Overclocking: Core i7 Vs. Phenom II

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would you not agree though that the industry hit a wall with how much performance they could get with a single core cpu? yes even architecturally they could not advance enough with a single core cpu?

To my knowledge the reason we have multi core cpu's today is because they hit a wall with performance based on frequency alone. there was only so much performance one could gain from just raising the mhz alone with a single core and changing the architecture. From what I remember reading about during the p3/p4 days is that frequencies did matter, because they couldn't get more performance by just raising that alone.

Now you brought up examples of certain lower mhz cpu's beating higher mhz cpu's due to the mainboard capabilities and quality which is understandable. But you put Those two cpu's in the same mainboard and you see a difference in performance in that small segment. Now I know this is a very small segment but it is the specific topic I was assuming we were talking about here.

So what this leads me to believe you're saying is that dual core and quad core cpu's were created just for marketing purposes?

I'm not sure what your point is because you're not being very specific on what you're trying to prove me wrong with here. Your thoughts seem very scattered to me. Lets keep this discussion a little bit more specific please.

With regards
 
I said:

"To my knowledge the reason we have multi core cpu's today is because they hit a wall with performance based on frequency alone."

what I really meant to say was that the reason we have multi core cpu's today is because they hit a wall with performance based on how much higher the frequency could be raised, restrictions with the silicone.

 
That does appear to be at least partly true, yes, though advances
in design also meant it was possible to get the same performance
at much lower clock speeds anyway (check the performance numbers
for Itanium2, you'll see what I mean; it can easily outperform
other CPUs at much higher clocks). The timing of these two
factors overlapped.

Btw, has anyone yet tried using a Phenom2 in an older AM2 mbd?
There's still no data available for this. If AMD thinks the major
market is upgrades, why hasn't any site done decent comparisons?

Ian.

PS. It's "silicon", not "silicone". 😉

 
I think it just depends on the manufacturer. Most older am2 boards do I believe with a bios update, but there are some that do not. I think it would take way to long to write a review looking over every mother board and manufacturer to see who meets the standards. Probably the best thing to do is look at the manufacturer sites or contacting them to see if it's compatible.
 
Yup. Lots of talk about the ability to use Phenom2 in older
boards, but nobody has done a comparison of how it suffers, if
at all in any signifant way, from being in an AM2 board vs. an
AM2+ or AM3 board with other aspects the same. I have a decent
6000+ and an 8800GT (a not untypical 'level' of configuration I
expect). Right now there's no info to show whether a Phenom2
upgrade is worthwhile, and/or in combination with upgrading the
gfx to a 4870, GTX280 or other newer card.

Mind you, atm there isn't even a BIOS update available for my
mbd to support Phenom2. If mbd vendors don't offer BIOS updates,
then AMD's idea of upgrades being the key demand source will
be wrong, and people will just do a new build anyway, but since
there's no top-end Phenom2 AM3 atm then if I was doing a new
build right now I'd just an i7 920 instead.

Ian.

 
Check out the "Socket AM3: AMD's Phenom II Gets DDR3" article. The Phenom II x4 940 stomps the i7 920 on the benchmarks and gives a clearer picture of real value to performance. No need for the extra cash on DDR3 or X58 when your already ahead with 790fx/750sb and ddr2 1066.
 
The i7 easily wins on the Productivity and Video benchmarks, and
most of the Synthetics aswell. Check the Anandtech article (more
tests), it's AMD which is clearly stomped.

Toms' gaming numbers look wierd to me. Anandtech used a GTX280
aswell, yet found the i7 to be faster, though as I've said before
re gaming, it makes more sense to get a Phenom2 and use the cost
difference to buy a better gfx solution (the real bottleneck).
Thus, for _gaming_, Phenom2 is a better choice, but NOT because
it's a faster CPU.

I would also like to see tom's numbers once the CPUs are oc'd
as I reckon those who buy an i7 are more likely to oc the CPU
than those who purchase Phenom2s. Remember some games seem to
be bound more by simple clock rate than anything else.

Check the Anandtech article; as with this toms piece, the extra
cost of an i7 920 is clearly worthwhile for the vast majority of
tasks. Not everyone spends all their time blasting aliens. My
main task is video encoding, for which the Phenom2 is miles
behind the i7.

Your statement is blatantly wrong. The Phenom2 doesn't 'stomp'
the i7 at all. Seems to me like too many people only look at the
gaming results and then post generic comments as if gaming was
the only task that matters.

Ian.

 
Ian - Fair critizm. The "stomp" was refering to the gaming bench marks which I should have clarified. And again the marks on the PIIx4 940 AM2+ not the PIIx3 or x4 AM3.

I have read the Anandtech article, which uses 4x1g ddr3 - a clear handicap of this configuration.

I guess my specific point would be in the Phenom x3 article you can see the different systems (inadvertantly) compaired in their respective optimum configuration - AMD PIIx4 940 with 2x2g ddr2 1066 & 790gx/fx-750sb can hang with or beat i7 920 x58 w/ 3x2g ddr3 in real world performance. To me that translates into a better across the board cost/performance ratio. Especially for the many AMD folks who already had a 790x am2/am2+ MB and ram.

Thanks for keeping me in check.
 
This review really doesn't do the Phenom justice. I easily OC'd mine to 3.8 on air at 49 C. The problem with this OC is they did not do it correctly. Set the bus to 247, muliplier to 15.5 lower the NB muliplier to 8X, core voltage at 1.456 and ram at 2.1. Why the heck would you boost voltage to 1.65? With these setting you can easily run 3dmark06 without a problem. Maybe Tom got a bad chip? Imagine what I could do on water?
 
I see Apple has released its new Mac Pro using the XEON version of
the i7. I'm a bit surprised though, their gfx options seem rather
old, and they don't list any 'pro' series options at all (ie.
Quadro FX or FireGL). Has Apple abandoned the pro market? All
equivalent older XEON systems from Dell, HP, IBM and SGI can come
with pro gfx boards, plus other relevant features; I'm sure their
i7 replacements will do likewise. Can't imagine what Apple is
playing at... what's the point of an i7 XEON if it can't come
with an FX5600 if required? The max RAM is kinda low too, only
32GB, vs. 128GB in the old HP/Dell, or 256GB in the SGI VS230.

Has anyone here yet put together an i7 system using a pro-type
board? Chris, any word on what mbds there might be? 4-way? 8-way?

Ian.

 
I don't think its a fair benchmark since you're comparing a 3,6Ghz chip with 3,8Ghz.

I think you should run them in same speed and then compare them.

Leave the max speed for the max OC comparison only.
 
I don't think its a fair benchmark since you're comparing a 3,6Ghz chip with 3,8Ghz.

I think you should run them in same speed and then compare them.

Leave the max speed for the max OC comparison only.
 
\r\nIt\'s perfectly fair. Why hinder what the i7 is capable of? That\r\ngives an unrealistic picture of what one is buying in terms of\r\npotential.\r\n\r\nWhat would be more sensible is, say, to use an equal budget on\r\noverclocking each CPU (ie. HSF combination), or at least to\r\nprovide each CPU with the best possible HSF option and then\r\nhighlight any cost differences.\r\n\r\nBut it\'s daft to deliberately restrict one CPU\'s oc potential -\r\nthat\'s just hiding any weakness in the rival product.\r\n\r\nIan.\r\n\r\n
 
85 celcius is way too hot for my liking, also its worth noting that with ddr2 1200 at 5-5-5-15 timings with a slightly better cooler would have yeilded even better results for the phenom, i feel using ddr1200 is more than fair for slight cost compared to the boiling i920 w/ddr3 1600
any thoughts?

im thinking about getting an x3 be 720 phenom 2 with ddr2 1200 and wondering if that will be just as fast at 3.8ghz as an i920 at 3.8ghz
 
85 celcius is way too hot for my liking, also its worth noting that with ddr2 1200 at 5-5-5-15 timings with a slightly better cooler would have yeilded even better results for the phenom, i feel using ddr1200 is more than fair for slight cost compared to the boiling i920 w/ddr3 1600
any thoughts?

im thinking about getting an x3 be 720 phenom 2 with ddr2 1200 and wondering if that will be just as fast at 3.8ghz as an i920 at 3.8ghz
 
The P2 lost this round, so stop whining. Everyone saying "but i get 4ghz from my P2" also needs to take into account most of us with i7's also get 4ghz with out problems. I use a Asus p6t (not the deluxe $140 less then the rampage II) and a Scythe mugen-2 cooler ($40 cheaper then the True, a total of $180 less then the what is used for this test, I think that lowers the price for performance factor) and I can get a stable 4.1ghz with temps that never go over 67c. When the AM3 boards get tested then there might be a change, but I don't think so. The AM3 still will only have dual channel ddr3 and the i7 has triple. For price vs performance the AM3 P2 combo will also loose it's advantage, as the prices will be a lot closer, so spending say $50 more for i7 system will not be that big of a deal. AMD will need a new processor to beat the i7 not just a better motherboard. at one point AMD took the processor lead from Intel, now Intel took it back (hooray). Now I want AMD to take it back so that Intel will be forced to make a better process, then AMD will have to make a better processor and so on and so on. Competition is the key to consumers getting better hardware. Look at ATI Nvidia competition after the 8800 ultra came out both sides just did as little as possible to get back their share of the market. ATI did the HD3870x2 Nvidia did the GTX 260 then we had HD4870 512MB, then GTX 260 core 216,HD4870 1GB, (just enough to make their cards bench a little better) after all this bull now we have cards like the HD4870X2 and the GTX 295. The P2 is in the same class as the C2Q not the i7, so don't whine that AMD lost and it isn't fair. Tell AMD to make a better processor, and then when AMD kicks Intel's axx I won't whine, I'll tell Intel (along with the other Intel fan) to make a better processor to kick AMD's axx.
 
Ram speeds are way too different. I wouldn't even call this a test at all more of a ploy to promote Intel. If both the systems ran on the same PC-1066 DDR2 specs I would call this a even match.
 
I have the i7 in a Gigabyte board and the rest is similar to the Tom's set up, but am running a 1000w Rosewill PS. Gotta say, I am now leaning more toward intel since this build. Am a former AMD fan for many years. I like the fact that Intel now has a good product that is capable of out performing AMD and has a really good price too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom