, in Dual core and Quad core, and for a unreal Price that it makes it hard (for us in AUS) to consider going Skt 775 at times.

I wasn't talking about 775. I considering them to be far behind as the 1366 socket (i7) was released late 08 (?), it is now ealry 2010 and they haven't got anything out there yet too even try to compete against it. In my books that is really far behind. Intel has even released the lower then 1156 socket that still beats AMD's CPUs (and is cheaper then 1366).

 

[fatguy1992]

There are plenty of reasons and situations where I would go with an AMD rig over an Intel right now. Yes, AMD has nothing to compete with the high end of Intel, but that area is overpriced anyway, which is why I don't have an i7 system right now.

Besided that, there are some rather good deals from AMD right now. The lower end dual-core market is one of the areas where AMD shines. Intel has the Celeron E3000 series, but it is outshined by the Athlon II X2 series.

Intel doesn't have a $100 quad, but the 620 fits the bill perfectly, and really outclasses anything Intel has in the price point if you are doing things that benefit from 4 cores. And really the 620 is fast enough to play any game on the market today maxed out.

I don't think a basic 1366 PC is overpriced, yes the high end model are way to expensive. By basic I mean, the 920 + a board like a ASUS P6T (or something mid range) and 6GB of decent DDR3 isn't that expensive, epically considering how fast it is.

 

[SystemViper]

I don't think a basic 1366 PC is overpriced, yes the high end model are way to expensive. By basic I mean, the 920 + a board like a ASUS P6T (or something mid range) and 6GB of decent DDR3 isn't that expensive, epically considering how fast it is.

I agree with that, grab a chip for 2 bills some ram for 125 and a mobo for 200 and you got one of the fastest systems out there. Now that is just great. I Love Intel

But i have been playing around with AMD with a X2 550 and a X4 955 and i have to say i am quite impressed.

I think that we are blessed to live in a time where technology has greatly outpaced our need for raw horsepower. It like bringing a Ferrari to the US, there is no place where you can even come close to using one tenth the power in everyday use. I think the same goes for CPU's.

As long as you can push a modest OC, which i think the threshold is around 3.6GHZ then there isn't much you cannot punish, Intel or AMD,. Especially if you pair it with and nice GPU.

Going with a HD 4870 or GTX 260 or better it gets real hard for the average user to know the diff.

Now most of us are NOT the average users, so we have slightly different opinions but we are the 5% of users that expect and demand raw power and once you start talking about CPU or GPU intensive programming like encoding, rendering, crunching or larger monitors and higher resolutions the layout changes and becomes more about the which CPU and GPU you have.

But my E6850 @ 3.6 is still kicking butt driving one of my main systems.

 

[fatguy1992]

I agree with the CPU speed part, for when i'm just on the Internet, emails typing even my old E7400 fast enough. Even in gaming my Q6600 @ 3.4GHz can keep up.

 

[SystemViper]

yea, that is one amazing chip

the q6600 with a
•Release Date: January 7 ,2007

is still a player in the CPU market, man that was a great chip!

 

[fatguy1992]

Yeah, I love mine, favorite CPU ever owned, never going to sell it.

 

[newtekie1]

I don't think a basic 1366 PC is overpriced, yes the high end model are way to expensive. By basic I mean, the 920 + a board like a ASUS P6T (or something mid range) and 6GB of decent DDR3 isn't that expensive, epically considering how fast it is.

I think a basic 1366 PC is overpriced.
i7 920 = $290
x58 Board = $160
3GB(3x1GB) DDR3 = $90
Total = $540

vs

955BE = $160
785G Board = $90
4GB(2x2GB) DDR3 = $85
Total = $335

Will the i7 system be faster? Absolutely. Will the difference be noticeable in real world use? No, not really. Is the difference worth the price premium? No, not IMO.

And, I picked literally the cheapest 1366 board on newegg, from ASRock, and I went with a mid-range AM3 board, from ASUS.

 

[a_ump]

Yeah, I love mine, favorite CPU ever owned, never going to sell it.

holla! lol same here man, i love my q6600, def best purchase i've done technology wise.

newteckie is hitting the nail on the head imo.

 

[fatguy1992]

I think a basic 1366 PC is overpriced.
i7 920 = $290
x58 Board = $160
3GB(3x1GB) DDR3 = $90
Total = $540

vs

955BE = $160
785G Board = $90
4GB(2x2GB) DDR3 = $85
Total = $335

Will the i7 system be faster? Absolutely. Will the difference be noticeable in real world use? No, not really. Is the difference worth the price premium? No, not IMO.

And, I picked literally the cheapest 1366 board on newegg, from ASRock, and I went with a mid-range AM3 board, from ASUS.

Sorry but you haven't shown me that it is overpriced, you can't expect the best for nothing.

What about this

i5 750 = $195
P55 = $100
4GB RAM = $85
Total = $380

Not much more expensive and faster and overclocks better then AMD.

 

[newtekie1]

Sorry but you haven't shown me that it is overpriced, you can't expect the best for nothing.

What about this

i5 750 = $195
P55 = $100
4GB RAM = $85
Total = $380

Not much more expensive and faster and overclocks better then AMD.

Yes, but then we aren't talking about 1366 anymore, if anything you've just helped prove my point. Considering the i7 750 is not all that far behind the i7 920 in performance. It would be next to impossible to tell the difference between the i5 750 and the i7 920 system in real wold use. I didn't say 1156 was overpriced, I said Intel's high end was overpriced, 1156 isn't high end, it is mid-range. And then you have Intel doing crap like the i7 870, $240 more than the 860 for what? 130MHz and one higher multiplier! That is ridiculous. And really the 920 is the only semi-reasonable processor for 1366(excluding server processors).

The fact is that I can make a sub-$500 quad-core gaming/encoding PC using AMD, I can't do that with an Intel processor.

 

[3volvedcombat]

Yes, but then we aren't talking about 1366 anymore, if anything you've just helped prove my point. Considering the i7 750 is not all that far behind the i7 920 in performance. It would be next to impossible to tell the difference between the i5 750 and the i7 920 system in real wold use. I didn't say 1156 was overpriced, I said Intel's high end was overpriced, 1156 isn't high end, it is mid-range. And then you have Intel doing crap like the i7 870, $240 more than the 860 for what? 130MHz and one higher multiplier! That is ridiculous. And really the 920 is the only semi-reasonable processor for 1366(excluding server processors).

The fact is that I can make a sub-$500 quad-core gaming/encoding PC using AMD, I can't do that with an Intel processor.

He has a piont, I would love to spend 350 on AMD quad 4.0Ghz 24/7. Ussualy the i7-i5 setups are only really going to be purchased when the user already has a socket 775 system, and all he needs to do is buy a motherboard, processor, and ddr3. Its extremely hard for some people to go ahead and build a system from start using a i7 and spending 500 bucks upfront, then another 300 in necessary spending to at least get the system leveled out to some bit.