Q8400 stronger than the Phenom II quads when OC'ed over 3 Ghz?

nerrawg

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2008
500
0
18,990
1
Just saw this article on Anandtech and I have to say it looks like the Q8400 is a stronger CPU than the AMD Phenom II 940 - and possibly therefore the 955 - when the Q8400 is OC'ed past 3 Ghz. Check out the article:

OC results:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3559&p=13

Looks like it is better in games than the 940 (probably the 955 then as well)

Article from start:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3559&p=1

Things look worrying for AMD - especially when you see their budget deficit - it would be sad if it affects their R&D - which it undoubtedly will. I think we would all lose if Intel drives AMD into bankruptcy. Anyways - hope you enjoy the article.

Also, has anyone found any similar comparisons and what did they say?
 

cjl

Splendid
First, your links are broken.

Second, did they overclock the Phenoms as well? The Phenom II can easily hit >3.5GHz, and I would imagine that at those speeds, they would easily beat a 3GHz Q8400.
 

mcnuggetofdeath

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2008
301
0
18,790
3
Clock for Clock the Core 2 architecture is significantly stronger. Toms recently did an article comparing the q6600, the core i7 920, and the Phenom 2 940. Even at 2.4GHz the q6600 was running right alongside the phenom at 3GHz in 90% of the tests and still managed to prevail in specific situations.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-19.html

Then once you overclock a core 2 its over. People assume that because Intel has moved on to a new architecture the former somehow becomes less valid. The Q9650 which also runs at 3Ghz will destroy a Phenom 2, and overclocks to 4GHz on stock voltage. With a good heatsink itll go to 4.5GHz on air. To my knowledge the Phenom uses the same architecture found in the Athlon 64x2 just adapted to work with a quad core and more cache. Believe me when i say that i want to believe in AMD again, I love how they brought Nvidia back to earth with the 4000 series, but the Phenom isnt the answer.

And of course a Core 2 will beat an i7 in gaming at the same clockspeed, its cache is put in L2, whereas the i7 has the majority of its cache in L3 which operates at a significantly slower speed. The i7 was built for workstations, see: Hyperthreading.
 
In 3 out of 4 games the phenom was stronger , and its competitive everywhere else . In encoding apps its stronger than the 9550 C2Q's let alone the 8400

And since ithe 940be also overclocks I dont think the q8400 is exactly a king hit for intel somehow

 

nerrawg

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2008
500
0
18,990
1
Yeah that was running at stock speeds - the whole point I think was that the Q8400 is actually faster than the 940 clock for clock - or so it seems from the Far Cry 2 OC results. Stock verses stock the AMD wins - but for those willing to overclock it looks different from the test - anybody seen any other tests?
 

nerrawg

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2008
500
0
18,990
1


Well stock vs stock no - but the overclocking results show interesting clock for clock results that have the Q8400 leading in games and several other apps - I thought it was strange at first to - but looking at it it looks like the intels are stronger on a clock for clock basis and that it is only the higher stock clocks on the AMD that give it a lead without overclocking. Would like to see if there are any more articles though to confirm whether or not this is correct
 

The Third Level

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2009
336
0
18,780
0
Clock by Clock Core 2 is faster... but you'll probably be able to push the 940 to 3.6-ish, and considering the Q8000 series is supposed to be the low-end 45nm quads...

The Phenom IIs also have a lot more cache, a higher stock clock, and higher OCing potential. So theoretically, yes the Q8400 would be faster at similar speeds, but if you're going to OC, the Phenom II will go further anyway.
 

nerrawg

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2008
500
0
18,990
1
Check out the results man - what you said is what I assumed at first - but it was the opposite of the results - the Q8400 OC'ed stable on the stock cooler up to 3.4 Ghz and at this speed it was quicker than the 940 at 3.6 Ghz. According to Anandtech they hardly saw an increase in game performance between the 940 at 3.2 Ghz and at 3.6 Ghz - whereas the Q8400 continued to scale - but don't take my word for it - check out the article

 

Reynod

Administrator
Phenom II cpu's have about the same IPC as the 65nm core2 cpu's (Conroe / Kentsfield), and on most tasks are slightly slower than the 45nm core2 cpu's (Worlfdale / Yorkfield).

Both these lines overclock well, though the 45nm Intel cpu's have better thermal characteristics.

The Q8 series have smaller caches - they are the "celeron" of the quad cores.

Doesn't look like they suffer much from the castration but as they have higher FSB's they are harder to overclock too.
 

nerrawg

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2008
500
0
18,990
1
Yeah that's what's been the case - but now you can get the Q8400 cheaper than the 940, and a P45 board costs roughly the same as a 790X - so really if the Q8400 performs better than the 940 - it's better bang for the buck - that is why this is so interesting.
 

B-Unit

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2006
1,837
1
19,810
5
So this changes what exactly? If your on 775, any Q9xxx will still smoke 8400, and if your buying new, why drop money into a dead end platform...
 

radiowars

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
422
0
18,790
3

They aren't. I just clicked them. Also, he said the website (AnandTech- so you should just look it up). And yes the Phenom II was OC to 3.6.
the Q8400 was @ 3.3.
The Q8400 beat the Phenom 2 in almost all tests.
 

mcnuggetofdeath

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2008
301
0
18,790
3


Are you serious? The two go hand in hand. I did my research to find the best deal for the best price. I went with an e7400 for just that reason. And as to the price comparison, the q8400 is $5 cheaper on Newegg.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Essentually, these 2 are run mostly at stock, as the vast majority dont oc, unfortunately. And also, the most demanded of all those tests being run by the average Joe, gaming is the highest in demand.
The gaming performance at stock, the 940 wins, so no, no troubles there. You have to look at the bigger picture, and not just particular segments, whether it enthusiast, someone needing huge amounts of rendering etc. AMD is lagging behind in IPC compared to Itels Core chips, even the AM3's are behind, but a lil closer.
I hear AMD is trying to fashion their next cpu, Bulldozer, after Intels newesr and best, with implementing SSE5 etc, which will also be a huge catchup for them as well, as in many of these tests, SSE4 helps the Intel chips, while the AMD struggles without a true SSE4
 
Yeah, they didn't exactly run alot of tests on the overclocking part. Oh well. Anyway it's no secret that AMD CPUs are behind in IPC compared to 45nm wolfdale CPUs, or even the older 65nm Kentsfield. Alot of it stems from bad management on AMDs part, particularly to delay 65nm production to sell more 90nm chips, not taking Core 2 seriously until it was too late, and damaging more than a few relations when it sold one of it's fabs at a time when demand for it's 90nm chips were at it's highest. From there they've just been playing catchup. Anyway AMD is better for me since I already have a 790X board and I don't plan on overclocking with just the stock cooler :D.
 

Reynod

Administrator
For the power for price the Phenom II are compelling.

Still ... I'd rather a Q9650 and smoke any AMD system for just $150 more ... overclocked or not.

For another $300 you can go i7 ... that seems a bit expensive to me... but the prices will drop on the i7 mobos soon enough.

For a budger gaming build the Phenom II's are great - if your lucky enought to be able to upgrade just by swapping the cpu then your in a nice place too.

That's twice I have made an anti-AMD recommendation ... must do a full self diagnostic ... might have a spintel virus.
 

mcnuggetofdeath

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2008
301
0
18,790
3



lol. ^^^ very similar to my sentiments. I love the core 2 duo rig im using now, but i put a phenom 9600 in a workstation/low end gaming rig for a friend cuz he didnt have the money or the need for something insane. He lucked out and got one that overclocked well, and I got it all the way to 2.7GHz with a similarly cheap but effective arctic cooling freezer 64 heatsink. Thought about getting the same cpu and putting it in a cheap server but dont see the need for a seperate build when i can create data redundancy with multiple drives in my primary rig. Currently trying to sell my desktop to a friend and purchase a core i7 rig i put together on newegg cuz i dont see myself gaming as much in the future.
 

Helloworld_98

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
3,371
0
20,790
4
Core 2's are even more enticing now that you can get an X48 board for about £100, £50 less than an i7 board, but that's what kills the point of getting a Q9650, an i7 build will cost about the same as a Q9650 build with an X48 motherboard.

Infact the Q9650 build would be slightly more expensive since 2x2GB of 1066mhz which you'll want for oc'ing is £35 and 3x1GB is slightly less than that.
 

Similar threads