Overclocking: Core i7 Vs. Phenom II

Page 3 - 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.
Well, I take this with a grain of salt. It seems that price/performance will definetly go to AMD at this time. BUT, what I'm really interested in is seeing how the AM3 platform will change these numbers. Personally I'm waiting to upgrade my system until SSD prices come down enough and windows 7 is released (so roughly some time this summer - same time I get my yearly bonus - coincidence? i think not). By then the AM3 platform should be released and we can have some comaprisons on equal footing for both systems - that being DDR3 of course. And in addition, AMD should be getting the Phenom II FX CPUs ready by then as well, or if not ready, at least to the point that engeneering samples can be benched. AS far as I'm concerned, only at that point will it be fair to draw conclusions on the current products of Intel/AMD.

My completely random but hopefully educated guess is that Intel will win, but by a margin too small to justify (at least for me) the increase in price. Already the Phenom IIs are looking pretty good for the price. Here's to hoping AMD makes em even better in the coming months.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
 
[citation][nom]xaositect[/nom]What like the Thermalright Ultra 120 Exreme isn't Phenom 2 compatible? I don't buy your argument above.[/citation]

It requires a different back-plate than the i7. Once we have it, we'll see if there's any improvement in overclocking.
 
"We've seen how far Core i7 can overclock. Supposedly, Phenom II is supposed to do...phenomenally, as well. So which one is the better buy when the clocks get cranked? We're gunning to find out. More"

Gunning? Really? Please read before posting!
 
on my comment on being able to buy a liquid cooling unit with the price difference. how fast can the phenomII go on liquid cooling?
 
[citation][nom]konjiki7[/nom]Why can everyone else push the Phenom II to 3.7-3.9ghz @ 1.50+ V and not tom's?[/citation]

because they got sponsors... who pay them to do that dont they? ^_^
 
[citation][nom]the_timonator[/nom]on my comment on being able to buy a liquid cooling unit with the price difference. how fast can the phenomII go on liquid cooling?[/citation]

your might be able to hit 5GHZ which is an awsome high-speed but it will be doable. just keep getting upwards by small inceaments and you might hit the 5GHZ barrier and. http://www.techtree.com/India/News/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_Overclocked_to_over_5GHz/551-95650-585.html
at such a speed you obliberate the core I7 😛
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]It requires a different back-plate than the i7. Once we have it, we'll see if there's any improvement in overclocking.[/citation]

Why dont you test the new cooler master Z600 aswell? They seem to be monstrous! I have one on my Q6600 and paired with a scythe 2000rpm fan it's like a turbine! Absolutely love it. And it isn't even noisy. The Z600 also has backplate for nehalem, not too sure about phenom II.

Nice review.
 
The same cooler with both systems would be fine, but as they say it would not change the thing that i7 is faster (as it should be because of more modern production technology (less current leak).
All in all the Phenom II is just fine. The AM3 version will make it more ezpensive, because it would allso use ddr3 memory, but it should allow a little bit more speed and mainly reduce the reguired powerusage. ddr3 reguires less voltage than ddr2.
For power gaming i7. For living room Phenom II.
Best bang for the buck: at this moment maybe the Phenom II, but Intel is ready to reduce the prices. What leads to another problem. While Phenom I was not too good, the Intel was sucking money for customers... We still need strong AMD to keep thoses prices at an aceptable level...
 
I think a lot of people here assume that the Phenom II could have reached a higher OC. A way of assesing how the two chips stack up against each other, then, would have been to clock them both to the lowest OC achivable in your test results. That is give us a comparason of how the i7 would have done at 3.6 along side the Phenom II at 3.6. I don't think this would have been unfair to the i7, because you could always say at the begining that the i7 was more capable in terms of OC'ing.
 
[citation][nom]hairycat101[/nom]I think a lot of people here assume that the Phenom II could have reached a higher OC. A way of assesing how the two chips stack up against each other, then, would have been to clock them both to the lowest OC achivable in your test results. That is give us a comparason of how the i7 would have done at 3.6 along side the Phenom II at 3.6. I don't think this would have been unfair to the i7, because you could always say at the begining that the i7 was more capable in terms of OC'ing.[/citation]

I was thinking this the entire time I read the article. But then how many clock-for-clock articles are there out there? Its hard to do an article that isnt already covered elsewhere with this type of comparison. At any rate, the i7 pulls so far ahead in some of these tests that a measly 200-300mhz wouldnt make it even.
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]It requires a different back-plate than the i7. Once we have it, we'll see if there's any improvement in overclocking.[/citation]

The Thermalright Extreme 120's come with all you need to use it. The factory backplates work fine with the top bracket.
 
[citation][nom]spearhead[/nom]your might be able to hit 5GHZ which is an awsome high-speed but it will be doable. just keep getting upwards by small inceaments and you might hit the 5GHZ barrier and. http://www.techtree.com/India/News [...] 0-585.htmlat such a speed you obliberate the core I7[/citation]

Actually it would just be pulling even on Liquid Nitrogen based on some of those results.

Then toss the Liquid Nitro on the i7 and bye-bye again........


 
Interesting benchmarks. I just ran a WinRar test on my own system of 394MB folder on the Best compression settings. The test showed that 2007 quadcore chips are still good performers vs the new cpus. I guess I'll be waiting on the Q3 2009 to see if the next chips are better performers.
Q6600@3.6Ghz 1600 FSB Zalman 9700@1500RPM 60C full load
Gigabyte GA-P35DS3L v2
4GB 4-4-4-10 800Mhz 1:1 DDR2
Geforce GTX 260OC
750GB SATA II 7200RPM
Vista x64
Winrar 3.7
File size 394MB compressed to 209MB in 1:35
Background programs:
57 Processes using up 1.6Gb memory ~1-2% CPU time
 
[citation][nom]megabuster[/nom]Interesting benchmarks. I just ran a WinRar test on my own system of 394MB folder on the Best compression settings. The test showed that 2007 quadcore chips are still good performers vs the new cpus. I guess I'll be waiting on the Q3 2009 to see if the next chips are better performers.Q6600@3.6Ghz 1600 FSB Zalman 9700@1500RPM 60C full loadGigabyte GA-P35DS3L v24GB 4-4-4-10 800Mhz 1:1 DDR2Geforce GTX 260OC750GB SATA II 7200RPMVista x64Winrar 3.7File size 394MB compressed to 209MB in 1:35Background programs:57 Processes using up 1.6Gb memory ~1-2% CPU time[/citation]

what ram? those are some tight timings...
 
I think in the interest of fairness, Tom's should hire a resident AMD OC specialist, it creates the appearance of bias whenever they have perenially **** OC attempts on AMD cpus vs. every other hardware site on the planet. In contrast, their Intel OCs are always among the highest.

That cooler could quite possibly be inferior to the stock cooler(Tom's did a massive cooler roundup that determined this). Just because it didn't exceed ~60c-ish degrees does not mean that it wasn't limiting the OC, 60c isn't extreme, but it's definitely hotter than I'd care to run a machine. That's like saying dry ice and LN2 should have identical OC results because their both cold.
 
The Ph2 or the i7 Are my eyes going to notice a 10 fps difference ? is an additional 25 seconds worth the extra Cash. I am running a Ga m57 s4 BE 5000 oced to 2.8 and 1 4870 waiting to do a MB chip and memory update but all these test dont address what an average User who burns DVD's runs his Virus scans and plays game's (COD 4) and is over 40 on a 24 in LCD
and doesn't have deep pockets
 
Apparently you can get better results overclocking the Phenom 2 if you lover the HyperTransport multiplier. Also, the memory difference might account for a few of the speed discrepancies.
 
Phenom II on a AM3 motherboard, with DDR3 1600 or 2000 should be a bit near to i7,although surely at a higher cost.

And still the i7 should take more juice from SLI/Crossfire setups, so maybe it may make a (little) sense to spend on an expensive motherboard to save on Video, which is outdated much faster than the processor.

But the money saved on going AMD way may pay an important fraction of an SSD disk, which makes more acceptable to die and load many times on games like Crysis, where sometimes you avoid fun experiments to avoid being waiting for reload. I hate waiting.

It makes sense to wait the AM3 motherboards, if they arrive soon. Maybe Intel prices goes down if AMD does well in Crossfire.
 
This is getting old. First, you use LN2 at the wrong settings, settings which AMD themself said to use for LN2, and now, as anyone whos followed this cpu knows, when it comes to ocing it, its vital, an absolute must to keep it cool, and you use a stock HS. Garbage
 
Wow Tom's Hardware, this is 100% biased right here.
The Phenom II is a older socket with new technology versus the i7 which is totally brand new. The i7 gets a top of the line cooler while the P2 gets a **** small cooler?? AND the P2 is clocked lower. The P2 setup also has LESS RAM than the i7 and the i7 has MUCH FASTER RAM speeds vs the P2's RAM.

Wow I can't believe it this is total bull as I said before.
AT LEAST MAKE IT FAIR WHEN COMPARING A TOTALLY NEW SOCKET WITH MUCH FASTER AND BETTER PARTS TO OLDER TECH WITH CRAPPY PARTS.

8 GB of RAM and a better cooler therefore clocking it MUCH higher would of been more "fair".
 
Although the comparison is great, the price differences are quite misleading... Since I don´t see myself building a phenom II machine with AM2+ being old technology (if you are not an enthusiast then of course it does not matters) and if we wait for the AM3 I´m pretty sure the building cost would increase enough to topple Intel offering and by then I think there will be low cost X58 MOBOs
 
Makes me think this is more of a paid advertisement by intel rather than a review. Tom's wasn't like this before.

--------------------------------------------------------
Overclock.net is having a ball over this article. Lols http://www.overclock.net/hardware- [...] om-ii.html
 
I am in the camp that thinks Tom's Hardware wasn't fair to the Phenom II 940 with the stock cooler (I read the part about the back plate but still). I agree there is a lot of variance in overclocking and sometimes it is just the luck of the draw but clearly cooling is the single most important factor in overclocking (besides luck/skill/patience). From my experience and reading various review on heatsinks, there is a world of difference between the very best aftermarket versus stock coolers.

I would love to see both Intel and AMD setup with the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme. Given Tom's initial problem with overclocking the Core i7, I would love to see a lot more effort in overclocking the Phenom II.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom