- Status
Good article. The lack of multi-core performance in games is disturbing. Every single day the software is demonstrating to be "the problem", not the hardware. All of us, no matter what budget we have access to, can get excellent pieces to build a computer, but the software keeps dragging it's a** out there. 
I think this review clearly showed the Phenom II X2 555 stomped the floor with the G690 and Corei5 750.
I think its perfectly legitimate to consider core unlocking gains achievable through overclocking. Overclocking by its very nature does not achieve consistent results which is why there is a stock setting. You might not be able to unlock cores, but on the flipside you might not be able to overclock as high.
I think its perfectly legitimate to consider core unlocking gains achievable through overclocking. Overclocking by its very nature does not achieve consistent results which is why there is a stock setting. You might not be able to unlock cores, but on the flipside you might not be able to overclock as high.
The CPUs are more or less even matched: Intel has a higher clock and better thermals, AMD has the ability to unlock cores and run on a MUCH better motherboard. I would suggest Intel if:
1- You do not need to run a 30" and another monitor at the same time
2- You do not plan to upgrade to a 6 core CPU next year
3- You do not plan to run SATA6 SSDs in RAID 0
As it stands i see Intel as a second PC on most houses, working as a file server, IPTV provider and so on.
Most users would benefit from 785G/890G flexibility and upgrade ability.
And i agre that there are better gang for the buck on both Intel and AMD camps; i would take a lower end i3 and a higher bin Athlon II X2 as contenders here, but that would definitively unbalance costs.
1- You do not need to run a 30" and another monitor at the same time
2- You do not plan to upgrade to a 6 core CPU next year
3- You do not plan to run SATA6 SSDs in RAID 0
As it stands i see Intel as a second PC on most houses, working as a file server, IPTV provider and so on.
Most users would benefit from 785G/890G flexibility and upgrade ability.
And i agre that there are better gang for the buck on both Intel and AMD camps; i would take a lower end i3 and a higher bin Athlon II X2 as contenders here, but that would definitively unbalance costs.
[citation][nom]geok1ng[/nom]The CPUs are more or less even matched: Intel has a higher clock and better thermals, AMD has the ability to unlock cores and run on a MUCH better motherboard. I would suggest Intel if:1- You do not need to run a 30" and another monitor at the same time2- You do not plan to upgrade to a 6 core CPU next year3- You do not plan to run SATA6 SSDs in RAID 0As it stands i see Intel as a second PC on most houses, working as a file server, IPTV provider and so on. Most users would benefit from 785G/890G flexibility and upgrade ability.And i agre that there are better gang for the buck on both Intel and AMD camps; i would take a lower end i3 and a higher bin Athlon II X2 as contenders here, but that would definitively unbalance costs.[/citation]
In a very big sense, this a comparison between apples and oranges. They picked them based on price, which makes sense in one context, but they are for completely different markets.
The Pentium G6950 is a great processor for a huge market, the type that goes into Walmart to buy a computer, and finds this meets their needs easily. The brain-damaged, crippled LGA1156 platform suddenly becomes cost-effective, and very power efficient in this context, because the limitations don't matter, but the price and power use do. Intel made excellent trade-offs for this market, not only with the processor, but with platform.
The Phenom II x2 255 is a hobbyist part, with unlocked multiplier and a broad array of platform choices that make it much better suited for most of the readers here. In this market, the limitations of the LGA1156 matter more, and, to me, AMD has a clear advantage here.
I think AMD actively pursues the low-end hobbyist market, and Intel does not. Intel really goes after the high-end well though, and the Walmart market is very well served by these wonderful processors like the Pentium G6950. Especially with the integrated GPU, I'd have no problems recommending this to a lot of people.
I don't understand Intel all the time though. Why would they release the G6950 into retail? I don't think it makes sense here, and should be an OEM only part. Also, why the i7 870???? Why would you try to sell a high end processor, on a compromised platform? Why would someone want this instead of the i7 960, which costs the same (given the motherboard will cost more, but it's a small percentage of the overall cost). They have a lot of overlap, with high-end Clarkdale processors and the i5 750, as well as the i7 860/870 and i7 930/960.
Intel has some nice stuff out there, but, their product segmentation seems a lot less clear than I can ever remember. They used to be so careful about this. I wonder what changed.
In a very big sense, this a comparison between apples and oranges. They picked them based on price, which makes sense in one context, but they are for completely different markets.
The Pentium G6950 is a great processor for a huge market, the type that goes into Walmart to buy a computer, and finds this meets their needs easily. The brain-damaged, crippled LGA1156 platform suddenly becomes cost-effective, and very power efficient in this context, because the limitations don't matter, but the price and power use do. Intel made excellent trade-offs for this market, not only with the processor, but with platform.
The Phenom II x2 255 is a hobbyist part, with unlocked multiplier and a broad array of platform choices that make it much better suited for most of the readers here. In this market, the limitations of the LGA1156 matter more, and, to me, AMD has a clear advantage here.
I think AMD actively pursues the low-end hobbyist market, and Intel does not. Intel really goes after the high-end well though, and the Walmart market is very well served by these wonderful processors like the Pentium G6950. Especially with the integrated GPU, I'd have no problems recommending this to a lot of people.
I don't understand Intel all the time though. Why would they release the G6950 into retail? I don't think it makes sense here, and should be an OEM only part. Also, why the i7 870???? Why would you try to sell a high end processor, on a compromised platform? Why would someone want this instead of the i7 960, which costs the same (given the motherboard will cost more, but it's a small percentage of the overall cost). They have a lot of overlap, with high-end Clarkdale processors and the i5 750, as well as the i7 860/870 and i7 930/960.
Intel has some nice stuff out there, but, their product segmentation seems a lot less clear than I can ever remember. They used to be so careful about this. I wonder what changed.
JohnnyLucky
Illustrious
- May 30, 2007
- 10,902
- 10
- 42,965
bobjones003
Distinguished
- May 5, 2009
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
One of my everyday computers is a amd 710 with 4 cores enable running little over 3.2 ghz. I built the core machine November 09 however back then it ran at 2.9 ghz, due to cooling issues. Now that is in bigger case with aftermarket heatsink it very cool 115f at full load. Which video encoding for about 10 hours and it had just come out of game. Had little issue with unlocking the 4 core. However it does trade blows with my gaming rig which built on q6600 running at 3.19 ghz. General anything that requires memory bandwidth the 710 is faster. Also sleep mode still works correctly at that speed on the amd. Which why I picked that speed to stop at. Sleep mode does not work correctly on q6600
enayet_redeemer
Distinguished
- Mar 20, 2009
- 140
- 0
- 18,690
Nice Article. Thanks for the effort for preparing.
I think AthlonII X4@3.0GHz would be the best choice for the mentioned system if someone wants to spend few dollars more as it would ensure four working cores and nice headroom for multithreaded apps.
Thanks for the article again.
I think AthlonII X4@3.0GHz would be the best choice for the mentioned system if someone wants to spend few dollars more as it would ensure four working cores and nice headroom for multithreaded apps.
Thanks for the article again.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
The Phenom II comes off looking great from the overclocked benchmarks. While application performance crown goes to Intel (as usual) in other aspects it held its own against a 300-MHz advantage from Intel.
Not much to say here as there is nothing but mass confusion.If ii were to ask you who has the fastest Cpu and best,what would say,what would say5 years ago or five years from now.?I think i will let you decide that and be realistic as well!
What a bunch of noobers Rofl!!
What a bunch of noobers Rofl!!I must say I have I enjoyed this article it has lot of interesting info. I was in the market for an i7 last year and was hoping my C2D 6400 would last me till I saved up cash for a new build. Sadly enough nothing to do with the PC’s life but my kids ended that dream for me as they ran down the hall way, spilling their "big gulp" all down the side of my pc.
So I found myself looking for a processor and new motherboard a little earlier than expected; my HD4870 did make it out intact however my PC power and cooling PS and Antec 300 case did not. It was the end of July and I did some research and decided for the time being to get this new cheap processor of AMD's Phenom II 550 BE x2 and a nice gigabyte 790fx board to hold me over till this year.
This $98 processor booted up, it was faster than expected at the price, that said I decided what the hell let’s see what it can do. At the time I just read an article here on Tom’s discussing this new fangled feature of ACC on new AMD motherboards, something about core unlock. I then fired up the bios and turn on ACC and set the Gigabyte MB to hybrid and bang all 4 cores enabled and booted.
Umm nice but the next question was it stable at 3.1ghz and 4 cores. Well after 16 hours of prime95 I decided to up the clock a bit. With no additional voltage it ramped up to 3.8ghz, and it primed out once again. So being the bigot I am and not being satisfied with a $98 dollar 4 core processor at 3.8ghz. I raised the voltage slightly till I achieved a 4.1ghz 4 core unlock processor stable and cool with a Cogage True Spirit (used a ultra-120 AMD bracket) .
I have to say it was the biggest bang for the buck I have gotten recently since I dare say it but the old Celeron 333. It has been a wonderful interim upgrade that was very light on the wallet, I will be holding out to see the i9 or Bulldozer now and retire this piece to a nice little estate in a HTPC. I must say to this day I have no regrets getting this little workhorse and for the price I don’t see how you can go wrong with the Phenom’s if you don’t have the cash to put down on the higher end i7’s.
So I found myself looking for a processor and new motherboard a little earlier than expected; my HD4870 did make it out intact however my PC power and cooling PS and Antec 300 case did not. It was the end of July and I did some research and decided for the time being to get this new cheap processor of AMD's Phenom II 550 BE x2 and a nice gigabyte 790fx board to hold me over till this year.
This $98 processor booted up, it was faster than expected at the price, that said I decided what the hell let’s see what it can do. At the time I just read an article here on Tom’s discussing this new fangled feature of ACC on new AMD motherboards, something about core unlock. I then fired up the bios and turn on ACC and set the Gigabyte MB to hybrid and bang all 4 cores enabled and booted.
Umm nice but the next question was it stable at 3.1ghz and 4 cores. Well after 16 hours of prime95 I decided to up the clock a bit. With no additional voltage it ramped up to 3.8ghz, and it primed out once again. So being the bigot I am and not being satisfied with a $98 dollar 4 core processor at 3.8ghz. I raised the voltage slightly till I achieved a 4.1ghz 4 core unlock processor stable and cool with a Cogage True Spirit (used a ultra-120 AMD bracket) .
I have to say it was the biggest bang for the buck I have gotten recently since I dare say it but the old Celeron 333. It has been a wonderful interim upgrade that was very light on the wallet, I will be holding out to see the i9 or Bulldozer now and retire this piece to a nice little estate in a HTPC. I must say to this day I have no regrets getting this little workhorse and for the price I don’t see how you can go wrong with the Phenom’s if you don’t have the cash to put down on the higher end i7’s.
randomkid
Distinguished
- Aug 20, 2009
- 2,846
- 0
- 21,160
I see the Pentium G6950 as Intel's effort to get people to buy a 1156 motherboard. This way, there is an upgrade path for the consumer either to get an i5-750 or an i7-860. Not a bad at all... How dead is a certain socket is up to the consumer to decide. An 1156 socket with a Pentium G6850 is very much alive.
I bought the Phenom-II 555 BE + MSI 785GM-E51 motherboard for $100, added $110 for 4GB of Corsair DRAM PC1600CL9, and $15 for a CoolerMaster Vortex752 and $5 for ArticSilver Ceramique (spread so thin it looks transparent but smoothes the surface of the cooler).
Unlocked easily, overclocked a little bit, and stable with...
CPU: 4 x 3.6GHz (15x), FSB: 240MHz, 1.4Vdd (Everest reads 1.384V).
DRAM: 7-8-7-21 CR1 unganged, 800MHz bus: Memory latency 46.5ns, 10GB/s
Idle: 86Watt, 48 celcius
quiet fan mode targets 50C so fan is at 12%
Everest CPU test: 165Watt, 61 celcius
fan kicks in (CPU test only, others same or lower except FPU only becomes hotter)
Wattage measured with a watt-meter for the whole PC (CPU, mboard, 4GB, and 1 DVD & hard disk).
Stable without tweaks at 3.4GHz. Not too stable at 3.8GHz, maybe if I tweak voltages more but MSI's BIOS warns 1.5V Vdd is not safe. I don't care, memory latency and bandwidth I care more about.
The stock AMD cooler is crap, and the Everest FPU test tripped a reboot at 70Celcius (rig uses >200W with a FPU test).
Unlocked easily, overclocked a little bit, and stable with...
CPU: 4 x 3.6GHz (15x), FSB: 240MHz, 1.4Vdd (Everest reads 1.384V).
DRAM: 7-8-7-21 CR1 unganged, 800MHz bus: Memory latency 46.5ns, 10GB/s
Idle: 86Watt, 48 celcius
quiet fan mode targets 50C so fan is at 12%
Everest CPU test: 165Watt, 61 celcius
fan kicks in (CPU test only, others same or lower except FPU only becomes hotter)
Wattage measured with a watt-meter for the whole PC (CPU, mboard, 4GB, and 1 DVD & hard disk).
Stable without tweaks at 3.4GHz. Not too stable at 3.8GHz, maybe if I tweak voltages more but MSI's BIOS warns 1.5V Vdd is not safe. I don't care, memory latency and bandwidth I care more about.
The stock AMD cooler is crap, and the Everest FPU test tripped a reboot at 70Celcius (rig uses >200W with a FPU test).
Note, for Phenom test, I question:
- Why is FSB 213MHz used, and not 240MHz?
- Is it really stable at 3.8GHz? I'm not.
- Why question unlockability of the cores?
My last PC was a Pentium D805, so it's finally
a worthy upgrade.
People face it: We are evolving towards constant clock, increased core count. Apps must/will follow. Therefore 4 cores + OC is the way to go.
- Why is FSB 213MHz used, and not 240MHz?
- Is it really stable at 3.8GHz? I'm not.
- Why question unlockability of the cores?
My last PC was a Pentium D805, so it's finally
a worthy upgrade.
People face it: We are evolving towards constant clock, increased core count. Apps must/will follow. Therefore 4 cores + OC is the way to go.
Hmm.. I'm wondering why they settled with only 1.5v on the Phenom II. I thought everyone knew the max safe voltage for those is 1.55v. I'm guessing they could have gotten another 100-300MHz if they tried more voltage.
masterasia
Distinguished
- Feb 9, 2009
- 1,128
- 0
- 19,360
I'm impressed with AMD on this one. It's nice to them come out on top for once. Who knows, you might even get one with a third or fourth core that is locked. i7 920/930 FTW. Still the best bang for your buck. Can't beat Microcenter's prices.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]obarthelemy[/nom]I love Tom's usual impartiality: "the pentium overclocks like hell, so it's a bitchin' CPU" vs "You may, or may not, succeed in unlocking Phenom's cores, so we're relunctant to count that as a plus".Talk about double standards ?[/citation]
For real? You're saying I'm not impartial to note that the 555 isn't guaranteed to unlock more than two cores?
So you would consider it impartial if I hid the fact that it's a gamble, and many 555's won't successfully unlock?
Look up 'impartial'. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
For real? You're saying I'm not impartial to note that the 555 isn't guaranteed to unlock more than two cores?
So you would consider it impartial if I hid the fact that it's a gamble, and many 555's won't successfully unlock?
Look up 'impartial'. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Comparisons with processor in the same price range are very helpful. Comparisons with one processor costing $98 and on costing over $200 are a waste of space and time. It was nice to see Tom's not do that in this article. Many times people have a budget and want to get the most bang for the bucks they have in their pockets. Also the ability to upgrade in the future is very important. You want to be able to upgrade your system without being stuck in a dead-end and having to starting over. Intel has had a history of doing that to their customers. Today the 775 socket is on the way out so building with this platform with any hope of upgrading is a waste of time. 775 motherboards are not getting the same features as the 1156 and 1366. This is Intel's way of getting you to spend a lot more to get the newer features most are looking for.
TrackSmart
Distinguished
- Feb 7, 2010
- 31
- 0
- 18,540
Nice review. But in the real world you could buy a cheaper motherboard (save $20) and use the stock CPU cooler (save $20) and **spend the extra $40 on a better processor!**
In that case you could buy a Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition - a true quad core. No fuss, no muss.
In that case you could buy a Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition - a true quad core. No fuss, no muss.
justchuck69
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2009
- 60
- 0
- 18,630
i just bought a amd phenom II 630 quad for 111 here in canada and this intel cpu cost more than that here ( if you can find it here .... newegg.ca is out of stock but newegg.com has them but wont ship to canada ) but anyways i think the amd quad smokes this intel cpu even if the cost were the same
if they are easy for pro overclockers to fry then what chance does us noobs have of them lasting ?
IMHO just SKIP IT ! ! ! ( s their are many amd cpu that are much better and maybe even a intel or two)
if they are easy for pro overclockers to fry then what chance does us noobs have of them lasting ?
IMHO just SKIP IT ! ! ! ( s their are many amd cpu that are much better and maybe even a intel or two)
justchuck69
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2009
- 60
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]randomkid[/nom]Who's frying? Pro overclockers here do not fry CPU. And I am yet to hear a noob does...[/citation]
ok i guess you did not read the article eh!
it started like this
-----------------------------------------------------------
A few months ago, we compared the Phenom II X2 555 to Intel's Pentium G6950 in both stock and overclocked form. When the dust settled, the results were inconclusive after we enthusiastically over-volted the Pentium CPU past its limits and into oblivion.
-----------------------------------------------------------
so try reading the article please .... before you comment ! ! !
ok i guess you did not read the article eh!
it started like this
-----------------------------------------------------------
A few months ago, we compared the Phenom II X2 555 to Intel's Pentium G6950 in both stock and overclocked form. When the dust settled, the results were inconclusive after we enthusiastically over-volted the Pentium CPU past its limits and into oblivion.
-----------------------------------------------------------
so try reading the article please .... before you comment ! ! !
randomkid
Distinguished
- Aug 20, 2009
- 2,846
- 0
- 21,160
Aha! Yes, I read it before and it did not stick my mind because those are not ordinary pro-overclockers. They are reviewers who push the parts to the limit to see how well it will hold up. These guys do it for a living, man. They won't mind busting a CPU or two just to have a good article. The consumer overclocker will not push it as hard.
But the point is overclocking is not as bad as you make it sound.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Question New Build, Fans Running, RGB working, no mouse, no keyboard, no display
- Latest: MysteriousMeat
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram