Q6600 isn't real quad?

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Selective memory?

A Phenom 9950 running at 3.6Ghz (calculated) will likely consume 264W, 4.0Ghz will likely consume 337W.

Comparatively, a Q6600 running at 3.6Ghz consumes 175W, 4.0Ghz consumes 192W. You do the math.

HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE MIGHTY PHENOM!

DO NOT BELIEVE PRO INTEL LIER!

There is none of problem in the AMD productions! All K10s are clocked at 4Ghz while using 1 watts of powers!

Burninator has seen many lies against the AMD:
1. People saying Penryn must be at 3.5Ghz to be beating K10 at the 2Ghz. THIS IS A PRO-INTEL LIE. Penryn is evil vapor-chip that is not real. It is well known fact that Intel CPUs only work when in same room as AMD CPUs since they steal. AMD chips power all machines, so Penryn can never beat any AMD CPU in any test ever.

2. People say Barcelona will come out on time as always scheduled by the Hector in August. DO NOT BELIEVE THIS INTEL LIE. K10 is already completely available. Were not super-success machines shown destroying evil Intel in the April at the Computex proceedings? This 100% super-proof that AMD is already in 100% success. Any sites that deny the success are only Intel PUmpers.

3. Liars who say that Barcelona is at the 2GHZ since that is all needed for beating Intels. WRONG intel fanbois! A Barcelona at only the 1Ghz is still 10x generations better than any Intel CPUs, and has 4x quad-true-power! So a Barcelona at the 1Ghz is better than Intel fake-chip at 40Ghz!! Anyone who says otherwise is the fanboi!
Burninator already give real truth reason: The primitive softwares that Intel pumpers forced on CPUs with evil monopoly cannot handle true power of Barcelona 10x lead. So Hector is only putting chips at 2Ghz until the softwares are made super-perfect by AMD technicians. Once softwares are fixed, all K10s will clock at 8Ghz with 100% passive no-fan needed!

4. Some Intel pumpers are on this site, but they pretend to like AMD! TRAITORS TO CAUSE YOU WILL BE PUNISHED FOR LIES!!!
ONEXPERT!! You shall pay for anti-AMD LIES!! You say AMD makes CPUs that are using 45 watts of the electricity? TOTAL LIES!!! Everyone who is non-pumper knows that no AMD CPU has ever used more than 1.5 watts of the electricities and that is only because of evil Intel Monopoly stealing cycles!

You say Core 2 is the P3s with glue? You pro-Intel traitor!! Every smart-non-evil persons is knowing that the Intel P3 is only a LIE for stealing from the AMD chips! Core 2 is not real, you are just pumping Intel.

You say that Intel laptops use 800watts of the electricity? You sicko-fanboy! Burninator has 100% of the proofs that ALL Intel chips must use 10000 Watts of the powers to turn on! Anyone who says any Intel chip uses less is a pro-Intel fanboy TRAITOR!

Last point, for this you must die: How dare you say that the IBM pumper chip is the fastest? Burninator already prove that the K10 is the 8Ghz fastest! You are paid IBM pumper too liar fanboy! And then you talk of C7 chips? You are traitor to AMD!

The Burninator - July 15th, 2007

 

[yomamafor1]

Sounds more like a RAM issue than a CPU issue.

 

[kassler]

A Phenom 9950 running at 3.6Ghz (calculated) will likely consume 264W, 4.0Ghz will likely consume 337W.

Comparatively, a Q6600 running at 3.6Ghz consumes 175W, 4.0Ghz consumes 192W. You do the math.

By the way, TDP is the power required to cool the chip, not the power consumption.

I have two phenoms, one 9500 and one 9750. Both are using HD3850 and both has two diskdrives.
The 9500 idles on 92 watt
The 9750 idles on 100-105 watt

 

[yomamafor1]

HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE MIGHTY PHENOM!

DO NOT BELIEVE PRO INTEL LIER!

There is none of problem in the AMD productions! All K10s are clocked at 4Ghz while using 1 watts of powers!

Burninator has seen many lies against the AMD:
1. People saying Penryn must be at 3.5Ghz to be beating K10 at the 2Ghz. THIS IS A PRO-INTEL LIE. Penryn is evil vapor-chip that is not real. It is well known fact that Intel CPUs only work when in same room as AMD CPUs since they steal. AMD chips power all machines, so Penryn can never beat any AMD CPU in any test ever.

2. People say Barcelona will come out on time as always scheduled by the Hector in August. DO NOT BELIEVE THIS INTEL LIE. K10 is already completely available. Were not super-success machines shown destroying evil Intel in the April at the Computex proceedings? This 100% super-proof that AMD is already in 100% success. Any sites that deny the success are only Intel PUmpers.

3. Liars who say that Barcelona is at the 2GHZ since that is all needed for beating Intels. WRONG intel fanbois! A Barcelona at only the 1Ghz is still 10x generations better than any Intel CPUs, and has 4x quad-true-power! So a Barcelona at the 1Ghz is better than Intel fake-chip at 40Ghz!! Anyone who says otherwise is the fanboi!
Burninator already give real truth reason: The primitive softwares that Intel pumpers forced on CPUs with evil monopoly cannot handle true power of Barcelona 10x lead. So Hector is only putting chips at 2Ghz until the softwares are made super-perfect by AMD technicians. Once softwares are fixed, all K10s will clock at 8Ghz with 100% passive no-fan needed!

4. Some Intel pumpers are on this site, but they pretend to like AMD! TRAITORS TO CAUSE YOU WILL BE PUNISHED FOR LIES!!!
ONEXPERT!! You shall pay for anti-AMD LIES!! You say AMD makes CPUs that are using 45 watts of the electricity? TOTAL LIES!!! Everyone who is non-pumper knows that no AMD CPU has ever used more than 1.5 watts of the electricities and that is only because of evil Intel Monopoly stealing cycles!

You say Core 2 is the P3s with glue? You pro-Intel traitor!! Every smart-non-evil persons is knowing that the Intel P3 is only a LIE for stealing from the AMD chips! Core 2 is not real, you are just pumping Intel.

You say that Intel laptops use 800watts of the electricity? You sicko-fanboy! Burninator has 100% of the proofs that ALL Intel chips must use 10000 Watts of the powers to turn on! Anyone who says any Intel chip uses less is a pro-Intel fanboy TRAITOR!

Last point, for this you must die: How dare you say that the IBM pumper chip is the fastest? Burninator already prove that the K10 is the 8Ghz fastest! You are paid IBM pumper too liar fanboy! And then you talk of C7 chips? You are traitor to AMD!

The Burninator - July 15th, 2007

LMAFO....

I can't even begin to describe how hurt my stomach is due to laughing. Thanks TC, this made my day.

 

[yomamafor1]

I have two phenoms, one 9500 and one 9750. Both are using HD3850 and both has two diskdrives.
The 9500 idles on 92 watt
The 9750 idles on 100-105 watt

....Therefore its defined as "power to cool the chip", not "power consumption".

I thought you're very "advanced"?

 

[kassler]

....Therefore its defined as "power to cool the chip", not "power consumption".

I thought you're very "advanced"?

Don't understand (english isn't my main language)
It is total power consumption. The instrument to measure power is in the "wall".

 

[yomamafor1]

Don't understand (english isn't my main language)
It is total power consumption. The instrument to measure power is in the "wall".

....English is also not my main language. What's your point?

TDP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Power

The Thermal Design Power (TDP) (sometimes called Thermal Design Point) represents the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate....

 

[jimmysmitty]

Of course there is a difference (phenoms is so very good at multitasking). But we was just installing one application. that isnt that demanding...
and the computer crached!!

And yet it had to be the CPU. It couldn't have been bad install or, dare I say Linux core? It is possible your "friend" rewrote the Linux core to better suit him and messed up a line of code that caused that specific operation to fail. Maybe it forced the CPU to try to divide by 0. And I do hope you know you cannot divide by 0.....

And have you ever tried multitasking on a C2Q? Do you have a C2Q? What have you done on a C2Q?

Damn it, now I have to change my signature.

LMAO.....I am guessing he is the new thunderman.....only he is a bit more subtle.

Hmm, yes but there wasn't just the crash, it was also very slow. I know that a quad is better than a dual when it comes to multitask. But I have seen wmware on amd x2 also and it hasen't been a problem. This was o f*****g joke

Yes. So next time I will compare a C2Q to a Athlon X2. Because according to you comparing them is legit. And if anything happens to cause a crash on the X2 machine I will just blame the CPU right away without any evidence or proof.

You know its funny. I have seen machines being slow without it being the CPU. Viruses could corrupt files and could cause errors and even on a "ALL MIGHTY AMD" machine it would run slow.

Sounds more like a RAM issue than a CPU issue.

I agree. Either that or as I said before it could have been the core of Linux or a corrupted file.

So according to kessler since I have a C2Q and it doesn't multitask well, I should not be able to surf the web, listen to music, download files, transfer files on my HDD to other areas and encode music all while installing and uninstalling programs and playing TF2 (especially since TF2 is based off Source and very bound to the CPU). But I do that. On a daily basis. And TF2 still runs at oh.....150FPS average easliy.

Well I guess I imagine it all. Dammit TC did you spike my Mountain Dew again?

 

[Zoron]

Today I have spent some time with a friend that is running linux with C2D. We where installing some applications om a vmware session running windows xp but it took some time. So he wanted to show quake wars on linux. We switched to the main linux installation ande started the game. it was slooooooooooooooow. after 5 minutes the computer crached.

I use vmware everyday, sometimes two different sessions and surfing in windows. it runs very smooth, no problem what so ever. ok I have a phenom (cuad) 9750. the difference is like night and day

The most likely issue is incorrectly installed video drivers. Of course instead of taking the time to actually find out the cause of the issue, you simply assert that your Phenom is better by default. Next time, you might want to actually find out what the problem is before declaring it must be because the Phenom is better than the C2D.

 

[keithlm]

Selective memory?

A Phenom 9950 running at 3.6Ghz (calculated) will likely consume 264W, 4.0Ghz will likely consume 337W.

Comparatively, a Q6600 running at 3.6Ghz consumes 175W, 4.0Ghz consumes 192W. You do the math.

I do not accept your calculations as being accurate.

There is no reason to put forth any effort to remember them since they are worth less than nothing.

But I must admit that I respect your posts almost as much as I respect your calculations.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Yes, but it's not the capacitors, it's the mosfets that are burning out. Simply too much current draw for a 3 phase VR circuit. Interesting we didn't see this same issue come up during the short -lived D805 overclocking fad.

There are a few reasons we didn't see this happen with Pentium D 805s but we do with Phenoms:

1. All of Intel's CPUs at that time drew quite a bit of power, so even a crappy board designed for low-end chips still had to be able to support 115 watts or more of CPU power draw for P4 Prescotts. This meant that *all* boards had beefy power supply circuitry. However, low-end and midrange AMD chips are 45-65 watts, so an inexpensive board targeted at low-end and midrange chips does not need to support the current draw associated with triple-digit wattage. So if you put one that does draw that much in there...it might just fry the system that was not designed for it.

2. Voltages on a stock Pentium D 800 are around 1.4 volts while voltages on Phenoms are ~1.2 volts. This means that for an equal power draw, the Pentium Ds are pulling less current than the Phenoms and high current blows electrical parts- wires, MOSFETS, etc.

3. Pentium D 805s had locked multipliers, requiring high bus speeds to overclock heavily, whereas Phenom BEs have unlocked multipliers and do not require high bus speeds to overclock. It takes a good board designed for overclocking to reach high bus speeds and such boards have heavy-duty VRMs. The result was that people didn't overclock Pentium D 805s with $80 motherboards with small VRMs, they put them into $200+ boards with very large ones to do that. If you were to get a low-end 945 board that supported overclocking and put a Pentium D 840EE in it and goosed it using the multiplier, I betcha you'd see some blue smoke just like you do with a Phenom BE in a low-end board doing the same thing.

Intel's Pentium D was never that high in TDP tho... but still, this popping occurs in 780Gs mainly... and some matx Nvidia boards... must be cheaper manufacturers...

The Pentium Ds had a maximum rated TDP of 130 watts, so it's a 10-watt difference in rated TDPs. The 45 nm Intel Core 2 Quad QX9775 has a 150-watt TDP. Big deal- they all make chips that are rated to need roughly as much cooling and power supply as the others. Also, most boards with the 780G or NVIDIA GeForce 8000 chipsets are not designed to be an enthusiast board- they are home/office or HTPC boards for the most part.

Uh... no. Server chips are rated no different than desktop chips or mobile chips.

They are. AMD gives two figures for their server chips but only the TDP for the desktop units. They have a TDP and an ACP, where the ACP is an "average" figure of power usage. Note that 75 W ACP = 95 W TDP and an ACP of about 100 W is a 125-watt TDP.

A Phenom 9950 running at 3.6Ghz (calculated) will likely consume 264W, 4.0Ghz will likely consume 337W.

Comparatively, a Q6600 running at 3.6Ghz consumes 175W, 4.0Ghz consumes 192W. You do the math.

Can you list the voltages you used in those calculations? I am curious.

By the way, TDP is the power required to cool the chip, not the power consumption.

It is the manufacturer's figure for how much cooling capacity a given chip needs for its intended usage to not thermally damage itself. Actual maximum power consumption figures are given later in the processor specification sheets. AMD's TDPs are their Vcore_max * Icc_max (maximum power) for all of the chips I've looked at while Intel's are some different figure.

Also, power consumed by a chip == quantity of heat dissipated by the CPU, just as it is in all ICs.

Today I have spent some time with a friend that is running linux with C2D. We where installing some applications om a vmware session running windows xp but it took some time. So he wanted to show quake wars on linux. We switched to the main linux installation ande started the game. it was slooooooooooooooow. after 5 minutes the computer crached.

I use vmware everyday, sometimes two different sessions and surfing in windows. it runs very smooth, no problem what so ever. ok I have a phenom (cuad) 9750. the difference is like night and day

I call shenanigans. If your Linux system with the C2D ran slowly and then crashed when running ETQW, it's almost certainly not the CPU that is at fault. It sounds like a slow GPU causing the slowness during playing the game and a buggy GPU driver locking up X. I've seen that quite a bit before in peoples' systems but never have seen a modern, fast CPU that wasn't overheating and throttling or damaged by overclocking run very slowly like that and then all of a sudden hang. You could also look at the RAM usage- maybe he had little RAM in the box and tried to stuff ETQW's 1.4 GB memory footprint into that, caused swapping, and then hung as the OS ran out of memory.

And yet it had to be the CPU. It couldn't have been bad install or, dare I say Linux core? It is possible your "friend" rewrote the Linux core to better suit him and messed up a line of code that caused that specific operation to fail. Maybe it forced the CPU to try to divide by 0. And I do hope you know you cannot divide by 0.....[/quote]

A bad install or data corruption (typically due to hardware errors- Linux FSes are pretty corruption-resistant) could explain issues, but it is not likely that the friend "rewrote the Linux core to better suit him and messed up a line of code that caused that specific operation to fail." If he did mess with the kernel, library, or other code, he would have had to recompile it to get that version to be loaded and cause trouble. Anybody who's programmed on anything a tenth as complex as the Linux kernel knows that changing something willy-nilly will 99% of the time result in a failure to compile and thus you never build the modified code into any binaries. A coded-in divide-by-zero error will be caught by GCC at compile-time, by the way, as will obvious causes of instability like double frees and illegal memory modification.

So according to kessler since I have a C2Q and it doesn't multitask well, I should not be able to surf the web, listen to music, download files, transfer files on my HDD to other areas and encode music all while installing and uninstalling programs and playing TF2 (especially since TF2 is based off Source and very bound to the CPU). But I do that. On a daily basis. And TF2 still runs at oh.....150FPS average easliy.

The OS you choose has more of an effect on how well a computer handles multitasking than the brand of CPU. For an example, my 6-year-old P4-M laptop that is now my hacked-together HTPC (er, HTlaptop) runs Debian Lenny can do all of the things you listed above except for playing Team Fortress 2 at 150 FPS and do it reasonably well. However, that is a more painful experience under Windows as Windows tends to lock up when some process has its CPU and not let go until the process is finished. Ditto with my X2 4200+ desktop, C2D U7500 notebook, and the Q6600 I use at work. The multi-core processors remove a bunch of the lagging/lock-up behavior of Windows when under heavy load but it still isn't as smooth as under Linux. I can tell the difference between the single-core P4-M and the multi-core machines as far as under-load smoothness is concerned, but you could put me on any of the multi-core machines and clock them the same and I couldn't tell them apart without looking. The OS doesn't care whose name is on the CPU, only about the number of cores and how much bandwidth the cores have. The FSB on Intel notebook and desktop systems does not bottleneck the CPU, so they are all the same to the OS.

 

[dragonsprayer]

star trek is not real
the q6 is real!

one chip to rule them all one chip to bind them (to nehalem)

 

[yomamafor1]

To quick reply, I used 1.4V for 3.6Ghz, and 1.5V for 4.0Ghz. Actually they are even lower than what a 65nm Intel quad required to achieve those speeds.

The more realistic voltage for 3.6Ghz is 1.45V, and 1.65V for 4.0Ghz. At that voltage, Phenom would require 407W @ 4.0Ghz.

 

[yomamafor1]

They are. AMD gives two figures for their server chips but only the TDP for the desktop units. They have a TDP and an ACP, where the ACP is an "average" figure of power usage. Note that 75 W ACP = 95 W TDP and an ACP of about 100 W is a 125-watt TDP.

So did AMD simply replace TDP number with ADP numbers, and retained the name "TDP"?

It is the manufacturer's figure for how much cooling capacity a given chip needs for its intended usage to not thermally damage itself. Actual maximum power consumption figures are given later in the processor specification sheets. AMD's TDPs are their Vcore_max * Icc_max (maximum power) for all of the chips I've looked at while Intel's are some different figure.

Also, power consumed by a chip == quantity of heat dissipated by the CPU, just as it is in all ICs.

Thanks for the correction. I guess I was trying to point out that TDP != absolute power consumption, and it cannot be used to directly compare chip-to-chip.

 

[Zoron]

I do not accept your calculations as being accurate.

There is no reason to put forth any effort to remember them since they are worth less than nothing.

But I must admit that I respect your posts almost as much as I respect your calculations.

Of course you don't... because they would disprove what you've been trying to say.

 

[keithlm]

Of course you don't... because they would disprove what you've been trying to say.

They do not appear to be accurate. If they were accurate then I would be "disproved".

But as things look now... I don't seem to have anything to worry about. Other than an occasional trollboy.

 

[Zoron]

Well then if they are not accurate, why don't you post accurate figures to disprove what he's saying? Simply asserting "they do not appear to be accurate" just doesn't cut it. If you're going to challenge someone's data... be prepared to present your own. Opinions don't change simply on your word.

 

[keithlm]

Well then if they are not accurate, why don't you post accurate figures to disprove what he's saying? Simply asserting "they do not appear to be accurate" just doesn't cut it. If you're going to challenge someone's data... be prepared to present your own. Opinions don't change simply on your word.

Ah... but you see I don't feel the need to "prove" it. The only thing that matters to me is that I know.

I know that bothers you. But I have difficulty caring.

 

[yomamafor1]

As long as I know that people aren't going to believe in your "opinion", I can rest easy.

 

[Zoron]

Doesn't bother me at all... without facts to back up your assertions, your credibility is extremely limited. The fact that you bother to post your disagreement proves that it does matter... why bother posting all all if you're so completely secure in your knowledge?

Sorry... peddle your BS to someone that's buying.

 

[keithlm]

As long as I know that people aren't going to believe in your "opinion", I can rest easy.

You posted some numbers. Many people just accepted them without any question.

I say I doubt the figures. Everyone jumps on me because I provided the same amount of proof that you provided.

It seems that things are just slightly biased here.


In addition we already know that there is a major fix coming that will change the voltages. So we can't really calculate anything until that fix is in place. Unless you want to calculate values for something that we already know is broken. Which would be pointless.

