Phenom II X2 555 Vs. Pentium G6950: New Budget Dual-Core Titans

[Onus]

For the sake of safety and processor longevity, I'd like to see a column in the data for [max] OC limited to stock voltage.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]ananymouse[/nom]Why is the i5 750 included in these comparisons?[/citation]

As it explains in the article, we wanted to see if overclocking these budget dual-core processors could get us to the performance of a more expensive platform.

The i5 750 data gives us that reference point.

[citation][nom]ananymouse[/nom]I think readers would also be interested in the amount of overclocking possible on the unlocked cpu, but I guess Tom's is not the place to see it.[/citation]

We took the unlocked 555 as far as we could where overclocking is concerned. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

[damien12g]

Where is this sold at? The newegg link in the article goes to the 550...not 555

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]obarthelemy[/nom]I see a bunch of overclocking articles... do you have any clue about how many of your readers overclock ? and how many of the public at large ?My guess from personal anecdote would be 10% and 0.01 % resp ?[/citation]
It's people like you who are responsible for the decline of the website. People here are mainly overclockers and with the rise of people like you we have to leave here.

 

[xtc28]

^^ WORD!!!!

 

[Onus]

Hmmm, a little harsh perhaps. I'd say most of the regular readership has some experience with overclocking, but likely only a small portion of them often go for extreme overclocks, particularly for regular use.

 

[Pei-chen]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Our goal for this article wasn't to find the best dual core at any price, our goal was to find the best $100 dual core CPU. I do mention that we'll be comparing all of the sub-$200 lineup soon, that will include a lot more models.[/citation]
I think a sub-$120 comparison is good enough. Above $120 and it is all quad cores and you guys has did a lot of comparison already.
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I disagree. I've admitted I was a bit naive when it comes to the new Clarkdales, but I've been oc'ing Phenom IIs since they came out and 1.5V is easy peasy as long as you make sure the temps are down.[/citation]
Electromigration will make it overclock less and less and your system more and more unstable.

 

[Pei-chen]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Our goal for this article wasn't to find the best dual core at any price, our goal was to find the best $100 dual core CPU. I do mention that we'll be comparing all of the sub-$200 lineup soon, that will include a lot more models.[/citation]
I think a sub-$120 comparison is good enough. Above $120 and it is all quad cores and you guys has did a lot of comparison already.
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I disagree. I've admitted I was a bit naive when it comes to the new Clarkdales, but I've been oc'ing Phenom IIs since they came out and 1.5V is easy peasy as long as you make sure the temps are down.[/citation]
Electromigration will make it overclock less and less and your system more and more unstable.

 

[bak0n]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]You missed the part about the intended intel motherboard costing only 5 bucks more than the used amd one I assume?Please read the article before you comment on it. As you enter teh mainstream system configurations you'll notice that amd motherboards are just as expensive as intels. Only the x58 platform and legacy stuff like skulltrail and the equivalent amd fx stuff are uncomparably expensive. But the mainstream stuff isn't. Pick a p55 or perhaps even older p45 board and pit it against some 790 system of equal quality and they cost similarily.[/citation]

I read the article. As usual the point was missed. I'm not referring to their test configuration or a mid range system. I'm referring to the cheapest possible build for the chips being compared. The AMD 785G can be had for $60.00. The intel p55 is $85 via newegg.com.

For the cheapest possible build. AMD will continue to be king for performance per dollar.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]I think a sub-$120 comparison is good enough. Above $120 and it is all quad cores and you guys has did a lot of comparison already. [/citation]

That's cool. A lot of us are curious about the new Intel and AMD CPUs, though, so I hope you don't mind too much that we're going to look into it anyway.

[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]Electromigration will make it overclock less and less and your system more and more unstable.[/citation]

Good to know, I'll be sure to mention that to the 550 that's been running at 3.9 GHz in one of my systems for the last six months. When it gets unstable I'll remember you told me so.

 

[Stardude82]

I agree with bak0n. Not a particular strong showing. Why should a 1156 socket motherboard without a Northbridge be more expensive than any AMx board? How much more can a P55 or H55 be than a ICH10 alone cost to make? And that on die memory controller is a real stinker.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]For the cheapest possible build. AMD will continue to be king for performance per dollar.[/citation]

No arguments, if the goal was to build the cheapest rig possible AMD would be the undesputed king.

However, this article isn't about the cheapest possible build, it's about a budget overclocking build. Those are two very different things.

 

[mayne92]

Very nice article. An enjoyable read...

 

[jfem]

hope my mobo supports 555..

 

[jfem]

i hope my mobo supports 555.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]Electromigration will make it overclock less and less and your system more and more unstable.[/citation]
Electromigration is affected by voltage and temps. If you keep temps down, voltage can be pushed pretty high. There comes a point where the voltage is too extreme at any temp of course but what was used here is certainly not that extreme at all. Maybe 1.7V or more...

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]
Electromigration will make it overclock less and less and your system more and more unstable.[/citation]

I don't know if you're only talking about the amd chips, but I'd like to disagree with you. I've had a northwood running overclocked for years that still ran when I upgraded. Also my best friend bought a 2.1ghz core2duo back in november 2006. It's been running 430x8 (3.4ghz) since then. It's still prime stable, and so far the only things which've needed replacing was the 8800gtx (xfx seems to have models where memory fails after a while, we've had 2 of them) and the xms ddr2-1066 sticks.
My e6600's been running 380x9 since may 2007 as well, and is still running and I set my parents i7-920 at 3ghz when I gave it to them, and it's still running as well (on stock cooler even).
In short I've almost never seen a processor actually become unstable after extended overclocking. I did have a tbird 1100 that failed after 6 months of running 1420 - but that was because the voltmod on the board failed. Sh1t happends. Bought premodded from the ocz store back in 2001 btw.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]I read the article. As usual the point was missed. I'm not referring to their test configuration or a mid range system. I'm referring to the cheapest possible build for the chips being compared. The AMD 785G can be had for $60.00. The intel p55 is $85 via newegg.com. For the cheapest possible build. AMD will continue to be king for performance per dollar.[/citation]

As cleeve said earlier, readers here aren't expected to pick the cheapest of the cheapest. Those who do that won't care for performance stats anyway cause the cheapest of the cheap doesn't leave any options to pick from. If you want cheapest stuff buy a prebuilt computer that's being discounted from a dealer. You'll probably get it at a price you can't match unless you pirate the windows license.

 

[bubbatomshardware]

[citation][nom]AMW1011[/nom]http://processorfinder.intel.com/d [...] Spec=SLBMSGoing .5v over the max spec. voltage is about the limit without extreme cooling, and even then it is dangerous. You went .75v over, not a good idea.[/citation]

You might want to check your math. They went .075v over the 1.40v maximum that has been stated in these comments as the maximum allowed by Intel.

 

[computerfarmer]

Good article. Will we see if this CPU will unlock and become a Quad Core?

 

[xtc28]

Why is the i5 750 included in these comparisons?

The only reason I could see for having it would have been if you had managed to unlock the two disabled cores in the 555, and that would obviously have brought its multi-threaded performance, especially x264 encoding, MUCH closer to the i5 750.

I think readers would also be interested in the amount of overclocking possible on the unlocked cpu, but I guess Tom's is not the place to see it.

Actually give it a bit and see what THG users are are doing with their chips. Then you will see!!!!!!! I think its kind of a pain in the arse to hear stuff like that. Toms cannot test every configuration that every reader wants! Lets all keep this in mind before we start pointing the finger and calling names or bashing Toms!

Thanks,
Jeremy

P.S. If you would have paid attention to the article or even read the comments you would have realized that the 750 was included to show how close the performance was the tested processors! Its gives you a better idea of the performance gap in the lines of processors.

 

[Onus]

Actually give it a bit and see what THG users are are doing with their chips...Toms cannot test every configuration that every reader wants! Lets all keep this in mind before we start pointing the finger and calling names or bashing Toms!
.
.
.

Nicely realized. To those who have questions about a particular chip, start a forum thread asking for user experiences with it.

 

[Schip]

Good ol' Cleeve. Dutifully responding to so many idiots who didn't read the article! You're a better man than I. Cheers!

 

[xtc28]

Word!

 

[fencer55]

I'm glad you told us about the processocide! Sometimes we tend to forget that overclocking does have it's risks. Thanks.