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

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I'd have to disagree with you there. Just because it has an onboard GPU doesn't mean you have to use it. The CPU is comparably priced compared to the 555, and even the entire platform is comparably priced as there are some budget H55 and P55 motherboards out there. That price dictates it's in a viable price range for budget enthusiasts, and the H55, P55, and 785G motherboards can all be used with discrete graphics.I don't think that is correct. I would be surprised if the G6950 wouldn't beat the Core 2 based E6500, clock for clock for sure, and even at the E6500's stock clock advantage.[/citation]

You can buy a E6600 for less, and it should outperform the G6950 pretty easily, based on the smattering of benchmarks I've seen. It's on a more expensive platform, and the processor is more expensive. At 3.06 GHz, it should have no problem with the 2.8 GHz G6950 in performance either. Almost all the good of the i7 is lost on this brain damaged processor. But, it inherited some of the bad, like the slow L1 cache. I'd be curious which would win, but at stock speeds, I'm pretty sure the older Pentium would.

On top of this, you wouldn't suffer from the emasculated LGA1156 platform. You could go high or low with it, from a G31 to an x48. It's just a better choice. Unless you are going to use the graphics, which can save money, and is better than the IGP offered for the LGA 775 processors.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I don't think he was, it does seem like your first post implies the 555 and G6950 aren't appropriate to be compared. If that's not what you meant by your posts then I suggest you might want to clarify what you mean because I don't think your post communicates your thoughts very clearly.As far as this, you've got a point and I should have made it more consistent. Fixed![/citation]

I suggest you actually read what is written, and not assume something that's not even stated in passing. When did I mention once they weren't appropriate to be compared? I did mention the G6950 taken outside of it's video didn't make a lot of sense. How did you expand this? When did I say anything vis-a-vis AMD? Should I worry about what someone can imagine when I post, when I don't make a passing reference?

More than that, they were seperate posts! What do you think the point of making them seperate might be? Think hard on this one! Maybe they aren't related to each other? Maybe they should be taken by themselves? You're on the on the right track. In that second post, it was about nothing but the wrong caches/weird way of stating them. Again, please read what is written, not what you think the other person is thinking, but not writing, because you've preconceived what responses will be like.

Personally, I think a more valid comparison would be with IGPs, although I wasn't even thinking that. The G6950 taken outside of its IGP makes very little sense. That's what I was saying, and I'll maintain that position. It's got way too many problems to be anything but a low-end platform. When you look at performance on it, it's going to be poor compared to just about everything. But, it's still going to be good enough for 90% of the people out there.

Now, this will certainly have something to do with Intel's 486, I'm sure. And also, Nvidia's video solutions. It's amazing what people make up from nothing.

Also, more importantly, you messed up the L1 cache on the Athlons. They are 128K, not 64K. They are the same as on the Phenoms.

 

[jeffk464]

Its also nice that AMD has no graphics integrated onto the cpu for those that plan on using a graphics card. Don't know why intel didn't make a non igp with 32nm process. Think about a quad core core i7 32nm maxed out on whatever ghz intel could manage, would be very nice.

 

[saran008]

Great AMD! Great!
Pretty much good for my upcoming budget PC!

More the competition! more benefits to end-users

 

[Kreelor]

This article was extremely well-written! It flowed naturally from start to finish, and was very easy to understand.

I'm confused on one minor point.

The AMD processor used in the tests is referred to by 2 different names.

-- Phenom II X2 555
-- Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition

Are they the same? I'm confused about which one was used in the article (so that I can shop for it).

If it's the "Black Edition," the current price on NewEgg is $90.99 w/free shipping (as of today, Jan 27, 2010).

 

[Kreelor]

Please, forget what I typed (above)! I can't edit it nor delete it. I should be able to edit it, but there is no option for that on my screen.

The info I posted is wrong. I missed the part about the processor not being available for purchase yet! No wonder the links provided point to NewEgg and TigerDirect for the "550" --- not the "555". I'm having another bad day! Heh heh.

Very sorry.

Forum administrator - Please DELETE my entire post, if you can. If you do, then DELETE this post as well. Thanks.

 

[Intel_ARK_Dude]

Stats on the Pentium G6950 can be found at: http://bit.ly/PentiumG6950
(or the long version: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43230)

 

[Aleksa2009]

AMD to release Phenom 2 X4 975 3.6Ghz L2 Cache 2Mb, L3 Cache 6Mb, 140 TDP in Q1 2010.
AMD Phenom II Thurban X6 1075T 2.8Ghz L2 Cache 2Mb, L3 Cache 6Mb, 125 TDP by May 2010.
ATI 5830 GPU core 625Mhz, memory 800 Mhz DDR5, 1280 shaders, 256 bit BUS by 5 February 2010.
New stepping arriving from Opterons reducing TDP by 15w ;-D.

 

[Aleksa2009]

AMD to release Phenom 2 X4 975 3.6Ghz L2 Cache 2Mb, L3 Cache 6Mb, 140 TDP in Q1 2010.
AMD Phenom II Thurban X6 1075T 2.8Ghz L2 Cache 2Mb, L3 Cache 6Mb, 125 TDP by May 2010.
ATI 5830 GPU core 625Mhz, memory 800 Mhz DDR5, 1280 shaders, 256 bit BUS by 5 February 2010.
New stepping arriving from Opterons reducing TDP by 15w ;-D.

 

[Aleksa2009]

[No message]

 

[24 - 7]

nice, i can only some how fry motherboards only (some how all gigabyte too). lols on CPU fry u play with fire u get burnt. I gave up on over clocking after 1Ghz Tbird amd.

 

[Guest]

Another thing which often goes overlooked is that AMD motherboards tend to be come with more features than low cost Intel boards. Things like eSATA, firewire, etc. By rights the Intel boards should be cheaper - but Intel is obviously able to charge a premium for their chipsets.

I quite enjoyed the review, and surely anyone could more interpolate sustainable oc results for the G6950 from the 4.4GHz ones.

Like many others, I find it odd that no attempt was made to unlock the disabled cores on the 555, which would have transoformed some of the results. It's as if you were trying to ignore that 800lb gorilla yet again. Fortunately Anand has just done an unlocking and overclocking article on the 555.

 

[Reynod]

Well done Don for letting us know you killed the cpu and under what conditions.

Depending on how others go the overclocker community will benefit.

Thanks for the comprehensive benchies.

When you get a replacement please fill in the gaps for the Pentium at a lower stable frequency / voltage and post it as an update.

Interesting stuff.

Cheers.

 

[ananymouse]

There's something fishy about the TPMGEnc results for the G6950.

The DivX encoding improves from 5:43 to 2:52. That suggests the cpu is scaling at 127% - i.e. it is getting 127% of the encoding work done per clock at the higher clock speed. Not very likely! If it was scaling perfectly at 100%, the encoding time for the run at 4.41GHz would be 3:38.

For the Xvid results, the improvement is supposedly from 2:58 to 1:13. With 100% scaling, you would expect it to take 1:53 at 4.41GHz. The figures shown in the chart suggest an unbelievable 155% increase in work done per clock. I find that just not credible.

 

[zil]

If we mention the overclocking don't forget about the reallowable cores in a lot of AMD CPU-s. Just my example Phenom II X2 550BE+AsRock M3A785GXH/128M costs around 200Bucks max. I got it reactivated and overclocked to 3,6 Ghz on 1,35V (more likely a sane 24/7 using, than in the test showed). Just check it, i got an insane 230% native performance boost out of my cpu with HT2800 (not to mention i have used fsb far over 220Mhz, just not got stacked by a rubbish Asus desk). I woul'd barely think any of intel processors coul'd match this performance increasement.

The other thing about voltages and tuning potentials. I have had 8 of Core2 45nm processors, and of corse tested all for oc too. They were E7200, Q9300, E8200, 3*E8400. Only 2 of these managed to reach 3,6 Ghz by sane voltaging (1,35V) the best E8400 went on 4Ghz. They were extremely variable in clock performance and heat dissipation.
Phenom II based AMD processors are all limited around 3,8Ghz at 1,4V and disipating their heat (while consumpting more energy) much effectively. So i think it can be an indicator of manufacturing quality...
By the same reasons i wouldn't think a 32nm Intel Processor should be set over 1,3V if you are planning to held it in 24/7 usage. You may can get it benchmark stable but worth nothing, if you must thorw it away some months later. Just consider the semiconductors logarithmyc lifetime curve depending on heat and voltage stress.

 

[zil]

If we mention the overclocking don't forget about the reallowable cores in a lot of AMD CPU-s. Just my example Phenom II X2 550BE+AsRock M3A785GXH/128M costs around 200Bucks max. I got it reactivated and overclocked to 3,6 Ghz on 1,35V (more likely a sane 24/7 using, than in the test showed). Just check it, i got an insane 230% native performance boost out of my cpu with HT2800 (not to mention i have used fsb far over 220Mhz, just not got stacked by a rubbish Asus desk). I woul'd barely think any of intel processors coul'd match this performance increasement.

The other thing about voltages and tuning potentials. I have had 8 of Core2 45nm processors, and of corse tested all for oc too. They were E7200, Q9300, E8200, 3*E8400. Only 2 of these managed to reach 3,6 Ghz by sane voltaging (1,35V) the best E8400 went on 4Ghz. They were extremely variable in clock performance and heat dissipation.
Phenom II based AMD processors are all limited around 3,8Ghz at 1,4V and disipating their heat (while consumpting more energy) much effectively. So i think it can be an indicator of manufacturing quality...
By the same reasons i wouldn't think a 32nm Intel Processor should be set over 1,3V if you are planning to held it in 24/7 usage. You may can get it benchmark stable but worth nothing, if you must thorw it away some months later. Just consider the semiconductors logarithmyc lifetime curve depending on heat and voltage stress.

 

[zil]

Ups

 

[Kreelor]

What do these latest comments have to do with the "555" CPU? That is the thread, isn't it?

 

[zil]

All Phenom II based processors are identically same. So it is free way to buy the cheapest and OC it, maybe can found some reactivateable cores too...

 

[Kreelor]

If ALL Phenom II based processors are identical, the why are so many different versions produced?

It makes no sense if they are all identical!

 

[Kreelor]

Spelling correction: "... the" should have been "... then".

 

[overshocked]

I would take the phenom any day personally.

 

[lehmann]

this is a comparison between 2 core i5 and 2 core athlon. only you killed the i5 and you still printed the article?

 

[hundredislandsboy]

No mention that you can find a new motherboard for the 555 for about $50 and $60 for more geatures (unlock cores) but a new mobo for the G6950 is $80 for the cheapest.

The article uses cost to compare performance but left out the cost difference between motherboards. If one were to build a new system, to make it fair add $30 to the AMD budget and you can get a quadcore AMD CPU that smokes the G6950. When the point of the article is comparing products simialrly priced, they should include the obvious - prices of the setup to install the reviewed product.

 

[sxn979]

Last week i bought a phenom ii x2 555, msi 770-g45 and 4GB corsair ddr3 ram for 275 €. unlocked to phenom ii x4 b55 and overclocked to 3.6 using an older coolermaster air cooler. I was using intel cpus since my first pc and i believe this was the best upgrade i've ever had. i had core 2 duo 6750 p45 motherboard and 4870. games load faster, higher framerates and can crank up all settings to max. i game on a 27" lg monitor at 1920x1080 and the only game that doesn't run fine is crysis at very hight with x8AA. it runs fine at x2AA and you can play it at x4AA but with lower fps. At 1920x1080 x2AA very hight settings i was getting on the intel at 3.2 Ghz ~30pfs. The amd gives me ~42fps and the game feels much smoother. This article made me consider buying an amd cpu and i am very pleased by the outcome.