But we know that being pointless probably won't stop Anand from doing all future benchmarks using DDR2-800 memory and a SB600 motherboard. And people "just accepting" the results. (I know... a diversion in the topic. But probably true.)

 

[yomamafor1]

You provided same amount of proof? You mean "oh I don't think your figure is correct", or "there is no reason to put forth any effort to remember them since they are worth less than nothing."

I provided the wattage, the voltage used, and the clockspeed. What did you provide other than inflammatory comments?

In addition we already know that there is a major fix coming that will change the voltages. So we can't really calculate anything until that fix is in place. Unless you want to calculate values for something that we already know is broken. Which would be pointless.

Oh... so now you're trying to say that the Q6600 should be compared to the 45nm Phenom, instead of the 65nm Phenom. Great change of subject.

But we know that being pointless probably won't stop Anand from doing all future benchmarks using DDR2-800 memory and a SB600 motherboard. And people "just accepting" the results. (I know... a diversion in the topic. But probably true.)

That argument has been proved wrong so many times. Time to give it a rest.

 

[keithlm]

You provided same amount of proof? You mean "oh I don't think your figure is correct", or "there is no reason to put forth any effort to remember them since they are worth less than nothing."

I provided the wattage, the voltage used, and the clockspeed. What did you provide other than inflammatory comments?

Oh... so now you're trying to say that the Q6600 should be compared to the 45nm Phenom, instead of the 65nm Phenom. Great change of subject.

You did not originally provide all the information. You just posted result numbers and had to be asked for the voltages.

Providing questionable result values calculated by using questionable input values means exactly what in the real world? You can claim extrapolation... but you have to remember one simple fact: This is a new design that doesn't follow the same rules. So until it actually happens your opinion is just as valid as mine.

BZZZT. Nice try. But wrong guess. I would not be stupid enough to suggest that we compare 45nm parts to 65nm parts. I was talking about the stability problems with the current southbridge. The fix includes a major change to how the HT gets power. Could mean nothing. Could mean a major decrease in required voltage. Currently I've seen figures of a 3.3V to 1.8V switch for the HT. This could decrease needed power. Dramatically. Also: To be accurate you need to add all power used in the intel NB for the memory controller to the CPU power use to make a valid comparison. Although I'm sure most fantrolls on this forum don't care enough to actually want accuracy.

 

[yomamafor1]

But was my number correct? Yes. It was actually lower than what would Phenom do in reality. Did I provide voltage and clockspeed? Yes.

On the other hand, what did you provide? Oh I see, you provided inflammatory rhetoric and ignorance. I guess that's on the same level as "providing proof" for your claim.

This is a new design that doesn't follow the same rules. So until it actually happens your opinion is just as valid as mine.

The SB? You kidding me? Please tell me in what way SB interacts with CPU's voltage? That's like saying because the video card is updated, so HDD runs faster.

Could mean a major decrease in required voltage. Currently I've seen figures of a 3.3V to 1.8V switch for the HT. This could decrease needed power.

Oh I see. So SB reduces the voltage required for HT... how? You mean because the SB is updated, therefore personal ego is increased, which in turn improve the delusional perception that the system runs faster, which ultimately decrease the total voltage needed for the CPU.

Nice one... that logic is virtually perfect.

 

[keithlm]

Oh I see. So SB reduces the voltage required for HT... how? You mean because the SB is updated, therefore personal ego is increased, which in turn improve the delusional perception that the system runs faster, which ultimately decrease the total voltage needed for the CPU.

If you use questionable input parameters you will get questionable results. QED.


ALSO: based on your statement quoted above I see that you have no idea what is rumored to be on its way.

The new SB750 supposedly has some type of enhanced clock mechanism, provides more stability, and may have some kind of HT voltage decrease. Or it could involve a change to how the voltage regulation is currently being done. Either way the end results are the same. Less power required. At this time we only have rumors and speculation. We don't know for sure other than leaked results. But the leaked results are promising. The average overclock on the Phenom could soon be the same as the average overclock of the Q6600.