AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E8600

[Nashsafc]

Also what processor do you have. You could say that the Core 2 Duo is better than he phenom II because the cores work faster, are more efficient compared to the cores that work in the phenom II. But the phenom II is faster overall because it has more cores. Your point is proved comparing the phenom II x2 to the Core 2 Duo at the same frequency, the core 2 duo is slightly better.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Nashsafc, see what transpires, or wait til theres actually reviews out with decent drivers that make use of MT in games, as well as W7 being used, and its avalable MT threading abilities concerning gaming.
If youre running xp, you wont see as much, and the dual will still show much promise. But each game coming out, more and more use MT, 3 cores, as thats basically what consoles use, and those benefits are usually passed on to PC.
So, going fowards, having a quad is future proofing yourself, even in gaming

 

[Nashsafc]

sorry what does MT stand for

 

[Nashsafc]

i know and that's why i switched to customising a quad core for my future pc. Oh yeah MT- multi threading ?!?! Its not just for gaming it's also because i see the quad core processors are much better for installing programs quicker or running most applications quicker. I sometimes like to open up loads of windows and applications to install them and get them over and done with and for me i would like a processor which can handle all that stress.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Yes MT is multi threading, sorry used to using abbrev. for things. Its geek speak if you will

 

[Nashsafc]

Could you say that actually with a Core 2 Duo processor, using the e8600 for example it would be better than the phenom II 965 because as someone told me they overclock much higher. Playing games that are optimised for two cores or one core would definately benefit from a e8600 overclocked way higher over a 965? Or maybe, i also hear that sometimes when processors are overclocked very high, to a certain frequency and increasing they start to perform less in games.

 

[OvrClkr]

someguy, I don't come here for points, badges or status.... I came here 2 months ago to help and learn... To my bad luck I came in right when there was a change to the points system and to this date I have had my share of arguments here on Tom's due to this recent change.... I really can care less if you agree or not with me, when I post something, my statement is in "General" meaning for example if i say get the Quad (AMD) and ditch the C2D(Intel), I am trying to make sure the user gets the most bang for buck, compatible and futueproof CPU he can get... I am not saying that the C2D cannot fulfill his needs.....But IMO the Quad would be a wiser choice....

Then I go on to talk about my experience comparing DDR2 and DDR3 using AMD CPU's.... and you go off in your frenzy like Mr. know-it-all...... That's what I want you to understand....

 

[Nashsafc]

OvrClkr is right lol.

 

[Nashsafc]

and i do agree that the i7 shines on ddr3. As facts show it.

 

[someguy7]

someguy, I don't come here for points, badges or status.... I came here 2 months ago to help and learn... To my bad luck I came in right when there was a change to the points system and to this date I have had my share of arguments here on Tom's due to this recent change.... I really can care less if you agree or not with me, when I post something, my statement is in "General" meaning for example if i say get the Quad (AMD) and ditch the C2D(Intel), I am trying to make sure the user gets the most bang for buck, compatible and futueproof CPU he can get... I am not saying that the C2D cannot fulfill his needs.....But IMO the Quad would be a wiser choice....

Then I go on to talk about my experience comparing DDR2 and DDR3 using AMD CPU's.... and you go off in your frenzy like Mr. know-it-all...... That's what I want you to understand....

I agree with everything stated there. My ONLY beef was when you tossed that DDR3 SHINES on the i7 platform compared to on the AMD. What I was saying is that any shining that the i7 platform does is not because of the DDR3. If we could run DDR2 with the i7 platform you would see the same marginal improvements we get on the AMD platform.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Theres always exceptions. Yes, single threaded games, which are old games will perform better, but I remind you, those older games will also run 100 frames per second, so having a higher clocked dual may get you 110? All you need 60
Also, dont only look at the highest fps (fr. per second) but look at the lowest, where youll se quads shine over duals as well, as low or minimum fps is when youll notice your cpu chugging the game

 

[someguy7]

i know and that's why i switched to customising a quad core for my future pc. Oh yeah MT- multi threading ?!?! Its not just for gaming it's also because i see the quad core processors are much better for installing programs quicker or running most applications quicker. I sometimes like to open up loads of windows and applications to install them and get them over and done with and for me i would like a processor which can handle all that stress.

For alot of that stuff you will not limited by the processor but limited by the HDD. Opening up applications and installing applications is really cpu intensive.

 

[Cryslayer80]

Also what processor do you have. You could say that the Core 2 Duo is better than he phenom II because the cores work faster, are more efficient compared to the cores that work in the phenom II. But the phenom II is faster overall because it has more cores. Your point is proved comparing the phenom II x2 to the Core 2 Duo at the same frequency, the core 2 duo is slightly better.

Core2 superior architecture to PII???

 

[Nashsafc]

The top end Core 2 duos. I'm just trying to calm someguy7 down or make him feel i'm not against anybody lol.

 

[Raidur]

^^Better clock for clock core for core and on average they OC higher, I'd call that superior. Hard (can't) to call C2D superior than PII X4 though.

As far as E8600 vs 965BE. Quad core is the way of the future and is more rapidly being the way of the present. 965BE>E8600 (unless of course its a dual core game, due to the 8600 getting to 3.8-4ghz without even raising voltages)

 

[Cryslayer80]

Well, none of the Core2 are superior to PII's. It is plain simple. PII is between Core2 and I7 in architecture, and is nipping at the heels of I7 in performance. Look at it this way: Core2 has no IMC and no L3 cache, and only the later models support DDR3. PII has IMC, L3, and dual channel DDR3 memory. I7 has two more goodies: hyperthreading and triple channel controller. So, no, you are wrong, none (NONE) of the Core2's, even extreme editions can't touch PII in everyday use. Of course, the same can be said for PII vs I7 Extreme.

 

[cjl]

Core2 superior architecture to PII??? http://rix0r.nl/imagemacros/lmao-real.jpg

The 65nm Core 2s (Conroe core) were about the same speed, clock for clock, as a Phenom II. The 45nm Core 2s (Penryn) are faster, clock for clock, which is why in the majority of benchmarks, a 3.0GHz Q9650 keeps up with or beats a 3.4GHz Phenom II 965. The margin is small enough for AMD to remain competitive, but the Penryns definitely have an advantage in clock for clock efficiency over the phenom IIs.

Oh, and will you cut the claims that PhII can keep up with i7? It can't. Not even the 920. I've already shown that to you, and yet you keep repeating the claim. Honestly, the Q9650 is closer to the Phenom II 965 than the Phenom is to the i7 920. Don't worry about the lack of L3 - the Q9650 has 12MB of L2, which gives it more L2 than the Phenom IIs L3, and it's a faster cache as well.

 

[someguy7]

and i do agree that the i7 shines on ddr3. As facts show it.

The i7 shines because it is a good cpu. Yes it runs on ONLY ddr3.

"DDR3 really shines on the i7 platform, not so much with AMD......"

The DDR3 does not shine. You cant compare to a i7 with ddr2 like you can with AMD.



Lets say we have two cars. Car A and B Car A you can choose between two different transmissions. Manual or auto or whatever you want to two types you want to say. Car B only comes with one transmission. It only comes in auto. There is no manual transmission available.

Car B is a faster car. It has a better engine in it. You can not take the engine out of car B and toss it into car A Now would it make sense to say the auto tranny shines in Car B where it doesnt in car A.

Or that the auto tranny shines in car B. No. The engine shines. In this case Car B engine is i7 car A engine is PII.

 

[Nashsafc]

yeah i understand what you mean.

 

[Nashsafc]

Well, none of the Core2 are superior to PII's. It is plain simple. PII is between Core2 and I7 in architecture, and is nipping at the heels of I7 in performance. Look at it this way: Core2 has no IMC and no L3 cache, and only the later models support DDR3. PII has IMC, L3, and dual channel DDR3 memory. I7 has two more goodies: hyperthreading and triple channel controller. So, no, you are wrong, none (NONE) of the Core2's, even extreme editions can't touch PII in everyday use. Of course, the same can be said for PII vs I7 Extreme.

The Core 2 extreme qx9770 does touch the Phenom 965 and is actually better in a number of applications i rekon. The core 2 extreme qx9770 beats the core i7 even in Crysis. That's probably why it has it on the box of Crysis lol. Because the PII 965 is just slightly better in performance to the q9650. The qx9770 has an added 200 mhz and so it would be better than the PII 965 i rekon because the Core 2s have a better performance to frequency.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Theres around a 5-14% difference in IPC in favor of the i7 compared to the P2.
Add in SMT where it can be used, and that number is higher

 

[someguy7]

Well, none of the Core2 are superior to PII's. It is plain simple. PII is between Core2 and I7 in architecture, and is nipping at the heels of I7 in performance. Look at it this way: Core2 has no IMC and no L3 cache, and only the later models support DDR3. PII has IMC, L3, and dual channel DDR3 memory. I7 has two more goodies: hyperthreading and triple channel controller. So, no, you are wrong, none (NONE) of the Core2's, even extreme editions can't touch PII in everyday use. Of course, the same can be said for PII vs I7 Extreme.

What it has is irrelvant. Phenom 1 has IMC L3 cache and the good ol true quad core desing. It could not beat a doublecheeseburger with no IMC no l3 cache


Only later model Core2's support DDR3 eh? Interesting considering that the ram that can be used ALL core based cpus is based on the chipset not the cpu. You could run a P4 on DDR3 ram if you want.

In "everday" use you wouldnt be able to tell the different between a core2 dual/quad/ a x2 5000 and a PII x4 965 a i7 EE and a phenom 1.

And none of the core2s can touch a PII.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=49&p2=102 Seems like a core2 is touching one there. So they are about neck and neck with AMD having a 400mhz clock advantage.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=47&p2=102 PII @ 3.4 vs i7 2.66.

Another post that is a epic fail/facepalm

 

[Cryslayer80]

The 65nm Core 2s (Conroe core) were about the same speed, clock for clock, as a Phenom II. The 45nm Core 2s (Penryn) are faster, clock for clock, which is why in the majority of benchmarks, a 3.0GHz Q9650 keeps up with or beats a 3.4GHz Phenom II 965. The margin is small enough for AMD to remain competitive, but the Penryns definitely have an advantage in clock for clock efficiency over the phenom IIs.

Oh, and will you cut the claims that PhII can keep up with i7? It can't. Not even the 920. I've already shown that to you, and yet you keep repeating the claim. Honestly, the Q9650 is closer to the Phenom II 965 than the Phenom is to the i7 920. Don't worry about the lack of L3 - the Q9650 has 12MB of L2, which gives it more L2 than the Phenom IIs L3, and it's a faster cache as well.

Oh my freaking god... You are unchangeable... I can say no more. And I thought you were reasonable. You are actually comparing a 65nm Core2 that has both inferior architecture and manufacturing process to PII? You are hell of a helly hell fanboy.

Ok, your philosophy: I7>High end Core2>Low end Core2> PII? Get informed. http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920.html

Only look at that benchmark, because I am tired of posting proof to an irrational person such as you. You can get more proof of lagging on Core2/I7 on sites like Anand (which is even Intel biased). And do you remember the benchmarks you postd me? The PII and 920 were tying in most situations, PII won clearly in gaming and I7 won clearly in rendering. So how do you compare a puny 9650 and Q6700 to PII now?

 

[Cryslayer80]

What it has is irrelvant. Phenom 1 has IMC L3 cache and the good on true quad core desing. It could not beat a doublecheeseburger with no IMC no l3 cache and it got owned.


Only later model Core2's support DDR3 eh? Interesting considering that the ram that can be used ALL core based cpus is based on the chipset not the cpu. You could run a P4 on DDR3 ram if you want.

In "everday" use you wouldnt be able to tell the different between a core2 dual/quad/ a x2 5000 and a PII x4 965 a i7 EE and a phenom 1.

And none of the core2s can touch a PII.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=49&p2=102 Seems like a core2 is touching one there. So they are about neck and neck with AMD having a 400mhz clock advantage.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=47&p2=102 PII @ 3.4 vs i7 2.66.

Another post that is a epic fail/facepalm

Wait, you say Core2 can't touch PII, and insult me along the way, and I said the same. Did I say Phenom is better than Core2? NO. I said it is superior in architecture, just as PII and I7 are equal and I7 has a superior architecture nevertheless. Architectural superiority doesn't always mean more performance.

 

[someguy7]

Wait, you say Core2 can't touch PII, and insult me along the way, and I said the same. Did I say Phenom is better than Core2? NO. I said it is superior in architecture, just as PII and I7 are equal and I7 has a superior architecture nevertheless. Architectural superiority doesn't always mean more performance.

No. I said none of the core2 can touch a PII with a link to series of benchmarks comparing the two. It was a poke at you. Not me backing up what you said.