Q6600 isn't real quad?

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

I can imagine the rolling blackouts such a platform would create...
 


Strange. I wonder why AMD doesn't release a 3.0+ ghz STOCK Phenom if all of them work so magically stable at those frequencies. Perhaps they just don't bother?!

Hector Ruiz: "3.0+ ghz Phenom at stock? Nahhh. Just do it for yourself. Otherwise you'll lose all the fun."

Funny.
 


Hey wasn't it you who said we should compare on the same level and not different levels? You know same price level, same die size (65nm vs 65nm) and so on? But you are ok with comparing say a dual core vs a triple or vs a quad core? Interesting.
 


And don't forget that you void your warranty if you do OC the CPU beyond the original spec.
 


So you are going to try to tell me that a change in price of $15 is in the same league as an increase of $215? Or even an increase of $110?

It makes me dizzy contemplating your incredible leaps of logic.

Or are you going to request that I post links to prove those prices? (Since that is the tactic you usually used when faced with a bit of cold harsh reality that you don't like.)
 


Ok so in your logic you can compare a dual core to a triple core. Or did you not get that? Can you read? So by your logic I will start comparing 45nm to 65nm. Thats my logic. Before you told me not to compare a 45nm part in power consumption to a 65nm part. Or do you not remember?

I for one am not fully able to trust those considering that a person here did his own test with a quad vs a quad at the same price range (well actually the Q6600 is cheaper than the 9750BE and 9850BE but still) and the difference was so small you could see that it was all GPU based.

But then again since most of the games tested are supposed to be multicore supported I would expect (if they do scale past 2 cores) for a triple core to do better than a dual core.
 


It's proven that AMD's triple cores are defective Phenoms X4 with one disabled core and not a "true-triple-core" (irony rocks). So, they can sell it at a loss, which is fine, you know. Is the X3 8750 a nice option? *YES*, it is. Is the E8400 a nice option? *YES*, it is. So, what's the deal? The X3 8750 will arguably give you a better "multi-tasking" experience, while the E8400 will perform better at games that are not well optimized beyond 2 cores. Both are *VERY* interesting options. However, you are just bashing another great product because it comes from Intel.

You talk a lot about "value", especially regarding Phenom X4, although last time I checked Newegg (1 minute ago) the prices were the following:

AMD Phenom X4 9950 2.6: $235
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.6: $209

Anything strange here? Where is the superior price/performance ratio of AMD in this case? Not at the same frequency, I suppose. However, if you are talking about a 2.2 ghz CPU (which even a X2 manages to outperform in some scenarios), then it's true. But Joe A. doesn't even need 2 cores, and even less 4 cores that underperform if compared to what he has (X2 and above).

The point: Both AMD and Intel have *fantastic* options at different segments.

No enthusiast don't like a bit of cold harsh reality, Keithlm. In fact, that's what they're after. It's just that there isn't such a reality to talk about. True enthusiasts get happy with things like this, and not sad - as you do when Intel delivers something better. If AMD comes with nice products (like X3 8750 and X4 9950) it's good for *EVERYONE*. Just fanboys will not get the meaning. Personally, I think that is damn good that AMD can put out products like X3 8750 at a price like that, however, we should also remember that it is a lot late if compared to the E8400 you talked about. Most people made up their minds.
 


Actually, Keithlm HAS a point in THIS case, Jimmy. I completely agree with you regarding the 45nm vs 65nm power comsumption thing - that he thinks it's unfair - and the performance of triple-core vs dual-core in optimized environments, however, if the X3 8750 costs less than the E8400 then you can compare both. It's the same as 2x 4870 vs 1x GTX 280. You *can* compare them because of their prices.

The problem is that Keithlm will brag about it forever and say that's the rule for AMD: ALWAYS delivering more for less $. As you noticed, he will make the comparisons that will make him happy as a fanboy.
 


You do realize that people sit on this forum and claim that nothing AMD has competes with anything that Intel puts out when comparing chips in the same price range.

Do you also realize that people won't consider this benchmark as being important? They'll either ignore it completely as being useless or just go back to their single threaded game benchmarks and pretend that they're the most important thing that people should consider.

Actually my post did not bash either CPU. I DID bash Mr. Jimmysmitty's ego after he attempted to put words into my mouth. He does that a lot. It somehow makes him feel better about himself.

OH... seeing your next post I see you like to put words into people's mouth also.

I wonder what that says about somebody from a psychological viewpoint.
 
For the sake of fairness, I should point out that Intel has pricecuts due on the 20th this month. Now really isn't the best time to be comparing price/performance since AMD has just cut their prices. Historically they pre-empt Intel price cuts by 2 weeks, and its been no different this time.

FWIW, the E8400 will drop to $163, and the E8500 will drop to $183. That'd most likely put the price/performance curve back in favour of Intel, though I'm sure keith will argue that til he's blue in the face. :heink:
 
Actually keith I did not put word into your mouth. You did say I should not compare a 65nm to a 45nm. I just would assume the same would go for # of cores even though technically there is nothing that can truly compete with a triple core from AMD in Intels part.

Funniest thing is I never once put any words in anyones mouth. You just seem to like to find ways to try to make me look bad since I tend to disagree that a Q6600 does not multitask smoothly like you say. But I take that from experience where as you take it from what you think.

Seriously keith, if we want a comparison that benchmark shows that in that case a X3 8750 is a great choice over a E8400. But in the case of OCing currently the E8400 is one of the best. Then we could compare that to a Q6600 since its about $15-$20 bucks higher and thats not much higher.

Either way stop trying to sound like a know it all. You just fail horribly.

dattimr, I think it depends really on the person. If they are going by price/performance then yes. If they are going based on watt/performance thats a different story. And if they just don't care about price and want the best performance from a dual then there ya go.

As for the 2 4870s vs 1 GTX280, I see your point but I seem to see it is vastly different in the GPU market. The only thing that seems to effect them is price/performance and the performance gain over the last gen. Power usage never seems to effect the outcome as GPUs are almost always using more power.

Meh this gets annoying. Compare on one point but not the other because they have a process advantage but the other one has a better design but but but.......wah wah wah. I still think its crap that people don't like to compare process wise but will compare it in any way that will favor their outcome. Its like comparing a Prius to a Excursion. The Excursion is safer, bigger and has much more room and a much more powerful engine. But the Prius gets better MPG so its just better. Crap.

Now I wounder what that says about a person from a psychological view point.
 


Coming from you that is the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.
 
Funny thing is, unlike you, I know that I do not know it all. In PC hardware the changes are so fast that something new is always around the corner. Its nice to be able to expand your mind and see whats out there instead of confining it to one area and thinking its the best.

Sad thing is you will probably never do that. Even if Nehalem is what it is said to be you will always try to find a way to say its not as good. Thats your own problem, enjoy it.
 


There you go YET AGAIN putting words into my mouth. You just can't seem to get enough of telling me what I think.

Your problem is that you automatically throw all people that do not agree with you into the same category in your brain. You think you know what they would think or say based on what OTHERS that don't agree with you would think or say.

Let me give you the correct words: I have no problem with the Nehalem. It appears to be a good design and they did it right. But you apparently can not comprehend that everyone that does not agree with your opinions WILL NOT ALWAYS agree with each other.
 
It is surprising that noone has thought of comparing AMD with AMD and Intel with Intel yet. With all the market prices fluctuations, supply and demand, different stores in different countries "holding on" to older prices or selling a good CPU for very low price because it sells like hot cakes and they just received a huge shipment and so on. Intel in particular has so many models to choose from, it is confusing.


There will be an Intel model which will be beaten by an AMD model at a very similar price level and vica versa. Additionally, what people seem to ignore, is that the chipset also matters and the memory used: every CPU needs a motherboard and memory, therefore comparing them isolated is not helpful for those of us that try to put together realistic systems.

The Q6600 seems to be unbeatable FOR THE TIME BEING: it is cheap compared to anything AMD have, it overclocks easily to 3.2GHz or beyond using standard PC2-6400 RAM and even at stock clock speed is faster than the Pehnoms. This of course may change if AMD decide to launch a Phenom that runs at 4GHz and costs half as much as the Q6600. So it is all relative.
 


They would if they could but they can't so they won't.

That's a result of manufacturing issues and also that AMD doesn't have the luxury that Intel has; Intel can pair up two fast dual cores to make a fast quad core. AMD has to make all four cores at once and the entire chip is only as fast as its best core. On paper AMD's design kicks ass, but in manufacturing, it does not, especially with their manufacturing abilities.
 
If they launched a Phenom @ 4ghz.... it wouldn't be $200 bucks, the TDP wouldn't be below 95w, and all the so called intel fanyboys would turn into Phenom Phanboys. :lol:. o O (ooooo, lookie what I got, and I still have one arm to type with)
 


Dude, do a forum search on "Q6600 or E8400"... that discussion got so tiresome, you had your E8400 owners arguing with Q6600 owners about which was the 'better' chip.
 



Exactly. If Phenom clocked higher and competed with Intel I'd be looking into getting one.
 
As would many. And then we'd all get slammed for being AMD fanboys. :lol:
 


That's because, as you said, the newer BIOS increased Vcore for Phenom from 1.2V to 1.3V, and sometimes up to 1.35V. And it does seem that AMD upped the voltage on Phenom.

http://forum.msi.com.tw/index.php?topic=118051.0

So let's see, in reality Phenom is actually factory overvolted.

EDIT: To further illustrate my point,
http://www.misco.ie/productinformation/~138546~WW~all~/AMD%20Phenom%209850%20quad%20core%20socket%20AM2%20%20processor.htm

Apparently this seller still pegs stock Vcore at 1.2/1.25V
 


Sorry if you felt like that, Keithlm, but that wasn't my intention. I DO agree with you regarding the E8400 vs X3 8750 comparison, Keithlm. Actually, I think it's awesome for AMD. However, at the same time I agree with Jimmy, since the E8400 can overclock like there's no tomorrow and Intel is ahead with 45nm. So, we have 2 perspectives here. Both are awesome performers in certain conditions. AMD wins some, Intel wins some and that's it. Probably, what makes people mad is that you usually seem to defend AMD at any costs - or at least that's the impression that everyone has. Sometimes I like some of your posts, just as sometimes I strongly disagree with you, however, I'm not bashing either you or AMD. If we are discussing like this then the purpose of the forum is doing great. It *MUST* happen. It's a good thing until it becomes agressive or fanboyish.

Anyway, we must be aware that just because someone says something great about Intel or AMD it doesn't mean that he or she is a fanboy. Intel is doing a lot better nowadays, but AMD is still kicking in the server environment and budget computers.

(PS: I don't agree with people rating you - or anybody else - down to hide your posts. You *have* to say what you got to say if it's fair and reasonable)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom