Actual deneb review/comparison to Intel

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
huh???
whats wrong with the price? most newly released CPU's are a tad high but considering what they parallel to and the inexpensive pieces to get one going i do not think they are asking too much. i anticipated a little higher so i am pretty stoked.
 

😱 😱 And I thought it was just me 😱 😱
I agree, seems like Im back at school or something...
 


No, now you're on the 2nd rinse cycle :)

Seriously, are you now claiming you never said P2 would be an easy 4+ GHz on air??
 
When ot comes to any HW, YMMV, and itd be stupid to say such a thing, tho I did say 3.6, tho Im sure someone somewhere wont even get that. I understand you either cant accept what Anand says, or, you cant accept what Ive been saying all along, and I have to be coming from some kind of angle, but, lets be realistic here. Saying 4Ghz for everyone? No. And if thats the impression you got, tho others didnt, Im sorry for you misunderstanding what Ive been saying, but it doesnt change what Anand and I have been saying all along, and going against it is pointless, as I said to jed, as these chips are out, and its too late either way, and the proof of the pudding will be in the taste.
 


I thought they'd move to a second generation HKMG Deneb, but they might have ditched that in favor of bringing Bulldozer out at 32nm with HKMG. If they did refresh Deneb, then they'd get some higher clocks out of it.




How many years behind AMD was Intel with Netburst? Intel flogged that dead horse and made incremental improvements, Northwood, Ceder Mill, Pressler. They kept their market share via OEM's and business desktops.

AMD won't win over many enthusiasts here, but they can improve their market share with OEM's and by pushing stellar chipsets like the upcoming 880G with ATI cards as total platforms. They'll find a niche and survive. Being fabless, they can possibly bring out Bulldozer early if they beat their target. I suspect they're being conservative with the 2011 estimates.




Prescott did not compete with Athlon X2 clock for clock and it survived until Core 2 brought Intel back in the game. All AMD has to do is compete on price, platform, OEM and customer loyalty, which is not engendered by fanboyism but by seeing improvements showing AMD's back on track.
 
Here's the spin your guilty of spewing
1) Phenom II's compete with Q9550 your wrong,
they compete at the lower end.
2) they would overclock to 4.0 - 4.2Ghz on air,
they don't.
3) last but not least, phenoms are equal clock
for clock, wrong again.

phenom will need the extra clock speed to beat
the core 2's, without it a wash for AMD.
 
I said possibly as high as early on, but as more data became available, it was 2-3% better than Kentsfield. And in gaming, it does sometimes win against the 9550, not as often as it loses, but thats not the point, nor my intentions, if it wins sometimes, its competing. As for the ocing, like I said, take this up with Anand, as hes saying it too. So, that sums up your accusations, and if you have a quote after I said 2-3%, then youre right, I was lying, as Id seen enough to know how itd perform at that point, and adding more to its capabilities would be lying, and not spinning, but again, if you dont like what I was saying, or Anand is saying, thats fine, as Im sure we will soon see people with the chips here, and how they do
 


And here's some counterarguments:

Non-CPU Bound Gaming - high quality, but no AA

"Here Be Dragons" - AMD Phenom II - HQ, unknown AA, look at the 1280 x 1024 chart as I dunno anybody who games at 1024 x 768, but in case you do, look at the Aquamark 3 score with 4xAA on the previous page.

Far Cry 2 – Direct3D - 1600 x 1200, HQ, 4AA

I'd post some more but it's time for the BCS championship and a couple brewskis :)
 
i want to see some 1900x1200 numbers. that's where i run and from a link jdj posted before (cant remember which thread) they seem to really hold their own as resolution increases.
 
I said possibly as high as early on, but as more data became available, it was 2-3% better than Kentsfield. And in gaming, it does sometimes win against the 9550, not as often as it loses, but thats not the point, nor my intentions, if it wins sometimes, its competing. As for the ocing, like I said, take this up with Anand, as hes saying it too. So, that sums up your accusations, and if you have a quote after I said 2-3%, then youre right, I was lying, as Id seen enough to know how itd perform at that point, and adding more to its capabilities would be lying, and not spinning, but again, if you dont like what I was saying, or Anand is saying, thats fine, as Im sure we will soon see people with the chips here, and how they do
Click to expand...


from what your saying is if it win a couple of benchmarks it'
competing, then if that true the Q6600 also won a couple of
the benchmarks over the phenom IIs, so it looks like the
Q6600 is not dead yet by your standards.
 


I am definitely getting an Acer 21.5" LCD to replace my aging 17" CRT.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009157

Then I'll get the PII 920. I think even the 3870x2 will be good for 1920 x 1080. How does that compare to 1900 x 1200 gaming? Anyone know how the image compares?

Though I game, this will also be a Blu-ray watching PC once I get a $99 LC.

Yes, the 1920 x 1200 benchies are more interesting to me. I just wish AMD had enough engineers to release their next ATI refresh at the same time. I want a 4870 1 gig, but won't get one just in case the June graphics cards outclass it at half the price. That happened to me last year. LOL

 


That hardocp test is of debateable value lol. WTF has tri-sli got to do with the segment the p2 is in? Its like 1 bizarre gaming test where the original phenom got 54fps at 2560x1600. Does that really proove anything or is useful to anyone? no really i asked myself the same thing this morning along the lines of "wtf was that all about". Their gpu reviews are sweet but their cpu tests are like a trip back to 2005 or something.

Ooohh just 2 measly tests for the gaming section on hardwarezone.com! they could do better than that!

Fair enough on the farcry 2 result. Although 60fps for the 940 is not to be sniffed at, and 65fps for the top scoring socket 775 cpu is not exactly leaps and bounds away.
 
Yes, but one thing I'll agree with Intel fanboys on is that we're comparing 45nm Phenom II to aging EOL Intel 65nm and to lower cached 45nm Intel CPU's. When compared to Intel's high midrange, Phenom II is not a compelling new build where price is no issue.

It's compelling as an upgrade for guys like me and for budget builds. I don't think that will change until HKMG. Phenom II's also compelling for OEM PC's at big box stores.

I'm realistic. I only compare Phenom II to Intel CPU's it's priced to compete against, and I'm happy with the performance jump over Phenom. As long as AMD makes CPU improvements, I'm in their camp. After all, I also buy AMD because of chipsets and graphics cards.
 


It is a bit dope for him to keep plugging the 65nm quad when it wont oc as far as the p2, where they'd both perform equally well at their respective max oc's (water or air), but with the p2 sucking down a fair bit less juice. Stop this orange juice versus apple juice madness.



We all know milk wins everytime
 
Then lets be realistic here. Since P2 is but a die shrink, i7 is not. Since P1 came out around the time of the C2Qs, and has had a shrink, them , it should be compared to Yorkfield, where Intel has an advantage, and P2 has a small advantage to Kentsfield in real world apps and gaming.
 


agreed it is only a die shrink and a bit more stuff added. The draws of it now are that power consumption has gone from horrible to pretty good, its faster too and it will oc well. Also compatible with am2+ and soon to be am3 compatible aswell, all with the same cpu. Give it a month or two to let retail samples and not engineering ones to emerge into the wild and the bioses to improve and your at 3.8-4.0ghz on air for an oc.

Blah blah blah competes with the intel 3+3mb L2 cache quads, holds its own very well against E8x00 duals in gaming. End of story. Consumers win, fanboys lose, and i might still be in with a chance now of slapping a q9650 in my crusty old rig this summer without having to slap down 350 uk pounds for the privelege.

Peace
 
Yeah some guys got alot further than others regards overclocking. Its gonna take a while for it to settle down. Think hardwarecanucks.com said they'd be revisiting this issue. Im tempted to go for a am3 rig of some kind, simply cos intel quads with a decent multiplier and 12mb cache for my fsb limited mobo are so hideously expensive. ho hum
 
and there is the upside! all of a sudden we get to think about what we want to buy instead of knowing definitively one is going to be better than the other.
 
Time for some VoR?

As much as some (you know who you are) would like to disagree, PhII is NOT faster clock for clock. It isn't, get over it. This isn't a bad thing per se, as all you need to do is clock faster then the competition. If their chips are coming out at 2.8 and 3.0GHz, then AMD is almost doing that. Looking at newegg right now, Q9xxx clock in at 2.33 to 3.2GHz. Most are clocked at 2-33-2.8GHz, only the 9650 and the extreme editions are 3.0 or higher. As soon as 45nm gets any bugs worked out and things get better, expect 3.2 and 3.4GHz chips.

Second, looking at the benchies, I notice what many have already said. For the most part, this puts AMD in line with what you could get from Intel already. PhII ~ Q9xxx. How true this is depends on the test you run, and the Q9xxx you pick. For the most part, this is mostly true.

Third, the prices for these are much to high. If the Q6600 is $190, and can come overall within 10% of the performance of the PhII, why should I pay $275? $275 - 10% = ~$250, Intel offers a better bang for buck. However seeing as the Q6600 is EOL and isn't being made anymore, you should compare it to the new Q9xxx. The Q8300 is $230, while the better Q9400 is $270. Unless Intel is going to keep the Q6600 around longer, AMD won't even have to drop the prices that much.

Fourth, whether its because of the CPU or the chipset, total system power is lower with these chips. A "ultra low" 4x multiplier is nice as well. If AMD ever gets their overclocking software working well, you could overclock nicely while gaming, then turn everything down low while watching something on the TV. Intel I don't think has even started work on this.

Last, AMD made a lot of improvements overall compared to the PhI. This isn't enough to get most to move off of their S775 platform (I won't.) but for users looking for better performance from their AM2/AM2+ computers, this is great. They can finally get Q9xxx performance, and they don't have to start over from scratch.

My question now is, how long can AMD compete with this? i7 won't make it into most users computers. If Intel expects main stream to work with i5, how much slower will i5 be compared to i7? Will PhII come close to i5? Let the waiting begin. (due to fanbois running all over this thread, don't be surprised if I don't reply. If you'd like my opinion on something, PM me.)

VoR out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom