Phenom Vs Q6600 Benchmarks

master9716

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2006
271
0
18,780
0
For everyone to know.. Firingsquad and everyone else has these processors real benchmarks under real conditions.


No one plays as 1200 resolution anymore.. I play at 1600 or 1900 on my Hdtv . if I do play at 1280 its because of low. The phenom gives the same performance as the top of the line 9770 from intel .


intel does beat amd in Valves multicore particle simulation by 20fps wich makes me wana buy a q6600. apperantly true quadcore didnt help amd oh well .

15% slower but 15% less expensive .. hhmmm the particle simulation was run at lower res though so at 1600 they will probably even out even though it cost less and I dont have to buy new Motherboard wich is the upside.

amd also has to release its quadcore driver for windows and no ones knows if thats going to boost the performance to what it was ment to be. wich was 25% faster than intel . on apps ya but not on fps.


Maybe amd should stop playing kids games and just go for 2mb of l2 cache and then it can compete


for crysis benchmakrs high and low res hardocp.com
valves multicore firingsquad


remember that if amd goes bankrupt intel wont have any competition and therefore take years for cpu advancement . the reason we are here now is because amds low priced athlon series that gave us great fps . and when atlon 64 came out intel was sweating it big time so they worked hard and the the core2 duos at low price.. if it was not for amd intel would not be at this point.. Amd has to surpas intel inorder for us to get better technology
 

accord99

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2004
325
0
18,780
0

Push up the resolution and even a Sempron won't be far off. Making these gaming tests more CPU-limited tells people that even the Q6600 will be faster than a Phenom 9600; regardless of the GPU used and will benefit more from a future video card upgrade.


The Q6600 also uses less power and overclocks more.


Doubt drivers will have any impact. And it was obvious from early on, when AMD refused to release relevant benchmarks that Barcelona didn't have the core power to take on Conroe/Kentsfield.
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0
From the FiringSquad review:
AMD’s current Phenom prices are a bit out of line with reality as well: Intel’s Core 2 Q6600 officially lists for $266 in quantities of 1,000 CPUs. That’s $17 less than the Phenom 9600, and the Core 2 Q6600 is clearly the faster CPU overall.
And like accord99, once you start pushing the resolution on games, it becomes more a bottleneck at the GPU, than the CPU.

None of the reviews I have seen has shown the Phenom being the close competitor to Intel's current offering of the Q6600, not to even mention the upcoming Yorksfield/Penryn based CPUs, which is supposedly faster than Intel's current Quads.
 

WR

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
603
0
18,980
0
No one plays as 1200 resolution anymore.. I play at 1600 or 1900 on my Hdtv . if I do play at 1280 its because of low. The phenom gives the same performance as the top of the line 9770 from intel .
That gives rise to the converse argument: Why get a $300 Phenom at all when a $100 x2 4800+ or dual-core E2180 gives you the same frame rates at that kind of resolution? (Change to $200 chip if you do use heavyweight GPUs.)
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0



Agree 100%

For GAMING at high res's you are better off with a good graphics card than a good processor to begin with.

I'd rather compare WinRARs, Encodes, and Render benchmarks.

Kind of pointless to compare it in an arena that 90% of the people who would use it will be bottlenecked by the GPU.
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0


Wanna bet?

Anand couldn't overclock it pass 2.6GHz without losing stablilty.
Given the launch frequencies, you can expect that Phenom isn't a tremendously overclockable chip.

While we were able to run our 2.4GHz chip at 3.0GHz, we couldn't get it stable. Even 2.8GHz wasn't entirely stable, but 2.6GHz was attainable for benchmarks.
Yes, there has been reports of the 9700 being pushed to 3.2 on air, but the Q6600 has hit 3.6 on air. And, the 9700 has been delayed until Q1'08, so you lose that "extra" 100MHz starting point.
I haven't heard or seen how far the 9600 has been overclocked too, but I doubt it will surpass the Q6600.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0


B3 Phenom vs G0 Q6600 will be a fun showdown.

B3 Phenom vs Penryn will be another story.
 

tkpb938

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2007
70
0
18,630
0
Don't know about you guys, but it looks to me like AMD is still being pwnd by intel. Phenom was supposed to be thier saving grace, but its just a mid range processor with a mid range price.
 

monsterrocks

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2007
284
0
18,780
0


Amd said they will release a black edition of the phenom...That will OC really far. What you didn't seem to get is anandtech OC'd by fsb. With unlocked multiplier; Phenom will get to 3.0Ghz all day long, on air too, no doubt about it. But it will not go as high as Q6600 quiet yet; however with new stepping, that may not be the case...
 

monsterrocks

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2007
284
0
18,780
0


Apparently you don't understand economics....creating an ultra high-end product that hardly anyone will buy would hardly save them. No, midrange is right where they need to be if they want to survive long enough to even come close to the top. Look at the HD 3870. It is selling out like crazy on every major retailer; but it get restocked almost every day, sometimes more than once a day. 8800gt beats it, but it sells out, and 5 weeks later, it's back in stock. The ATi chip is a little slower, a TON cheaper, and has high availability. So ATi is slaughtering nVidia in sales this holiday season. And yet it is a midrange card....just might be AMD's "saving grace". Think about it...
 

monsterrocks

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2007
284
0
18,780
0


No messing around with fsb to get the best RAM divider and no upping the voltage to OC. I am NOT saying it will beat the q6600, but think about it; it is pretty dang easy to OC. So why not?
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2


You mean Phenom with an unlocked multiplier? Some people can get their Phenom 9700 to 3.0Ghz with 1.5V.

I can get a G0 Q6600 to 4.x Ghz with 1.5V.
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0


You're really not serious, are you?



It will be a long time before joe average will be overclocking his Phenom to 3.0Ghz

Remember,
-AMD was supposedly going to release the 3.0 GHz parts this year, but scrapped that plan because of stability problems.
-AMD was set to release the 2.4 GHz parts today, but due to the cache locking problems, they scrapped that plan.
<<<<<<Ironic, isnt it? The Phanboys have been crying 'cache thrashing' on the Intel Core2s for 20 months now, even though its been proven time and time again not to be anything other than their own sour grape spitefull thinking, yet now the K10s are having issues with their own form of 'cache thrashing'>>>>>>
-The parts that were successfully overclocked to 3.0GHz have been accepted to be cherry picked examples


Dont confuse AMD making it easy to overclock the Phenom with the Phenom being a succesfull overclocker. A few lucky folks will get upto 3.0GHz, but from all the information available (Fanboy wishful thinking/false hype aside) the vast majority of purchasers/overclockers are not going to get anywhere near 3.0GHz. Not on this stepping, and, contrary to certain phanboys hopefull hype, I doubt with the B3 stepping either.
 

monsterrocks

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2007
284
0
18,780
0


From what I have read, they have only been able to make the error occur in labs, but not in actual computing (a.k.a. Video games, 3d encoding, and basically anything that uses a ton of CPU and RAM to run.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/page8.html



Of course then again, AMD said that themselves and with the record they have been building up...
 

monsterrocks

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2007
284
0
18,780
0


Weren't the Phenoms that actually worked cherry picked?
:lol: Sorry, couldn't help myself...
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2


You also know that those cherry picked ones that can get to 3.0Ghz require 1.5V?
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0


That is correct, the THG article stated that, however, here:

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13639
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/18/amd-delays-phenom-ghz-due-tlb

you will note:

"The Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) errata is an L3 protocol issue causing a system hang when running certain client workload applications independent of platform. AMD is immediately introducing an updated BIOS which will correct the TLB errata".
Meaning this is not a developemental bug, but an application bug. i.e it is something the consumer may encounter. While the typical consumer would never see this, those who load all four cores (enthusiasts, video editors/renderers) might, which in turn would be very bad PR for AMD....far worse than pulling the units from the shelves.

That this occurs at 100% workload, above 2.3GHz indicates there may be more to this problem than the L3 TLB.


 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS