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

[nerrawg]

In the ideal case (a perfect memory controller), triple channel will always have exactly the same latency and exactly 1.5x the bandwidth of dual channel with all other factors the same. It's the same idea as with graphics cards - the 384 bit bus on the G80 core should have exactly 1.5x the bandwidth and exactly the same latency of the 256 bit bus on the G92. Both should have perfect linear scaling with frequency (I.E. DDR3-2000 is exactly twice the bandwidth of DDR3-1000, regardless of interface). From the tests I've seen, there's also some architectural advantage with Intel's memory controller, where an I7 with tri channel will have >1.5x the bandwidth of an AM3 dual channel setup with the same RAM. This has nothing to do with an inherent advantage to tri channel though, and this will probably be seen when the dual channel Intel IMCs start showing up later this year.

Of course, the question then becomes whether the extra bandwidth from tri channel is really needed. In the case of most desktop applications, the answer is fairly resoundingly no.

Thanks for explaining that - makes sense now.

 

[jimmysmitty]

The only game in that article where the q8400 is ahead is far cry 2.

In the other three games the Phenom has a clear advantage , and right through the article the Phenom is generally better . The difference is easily worth the $5 price premium IMO
In the oc page you have to ask why they showed only the game result that favoured intel .

Possibly because compared to Crysis and Fallout 3 FC2 actually uses a quad decently. Only Left 4 Dead truly utilizes quads better (I have both games and have tested it on my Q6600).

The Q6600 itself stock is very good for most games since they are just no taking advantage of a quad. But the people who normally got a Q6600 got the G0 stepping for one purpose: the ability to OC it to 3GHz without haveing to ever up the voltage, and some (such as myself) were able to lower the stock voltage too. Its sad to see they only include the Q6600 and not a QX6850 to see what a Q6600 @ 3GHz would be.

The Q8400 is a decent chip TBH. Its not amazing, like the Q6600 was but its also not bad. But once DDR3s prices come down and the X58 mobos go down to arouns $150 the Core i7 920 will be a major competator.

Well until Core i5 come out. Core i5 looks to be pretty good and with 32nm and HK/MG V2 it will not only run pretty cool it will probably also OC better.

As I have said many times before, Phenom II is a great upgrade choice for those with a compatable AM2+ mobo and for those with a very low budget (maybe a X3 710/720) for such as a HTPC or casual gaming machine. But depending on the budget Intel still comes to play. I normally stay around $1500 and for that Intel is decent. AMD is ok but depends on what is in that price range.

 

[esotericjester]

1) I guess I don't see anything extraordinary in this article. I thought it was common knowledge that the Phenom II's stock performance advantages were due to higher clock speeds. The overclocking results show that each processor maintains the their lead in benchmarks that they won at stock speeds. Granted, the difference in Far Cry 2 grows more than the the difference in the other tests, but I don't view this as alarming. Of course the discussion of profit margins on the chips that you quoted certainly isn't good for AMD, but I don't see this article as showing Intel trouncing AMD at this price point. It shows the two processors at the same price point trading blows which is what all of the AMD/Intel comparisons (that I have read) since Phenom II relase have shown.

2)

If you overclock then the E7400 has exactly the same performance clock for clock as the E8400 - It is a cheaper and better choice - check out this article where it is the same as an E8600 clock for clock:

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=908

This article does not show that the E7400 is exactly the same clock for clock in games as the E8600. It shows a performance deficit in Far Cry 2. These are the author's comments:

For max performance the larger cache CPU is a must. Far Cry 2 does like the extra cache and for sure the extra gains from a using higher FSB. It's nice to see such a new game title give high FPS with detail settings on high (although at lower resolution)

The other gaming benchmark shows a GPU bottleneck for both processors in Crysis Warhead.

 

[nerrawg]

1) I guess I don't see anything extraordinary in this article. I thought it was common knowledge that the Phenom II's stock performance advantages were due to higher clock speeds. The overclocking results show that each processor maintains the their lead in benchmarks that they won at stock speeds. Granted, the difference in Far Cry 2 grows more than the the difference in the other tests, but I don't view this as alarming. Of course the discussion of profit margins on the chips that you quoted certainly isn't good for AMD, but I don't see this article as showing Intel trouncing AMD at this price point. It shows the two processors at the same price point trading blows which is what all of the AMD/Intel comparisons (that I have read) since Phenom II relase have shown.

2)

This article does not show that the E7400 is exactly the same clock for clock in games as the E8600. It shows a performance deficit in Far Cry 2. These are the author's comments:

For max performance the larger cache CPU is a must. Far Cry 2 does like the extra cache and for sure the extra gains from a using higher FSB. It's nice to see such a new game title give high FPS with detail settings on high (although at lower resolution)

The other gaming benchmark shows a GPU bottleneck for both processors in Crysis Warhead.

Good to see that there finally was someone who actually read the article - and your statement is correct. Personally I find the higher multiplier a more convincing argument for the E8600 - but the extra cache does show a small benefit.

My statement was not accurate, thanks for correcting me.

However for a gaming computer I believe that the extra $50 premium for an E8400 is not worth it unless you already have a killer GPU setup and the rest - the extra $150 for the E8600 is definitely not worth it unless you plan on extreme overclocking. That would be a more accurate statement.

1 - yes I agree - however before the Q8400 I would have argued that Intel wasn't even able to trade blows - the AMD Phenom was the all-round better value plattform - what the Q8400 did was to bring Intel back into the competition for the value quad core segment - especially when it comes to OC. The older Q8200 couldn't really ever compete at that level with its low multi.

 

[esotericjester]

However for a gaming computer I believe that the extra $50 premium for an E8400 is not worth it unless you already have a killer GPU setup and the rest - the extra $150 for the E8600 is definitely not worth it unless you plan on extreme overclocking. That would be a more accurate statement.

I agree with this. My statement about absolute performance was admittedly nitpicking and I planned to mention the cost vs performance gain, but it was unintentionally omitted.

 

[B-Unit]

Hey, guess what?

 

[werxen]

it is common knowledge you cannot support a dual core vs. a quad core here on toms. here on toms we are all american. american means bigger and better every time. if you do not have the biggest and baddest you are not american so GTFO.

typical noob mentality that is portrayed here in regards to CPU's. quad core users need to wake up, seriously.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

DX11, W7, Open Cl....need I say more? Moar is bettah!!!

 

[rockstone1]

clock for clock doesnt matter

what matters is computing power per $

Phenom has been consistently ahead in that test against all intel cpu's

That is true- but a $50 processor is much more powerful for your dollar than a $100 processor. That doesn't mean you would recommend the former...

/AMD fan- just saying.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

I fixed the links in the OP, but they were broken. The forum software tries to make them appear shorter and if you do things "right" sometimes it kills them.

And another thing - the link tool always tries to insert at the beginning of the post, not where the cursor was when invoked. This leads to much cursing on my part

 

[Wisecracker]

Anand fudge his benching? Oh, noesssssss

That's one of Anand's own charts. While an increase in overall clock speed will benefit the Phenom arch the real gains come from additionally upping the IMC/NB speed - a 27% increase in the OC'ed Crossfired rig to 71.4 FPS with the IMC/NB at 2.8GHz. Ummm, no wonder he left the Ph II 940BE IMC/NB at 1.8GHz - LOL.

And the Biostar 790GX/720BE combo is now $184 AR ... That should leave enough financial room for that second HD4870
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.200066

For the most part Anand has given an honest evaluation of Intel/AMD but I don't think the OP's article is a very good example of that. He was just pumping the q8400 to pay some bills, I reckon - can't blame him for that!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

They pretty much did the same here at Toms. Seems people really dont know how to get the most out of their AMD chips.
I invite any cpu user to go thru AMD threads, inevitably the "I wish theyd bump those NB speeds up" comes out, cause thats where the real power is seen, not as a Ghz thing, but a IPC thing

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If the NB freqs were 2.8, the P2 would leave C2Q at 45nm behind, and encroach on i7

 

[Malcolmk]

The simple answer is NO. The intel dual core looks good in benchmarks but when played side by side the Phenom is far superior. The phenom is smoother and has a more consistent framerate. Also lots of games are four or even eight thread enabled so it's a waste of time getting an intel dual core. There outdated and overpriced. I've had eight 775 motherboards and four dual cores and none of them where any good in game play on a 24"screen when compared to the AMD quads.

 

[obsidian86]

i find this a review quite fair http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rid=174121

 

[CoolBeansG]

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.

I'm 52 years old, and me and my nephew have been having a blast playing Crysis Wars on the Q8400 system I just built for my wife to do wp and surfing, and its other purpose being a budget gaming system for the nephew for only $560. It runs great so far. Haven't run any benchmarks on it, but you can tell by game play that it's more then adequate for playing the games we want to play.