What is it with all the Phenom "sucks" responses....

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

keithlm

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2007
735
0
18,990
2


Agreed. I was trying to find a good objective benchmark or some method of running them to test something that is currently subjective.

BTW: Intel will make sure that many of these subjective aspects DO HAVE good benchmarks about the time they release Nehalem.



Actually... task-switching to be more specific.

I hate stuttering and slowdowns. (Which is why I built my first dualie back in 2000.)
 

keithlm

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2007
735
0
18,990
2


I'm a physicist. From the OLD SCHOOL.

We used ticker tape, slide rules, stop watches, and meter sticks in college physics labs. We had to write our results into lab books BY HAND. You could not print your report out. (Besides my print head had 1 dot... and no descenders; the college printers didn't have lowercase.)

Now they use lasers and computers. (And I don't believe they can learn as much.)
 


LOL, it's funny how times have changed. I'm a young lad (only 24). In high school here are some of the classes I took:

C++ Programming
Java Programming
Cisco CCNA class

Now I'm going for my masters and nearly all the classes are online (with no in-class option offered!)
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1


touche!

Best,

3Ball
 

bfellow

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
779
0
18,980
0
Benchmarks are good to prove that buying a 2400XTX 1GB DDR2 (if it ever existed) is a waste compared to a 8800GT 256MB DDR3 for something like Oblivion.
 

Serj

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2007
83
0
18,630
0
I honestly like the Phenom 9600 on the Spider Platform setups that AMD is promoting. it's one coherent driver package, and the Phenom, while slower in benches and worse at overclocking, has a price point that is very difficult to resist when it comes to stepping into a quadcore setup. Ultimately, Overclocking a CPU is to try and make a slower and cheaper CPU outperform a stock-clocked, higher-priced unit. In that respect, the Phenom 9600 BE has been able to be run faster than a Q6600, and approaches comparability to a Q6700. yes, i know the 6600s OC better, but to some people, that $40 saved would be better put to use buying a game to go with your setup, or a more powerful gfx card that will more readily show framerate improvements than the performance difference between the Q6600 and the phenom. I WAS waiting for the B3 stepping but the wait was killing me, then the Wolfdale hit the market. And so, now, i abandon plans for my dream of an arachnid inhabiting my case for a little 45nm lovin'
 

caamsa

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,830
0
19,810
13


TC you continue to miss my point....but hell I am accustomed to it by now.
 


Caamsa, you continue to blindly support AMD and bend the facts to do so...but hell, I am accustomed to it by now.




LOL, you know I like you.
 

yipsl

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
1,666
0
19,780
0


That was very good, and I seldom agree with your bias against AMD. No matter how much difference between the real world and benchmarks, they still matter.

The facts are in Intel's corner right now, and it will get worse with Wolfdale vs. Phenom dual core (though triple core might be worth it at Wolfdale prices). It will get much worse with the next generation Intel quad core. I fully admit that AMD is back to the K62 days (but I was happy with my K62450 for four years).

Yet, you show a bias that, if not fanboyish, is at least unfair. AMD has the cheaper quad core right now, and unless Intel drops the price of the Q6600 when newer quad cores arrive, then Phenom B3 is the budget price performance quad core to wait for. At home, 29 seconds difference is not all that much. It's not like we watch our PC's encode or burn a DVD.

Intel will put quad cores into notebooks, but it will really heat up with Swift arrives, hopefully before Intel's fusion style solution. AMD will always be second fiddle, but not for lack of innovation or spirit. It would have been better if AMD had not gone native quad at 65nm and instead slapped two Brisbane's together, but perhaps HT prevented that from working, where Intel's front side bus made it feasible?

We will see what 45nm from AMD will bring, what Swift will bring and whether AMD can get back to the still low market share that made it profitable during the X2 days. When AMD pays for ATI, then they'll have the money for research, and I'm really looking forward to the day when Cell like architecture from IBM replaces x86 and we see more convergence between desktops, notebooks and consoles.



A K10 core is 17% to 25% better than K8:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/14/phenom_vs_athlon_core_scaling_compared/

It is not a "new" architecture, but it's still better than the prior generation. Core does not scale as well because they are the same architecture, and it's been shown in many reviews that a present day Intel quad core does not always trounce a present day dual core.

We might see similar scaling issues when Phenom dual and triple cores are benchmarked against Phenom quad cores.

As for enthusiast, I'm an enthusiast in what I can do with my PC's. I'm not an enthusiast in paying the kind of prices for enthusiast GPU's and I generally don't overclock because I want every PC to be viable until it dies of old age. I gave up on a P166 as the second PC when I built a P4 1.6 gigahertz Williamette to replace the K62-450 so I could play Morrowind. When I built a second Athlon X2 box, I put the P4 2.8 Northwood out to pasture.

If an enthusiast is someone who swaps out GPU's every 6 months and CPU's every year, then I'm not that. That justifies overclocking. I am psyched about having a stable system with components I choose and install based on my budget and PC usage patterns. I try to build a PC to last 4 to 5 years with upgrades. IMHO, a motherboard should support two to three CPU's over it's life and a bus should support 2 or 3 GPU upgrades.

There's a whole middle ground between the overclocker's club and the "Dude you got a Dell but don't know what's in the PC besides solitaire" set. I'm a proud resident of that middle ground.



That's had me wondering too. I really would like to know what's going on. Will B3 be the savior of Phenom, or will we have to wait for 45nm? If Phenom is AMD's Netburst, they should get past it as quickly as possible, but from what I read about Swift, it will be one HD 3000 graphics core with 3 Phenom 45nm cores.

Perhaps AMD is putting all their efforts into getting a 25% performance boost at 45nm over 65nm? They will need it if the performance and thermals for Wolfdale scale up nicely in Intel's native 45nm quad core.

Is Intel having problems with 45nm or are they just staying back to let AMD catch their breath? It's not good business practice to drive one's competitor out of business while governments the world over are investigating your business practices for antitrust violations.

I'd love to see a hybrid box with one Swift and one Cell processor for the desktop that can do it all. It might be a programming nightmare, but it's an idea that's not just for supercomputers anymore. :)



:lol: That's great, the only thing worse than buying a Dell is buying an E-Machines. The only thing worse than buying a Mac is buying a Mac based on the Mac vs. PC commercials (though they were funny).

The last Mac I ever considered buying was able to play Ultima III: Exodus better than my Commodore 128. Luckily, I didn't have that much available on my credit card balance. So, I was saved from desktop computing's version of Dianetics.



Socket T looks better because it brings to mind images of Daisy Duke in a skimpy T. :pt1cable:

I still chose AM2 because I'm so old fashioned I like my pins on the processor and not the motherboard.

Tell you what, I'm going to Fry's on February 1st to get a CPU/mobo combo for a cheap build; and I'll seriously consider an Intel Pentium C2D with an ECS Via board if they're still bundled together at $88. I need something to replace the last P4 in the house and it only has to be something in the X2 3800+ range in capabilities.



I was born in Maryland, but I really love West Virginia. Too bad I'm stuck in Texas.

I'll say from the bottom of my Scotch-Irish, Somerville on my mother's side, heart: Hillbilly's get a bad press. I've seen more perversity on visits to L.A. than I ever saw in the Appalachians. Besides, Maryland has a bit of mountains too, and when I lived on Deal's Island back in the 60's, we had an outhouse and had to ride a ferry on the way to Salisbury.



The fact that a Phenom is 17% to 25% better than an X2 core is not enough? Methinks that people have been blinded by the great increase over Netburst that C2D provided. Wolfdale is supposed to provide as big an increase over C2D as C2D did over Netburst but I doubt that any new line of processors will engender such a sigh of relief as C2D did. All the Intel fanboys finally had an answer to AMD other than "I needed an extra space heater" and "I like doing crossword puzzles while my Prescott burns a data CD."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt we'll see such a major change in architecture between generations of x86 processors as we did between Netburst and C2D.
 

caamsa

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,830
0
19,810
13


:lol: Hey I thought you loved me?

I like the way you twist me into an AMD drone blindly following them off a cliff.

Actually I will be an AMD fan until I need to upgrade.......which might be a while. By then we shall see who is the better deal. Until then I IMO have a rock solid system that suits me well. Have you upgraded yet or are you still running your AMD system?
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1


I full well understand where you are coming from with the increase from netburst to C2D, but there are posts on this very thread showing the 6000+ beating the fastest phenom so...please show me this 17% increase you speed of. If you are going to say that the clock speed is the issue then I just wont respond back, because in that respect the P4 should have ripped apart the C2D. If it is going to take a quad threaded app for phenom to beat its predecessor then I am not impressed. If they get the speed up to 3ghz and I see this 17% increase on average across many apps then I will be impressed, but until then...I will not be. Sorry, if this hurts anyones feelings, but I am not going to be hard on one company (Intel with P4) and then not on the other (AMD with Phenom) when in fact neither impress me.

Best,

3Ball
 

yomamafor1

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


First of all, in THG test, they practically lowered X2 6000+'s clock to match that of Phenom 9900. So to be precise, your statement should be, "Phenom is 17% to 25% better than an X2 core at the same frequency". Even with as much as 25% better IPC (in any given program), Phenom still can't offset the clockspeed X2 enjoyed. The fastest Phenom out there is 2.3Ghz, while X2 already is running at 3.2Ghz. In other words, the fastest Phenom is 28% slower than the fastest X2, in best scenario.

The transformation from Netburst to C2D was stunning because C2D enjoyed an average 40% increase in IPC (in any given program) over Netburst. In addition, the fastest Netburst was only 23% faster than the fastest C2D at that time. Aside from that, C2D not only runs cooler, it also consumes a lot less heat. Compared to AMD's fastest offering, FX-62, Intel was able to outperform it by 20%, on multiple fronts, with their second fastest E6700. So people were hyped about how Intel bit the bullet and launched a brand new lineup. This is completely different from AMD's scenario, where they're still fighting C2D with dated X2, and C2Q with insufficient Phenoms.

Another point is, Wolfdale was never meant to be a major change to C2D as C2D to Netburst. Wolfdale is still largely based on Core architecture, with the exception of having a larger cache, and built on a smaller node. Other than that, with some minor improvement on the process engine, majority of their architecture is similar. If you're looking for the game changer in mobile sector, you might want to look for Nehalem's mobile variant.
 

harna

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
282
0
18,790
3
Yes, yes yes, but let's not forget that the P4 had run out of legs when C2D was born, while Phenom is up against a pacey up to date power house in the X2 6400+

So what's the big deal here. All new cpu launches start at the lower end, glitches are worked through in real working environments and then throttled up. What's different about the Phenom here. It promised a better IPC and delivered it. It's not the fault of the Phenom that the blasted X2 is so bloody fast.

Perhaps I suggest that Phenom is better compared to C2D 6600, the top C2D's on release. That might provide a much better perspective.

C2D looked as brilliant as it did because it clobbered the P4, not what it did to the X2.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0


Oh please, the X2 6400+ is on it's last legs just as much as the 3.8GHz P4. 125W TDP, near zero overclockability... that is a process stretched to it's absolute limits, and it gets clobbered by C2Ds.

Phenom sucks, it's only saving grace is that it is cheap enough to offer a price/performance alternative, which seems to be all AMD is good at these days.
 

harna

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
282
0
18,790
3
 

harna

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
282
0
18,790
3
epselon wrote:

"Oh please, the X2 6400+ is on it's last legs just as much as the 3.8GHz P4. 125W TDP, near zero overclockability... that is a process stretched to it's absolute limits, and it gets clobbered by C2Ds.

Phenom sucks, it's only saving grace is that it is cheap enough to offer a price/performance alternative, which seems to be all AMD is good at these days."

Clobbered by C2D's??? Some C2D's, and most of those are in the upper price brackets. And as for Phenom's sucking, well I think we are doing alright when a processor as well equipped for the real world sucks like this one does. Sure it's not for everyone, but it would be pretty easy to live with. And no, if you already own an X2 there is certainly no need to get a Phenom, or a C2D or QC2D for that matter.

......and sucky is in the eye of the beholder.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
Yes, clobbered. In case you didn't realise, the new 45nm Wolfdale C2Ds are out and they destroy the X2 6400+ in every way.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_6.html#sect1



The SLOWEST 45nm C2D owns the X2 6400+. Did I mention clobbered?

Phenom suckage:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom_10.html#sect1



A Phenom @ 3GHz barely matches a stock Q6600 @ 2.4GHz... an overclocked Phenom can't even beat the slowest stock C2Q, so yes, I'd say Phenom sucks.

You are right about one thing though, suckage is in the eyes of the beholder. Nothing I say will change your opinion that Phenom is, well, 'phenonemal'... LOL
 

pip_seeker

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
437
0
18,780
0



Plus the difference in cost is like about $30 on a good day. Who wouldn't pay a little more for a faster cpu?


this message was typed from an AMD x2 3800+ machine
 

harna

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
282
0
18,790
3
ok epsilon84
Now let's analyse what we have here.

Crysis, is the one we need to look at here as it's the most taxing of any application.

Phenom 9600 is at 45.08
Wolfdale E6850 is at 62.76

Now 62.76 - 45.08 = 17.68 FPS

The price difference is what? The Wolfdale sits on the latest 1333 MHz FSB mobo. The Phenom is competing with it on a much older AM2 platform. Now what video are they using here? Do you just on the slightest outside possibility think that I can make up these 20 FPS difference with some better gpu's? Of course I can. This is anything but an insurmountable lead.

I've just come in from watching a 6850 C2D SLi pc go through its paces and it would smash that Wolfdale benchmark. Ring me back with something really impresive to say next time.
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1


Considering the difference between 45fps and 60fps smoothness wise...I would say that is a pretty big difference. Maybe not % wise, but as far as gameplay it is much better. After all most of us consider 60fps a target area to get to in most of our games. Atleast I do. I would still prefer a Q6600 GO Stepping @ 3.2ghz, which is actually what I am goin for next (since I just sent in the step up for the card you see in the sig about 2 hours ago, lol)...if I dont just wait for nehlam or an AMD answer that is.

Best,

3Ball
 

harna

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
282
0
18,790
3




But what 2 minutes of this said 90 minute movie encoding was this very generous 26 seconds obtained. Its a bit like taking the hardest bit of a gaming benchmark and stretching it out for as much difference you can make. I'm not saying the C2D isn't the faster option for this kind of work, but to take a 2minute excerpt and stretch it to ninety a minute task seems to me to be a little stretch of the imagination?
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0


FFS, get a clue already. You are wrong on every level. The E6850 is not a Wolfdale, it's the older Conroe 65nm core. There are cheaper and faster 45nm quads available as the E8400. The Phenom is tested on an AM2+ platform, not AM2. 62fps vs 45fps is a massive difference playability wise. What does GPU choice have to do with it? Both platforms can be upgraded with a faster GPU, it doesn't take away the fact that Core 2 is a much better gaming CPU for Crysis.

I see you have nothing to say about the X2 6400+ benchmarks. What happened to 'Oh X2 is so fast I just creamed my pants?!". :lol:
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS