Actual deneb review/comparison to Intel

[blackpanther26]

we'll have to wait till next week maybe the following to see tom's and all the other sites to do a review of Phenom II.

 

[BadTrip]

more poo from jaydeepoopookitty

 

[werxen]

I have no idea how you guys already know what processor you are going to buy be it AMD or Intel unless you know the prices of the Phenom 2 already. If you do, please post. If you don't then quiet down fanboy.

 

[MarkG]

At least in my opinion, since lots of people use integrated graphics, AMD has Intel beat hard on those, therefore AMD boards are better.

How many people are going to buy a quad-core Phenom... and then use integrated motherboard graphics?

Sure, there are people who want that kind of CPU performance and don't care about graphics; for servers, video encoding or 3D rendering, for example. But the majority of people looking for a fast quad-core CPU in a desktop machine will be buying it to run games, not for email and web-browsing.

 

[gallag]

jaydeejohn is a AMD fanboy, Or at the very least, I am sure he will agree,slanted towards AMD. But he is also well mannered and replied to any post with at least a bit of logic, I actually quite enjoy his posts as they give a different perspective and if you look at his post history he has replied to all of my posts politely. A lot of other pro AMD or Intel people could learn a lot. You don't have to agree to hold a good conversation, Evolution has seen to that.

On topic, I think we can all agree that this review makes phenom 2 look very average. Competing slightly worse than q6600 clock for clock is not an achievement to be proud off, Even the most hardcore of AMD fans will admit they hoped for more.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

How many people are going to buy a quad-core Phenom... and then use integrated motherboard graphics?

Sure, there are people who want that kind of CPU performance and don't care about graphics; for servers, video encoding or 3D rendering, for example. But the majority of people looking for a fast quad-core CPU in a desktop machine will be buying it to run games, not for email and web-browsing.

The answer to you question is: People who buy OEM computers.

Dell currently sells desktops that have Q6600's paired with Intel IGP's, as does HP. HP also sells Phenom systems with Nvidia IGP's (not sure why they don't use ATI IGP's especially since they are better than the Nvidia ones) . Acer sells desktops with Q6600's paired with Nvidia IGP's.

You are correct in that the majority of people who build a system with a quad core processor will pair it with a discrete GPU, but the number of people doing this is likely dwarfed by that of the unwashed masses buying quad-core systems from the OEM's with only an IGP for graphics.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

jaydeejohn is a AMD fanboy, Or at the very least, I am sure he will agree,slanted towards AMD. But he is also well mannered and replied to any post with at least a bit of logic, I actually quite enjoy his posts as they give a different perspective and if you look at his post history he has replied to all of my posts politely. A lot of other pro AMD or Intel people could learn a lot. You don't have to agree to hold a good conversation, Evolution has seen to that.

On topic, I think we can all agree that this review makes phenom 2 look very average. Competing slightly worse than q6600 clock for clock is not an achievement to be proud off, Even the most hardcore of AMD fans will admit they hoped for more.

I wouldn't go so far as to cal Jaydeejohn a fanboy as he has had a number of pro-Intel posts to his credit is many of the Nehalem threads and I have never seen him go out of his way to bash Intel. I definitely agree that he is one of the more polite members here and sets an example in that respect that I wish more of the posters would follow.

I don't put much stock in this review at all as it is mainly synthetic benchmarks, many of which don't mean diddly in terms of real-world performance. I was impressed that the Phenom II processors beat the Yorkfield chips in both x264 and winrar, two programs that the average person may actually use. The gaming benchmarks look a little fishy to me. In the FC2 benchmark the Phenom II has a significant diasadvantage compared to Yorkfield at low resolution but the handicap completely disappears at high resolution, which is strange considering that the same video card is being used. The same could be said about the WIC benchmark. In the CW benchmark the Phenom II takes a disadvantage at low resolution and actually somehow becomes faster than Yorkfield at high res. Again, very strange considering that the same graphics card is being used for all processors.

Does anybody actually believe that the Q6600 should be faster than the Q9450 in FC2 as is suggested by this review?

 

[spathotan]

No a chance in hell the Q6600 will beat a Q9450 in ANYTHING. I overlooked that on the first time around, had to go back and check since you mentioned that....odd.

 

[MarkG]

The answer to you question is: People who buy OEM computers.

If they care that little about what they buy, they won't notice the difference between an AMD IGP and an Intel IGP, and their choice of CPU will be based on what's cheapest, not what's best; even if the buyers would pay more for a better CPU, the OEMs will stick in the cheapest that they can sell into that part of the market.

Claiming that Chip A is better than Chip B because clueless people will buy them in OEM systems is bizarre; on that basis Phenom would be better than Core 2. as I'm sure many clueless people bought a quad-core Phenom over a faster dual-core Intel chip.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

No a chance in hell the Q6600 will beat a Q9450 in ANYTHING. I overlooked that on the first time around, had to go back and check since you mentioned that....odd.

My point exactly. The only possible explanation I can think of for these results is that maybe they used FRAPS for the gaming benchmarks instead of a real demo.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

If they care that little about what they buy, they won't notice the difference between an AMD IGP and an Intel IGP, and their choice of CPU will be based on what's cheapest, not what's best; even if the buyers would pay more for a better CPU, the OEMs will stick in the cheapest that they can sell into that part of the market.

Claiming that Chip A is better than Chip B because clueless people will buy them in OEM systems is bizarre; on that basis Phenom would be better than Core 2. as I'm sure many clueless people bought a quad-core Phenom over a faster dual-core Intel chip.

I'm not claiming that one chip is better than another, just stating that many people do in fact pair quad core processors with IGP's despite your claims to the contrary.

 

[BadTrip]

I wouldn't go so far as to cal Jaydeejohn a fanboy as he has had a number of pro-Intel posts to his credit is many of the Nehalem threads and I have never seen him go out of his way to bash Intel. I definitely agree that he is one of the more polite members here and sets an example in that respect that I wish more of the posters would follow.

I don't put much stock in this review at all as it is mainly synthetic benchmarks, many of which don't mean diddly in terms of real-world performance. I was impressed that the Phenom II processors beat the Yorkfield chips in both x264 and winrar, two programs that the average person may actually use. The gaming benchmarks look a little fishy to me. In the FC2 benchmark the Phenom II has a significant diasadvantage compared to Yorkfield at low resolution but the handicap completely disappears at high resolution, which is strange considering that the same video card is being used. The same could be said about the WIC benchmark. In the CW benchmark the Phenom II takes a disadvantage at low resolution and actually somehow becomes faster than Yorkfield at high res. Again, very strange considering that the same graphics card is being used for all processors.

Does anybody actually believe that the Q6600 should be faster than the Q9450 in FC2 as is suggested by this review?

What are you smoking? Show me one pro intel post from the poo poo kitty.

Edit: Not that I agree with these benchmarks.

 

[rangers]

What are you smoking? Show me one pro intel post from the poo poo kitty.

Edit: Not that I agree with these benchmarks.

I think some one is telling lie's, you obviously cant be 31(poo poo kitty) go get a life

 

[enigma067]

Take a look at the clock speed of the Q6600 400 to 600mhz decrease
compared to both phemon II's, and stays very close in benchmarks.

I feel if you run the Q6600 at the same clock speed as the phemon II's
it will equal or best both phenom chips, thats disappointing,
the phenom II are not better than the Q6600.


jdj

Look again, the Intel cpus were clocked higher, to their credit, but its not the same clocks

jdj

I know what youre saying, do you understand what Im saying? They arent at the same clocks, so we dont know what percentage Intel is faster than Phenom, and cant really make a true comparison. Its shows the only ocing on the link Ive provided, that page, and again, like I said, they werent at the same speeds.

But nothing said about decrease in clock speed for the intel chip, under this light the phenom II's is a little better but still not beating the 2yr old Q6600.

The Q6600 is comprised of two dual cores placed side-by-side making it a Multi Chip Module. Each of the two cores has 2 - 64 bit FPUs. The Phenom is a Native Quad Core CPU with four 128-bit FPUs and does not suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like the Q6600 does. Intel used the same old FSB. AMD engineered a better solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

That's one of the reasons why the Q6600 loses in that video comparison. And you're saying if the Q6600 was clocked higher it would equal the Phenom II? Dream on! Phenom II is second gen Phenom unlike the one seen in the video. It has greater performance then the one in the video.

You assume too much.

 

[spathotan]

................

Im just waiting for the mad hatter to show up any time now.

 

[rangers]

The Q6600 is comprised of two dual cores placed side-by-side making it a Multi Chip Module. Each of the two cores has 2 - 64 bit FPUs. The Phenom is a Native Quad Core CPU with four 128-bit FPUs and does not suffer from a bandwidth bottleneck like the Q6600 does. Intel used the same old FSB. AMD engineered a better solution.

i think intel's first attempt at a Native Quad Core is way better than AMDs first

 

[EXT64]

Yeah, I really wish they'd officially release the things already. All of this vicious arguing over incomplete/fake benchmarks is getting old. On the plus side though, they should start selling soon (tomorrow if you trust the online retailers) and all of this will be answered. Either way I'm too far in now (have everything but the CPU) so the only choice I have to make is 940 or 920.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

What are you smoking? Show me one pro intel post from the poo poo kitty.

Here's a pro-Intel thread JDJ started last month: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/254861-28-28ghz-super-super

Not everyone agrees with Jaydee's opinions but I personally respect the way he conducts himself by being generally respectful in his posts even when he is being viciously flamed by people with dissenting opinions. You on the other hand are quick to stoop to childish name calling and frequently seek to start flame wars which is why I don't and likely never will have any semblance of respect for you or your opinions.

 

[blackpanther26]

i think intel's first attempt at a Native Quad Core is way better than AMDs first

that is becuase Intel stole AMD's Archutecture. 😛

well if you look closly it dose look a lot more like a Phenom chip than an Intel but with the edition of HyperThreading and 8MB Shared L3 rather than 6MB.

 

[smithereen]

Phenom II got murdered in 1280X1024; the Core i7 got murdered in 1680X1050... Could that be HT issues, or is it getting FSB bottleneck? A lead over Core i7 in 1680X1050 couldn't all be Hypertransport, could it?

 

[rangers]

that is becuase Intel stole AMD's Archutecture. 😛

well if you look closly it dose look a lot more like a Phenom chip than an Intel but with the edition of HyperThreading and 8MB Shared L3 rather than 6MB.

they may have copied it, but i dont know about stealing, but that still does not make up for the fact, that it was AMDs architecture (as you point out) and yet intel's first attempt was better than AMDs, you've got to wonder why intel can make a better attempt at AMDs architecture than AMD

 

[jed]

enigma067

That's one of the reasons why the Q6600 loses in that video comparison. And you're saying if the Q6600 was clocked higher it would equal the Phenom II? Dream on! Phenom II is second gen Phenom unlike the one seen in the video. It has greater performance then the one in the video.

You assume too much.

Let me get this rite i assume too much, here you are praising a chip you
can't get and no one else have, now you can beleive everything AMD tells
you, but you need to know they played this game already & i mean the
same game. So i think you are the one who assume too much.

Now your native core nonsense mean nothing , it's ben proven already
theres nothing you can buy from AMD today that can beat the Q6600.

 

[Dekasav]

Just something to add, someone said no one will notice the difference between Intel's IGP and AMD's (or Nvidia's, they're roughly equal). I find that very wrong. AMD's HD 3200 IGP used in their 780G and 790GX chipsets can run blu-ray with the worst of processors, and are fully DX10 compliant. The HD 3200 can even manage light gaming on older games on medium settings, which isn't including their sideport memory option (which takes away any bandwidth bottlenecking that might be occuring). People will notice the difference the moment they load up Sims 2 and play it on low or high(er).

 

[jed]

HERE'S SOMETHING TO LOOK AThttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-overclocking,2111.html

Now real people are touching these chips, read this article before you
beleive the hype.

 

[jed]

MODERATOR EDIT

Please dont cut and paste material form sites with out proper formating, it violates copyrights......essentially plagarism....even from THG

From THG Two Interesting Overclocking Results

We have a little surprise for the overclocking lovers reading this report. In addition to the Core i7, our contestants were able to try out a Phenom II, from the next generation of 45 nm Phenoms expected in January.

4.95 GHz for the Phenom

Though AMD claims they’ve reached close to 6 GHz, we were able—with the help of JMax—to reach “only” 4.957 GHz. We should point out, though, that the factory speed of the processor in question, a Phenom II X4 940 BE, is only 3 GHz. We used the processor on a Gigabyte AMD 790GX motherboard, with DDR2 RAM (as required by the AM2+), and a liquid-nitrogen cooling system. This processor may have the potential for higher clock rates, but it had the unfortunate tendency to freeze as soon as the temperature dropped below -70°C.

To see what the processor was able to do, we ran a few tests at a stable frequency (4 GHz). The processor was able to perform a SuperPi 1M in 17.769 sec. During other tests using samples, the processor was able to boot up even when chilled to close to -200°C!

(Ed.: In preparation for benchmarking Phenom II, I asked AMD about the overclocking results garnered for our Phenom II sample under the influence of LN2. The answer was that the HyperTransport link was limiting scalability. If you're going to take the chip to extreme frequencies, you'll want to drop down to 1 GHz or so on the HT interconnect rather than its default HT3 speeds. On air, however, HyperTransport shouldn't be a limiting factor.)

5.28 GHz For Core i7
With a limited amount of time left—the contest was over and the other competitors were packing their gear—and with a limited quantity of nitrogen, we asked the French team to overclock the Core i7 for maximum frequency. They managed to log 5.287 GHz with the Core i7 965 test sample, and even went as high at 5.3 GHz (though not stably). The cooling system used liquid nitrogen and the motherboard was an MSI Eclipse, obviously using the X58 I/O hub. The memory was DDR3 supplied by Kingston, and no problems were encountered with it. In fact, with a frequency of 5.287 MHz, our processor placed in the Top 10 worldwide, copping ninth place (according to Ripping.org). It’s a result our overclockers can be proud of.