I was just saying I already had a P3500 and I'm more interested in Wolfdale after the Price cuts on the 22nd of this month. They can call me anything they like. I'am a Fanboy of my Wallet, not Intel or AMD's. I don't want to give either of them a penny more than I have to;) There's a very slim chance I'll get a Q6600 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
More or less the same, you know... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
lol wallet fanboy, yeah same here. Except my wallet seems to be about half the size of yours. To be honest I'm far more interested in nehalem than k10.5 because of how instable amd's been recently, but I'm afraid I won't be able to afford a nehalem system due to the high costs of ddr3 and a new mobo etc. And for that reason I'm just going to have to stick with amd until I can get a job that pays moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Good find, though my point still stands...(debunking TripleA's point I guess) :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by GunterFalstaff
Significantly cheaper != same price (for less performance).Quote:
Originally Posted by triple_A
I really don't understand all the excitement behind this. Any Q6600 will be able to get to 3.2ghz on air; some will often even do 3.6. Even at 3.2ghz, it would still be significantly faster than a Phenom at the same speed.
So, we finally see an improvement in their product, and we're just going to crap on it? I don't get it. They were having trouble getting their complex design up and working, they finally do and now it's clocking alright and instead of saying nothing and just nodding it off because it isn't something that interests you, you take a positive outcome and turn it negative. This is the stuff that bugs me, since we all know the history of this architecture, we don't need to be retold every other post! And by we, I'm not talking about "fanboys" I'm talking about everyone. Everyone knows the history at this point, at least everyone reading the news in this forum. What were the average overclocks B2 9600's were seeing? 200-400mhz? and now we're seeing 500+?Quote:
Originally Posted by NetburstXE
that's just crappy.
And given the overclocking headroom on phenoms, you have to admire the fact that Intel keeps their processors pegged at their current default frequencies; because it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of q6600s for example, are capable of running at 3Ghz on default voltages. In fact, based on this fact alone, the trouncing of phenom was a foregone conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NetburstXE
it's found that clock per clock core is a faster uarch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakko
face it newer itterations of core can do 4Ghz on air AND are around 15-20% faster per clock
That's why you kept recommending the Black Edition in previous posts :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Regards
Andy
Same principles apply even with an unlocked multi.:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by zakelwe
That was exactly what I was thinking. Since when a 23% OC is considered golden? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
Maybe Phenom set new standards for OC-ing....:rolleyes:
Im not saying that we shouldnt let people know whats better but thats not the case here. People tend to go overboard on the whole "I hate AMD" thing and act like their life depends on it and im sure you have seen plenty of that around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by irev210
Its not like people dont know that since its been discussed numerous times.
Guys we are talking about phenoms here. so don't take it as C2Q vs Phenom, coz it won't make sense. we should be glad amd finally comes out with an improvement for its products. although we still can blame hector for everything though
Seems like the Phenom may be a viable option for those that have an AM2 board already. AMD is not there yet, but things are improving :)
actually there is a 1Ghz diference, you can get a q9000 to 4+GHz on air.Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
equal speed 3.0-3.2 with NB running @ 2.5-2.6 (what we see from early b3 oc's). I don't think you're q6600 will be faster ....Quote:
Originally Posted by NetburstXE
off course the G0 will consume less and OC further
as usual see the context of the post, not the post on itself (read the whole thread), lots of people having issues with that..... specially the bunniesQuote:
Originally Posted by zakelwe
I don't think that the "golden" samples can run the NB @2.5GHz~2.6GHz stable. 2.4GHz maybe. It'd be interesting to see a Phenom X4 3GHz with L3 & Nb clocked @2.4GHz compared to a Kentsfield 3GHz FSB-1333.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
2.4 was already possible on b2 depending on board and person behind it, b3 looks it has more headroom http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=183025Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
but still would like to see the comparison even with NB@2.4.
I am talking about stable operation. As the op said on that thread, with the NB&L3 set to 2.5GHz the CPU wasn't stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
IMO Phenom @3GHz and NB/L3 @2.4GHz in average is going to be as fast as Kentsfield @3GHz and FSB @1333MHz for multithreaded software, but for singlethreaded i think it'll still be a little slower. The NB & L3 speed can improve multithreading performance, where Phenom is more competitive to Kentsfield, but for singlethreaded I think that the NB&L3 speed won't do much.
with a lower ipc than a q6600 and even lower ipc than 45nm quads from intel, that oc to 4ghz and beyond... i really dont think 3.2ghz will blow anybodies mind.
its fast enough for any game and any workstation pretty much... but that was the case with the previous phenoms too...
People are forgetting that majority of benchmarks presetnted here were ran with C'n'Q ENABLED.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
This is lowering S.T. performance compared to C'n'Q DISABLED. I know AMD is advasing on using C'n'Q, but when benched properly diference between Phenom and Kentsfild isn't that big in 1-2 threaded software.
Pick a bench and I can prove it.
To be clear Kentsfild on average will have better IPC by 1%-10% but nowhere near 15%-25% as claimed by some.
lol whatever :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
I was looking at prices in the Netherlands cause those are the only prices that matter to me, and over here a 9550 is significantly cheaper than a q6600.
:rofl: Have you read this thread? Look at some of the posts and the performance misconceptions in this thread alone!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by lazy
Quote:
So i also think a 3.2Ghz phenom can keep up pretty well with 3-3.2Ghz kentfield...
Quote:
I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.
And I was looking at pricing in the US 'cause those are the only prices that matter to me'.Quote:
Originally Posted by triple_A
The same applies to EIST. I personally concluded this by testing my C2D & C2Q with EIST enabled and disabled. Besides, CnQ on K8 is much more better than EIST and I think that K10 has better CnQ than K8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Anyway, anybody who is OC-ing don't use CnQ/EIST.
I don't have a Phenom yet, but according to all the sites who did benchmarks, in average the Q6600 is around 9%~10% faster than X4 9750.Quote:
Pick a bench and I can prove it.
To be clear Kentsfild on average will have better IPC by 1%-10% but nowhere near 15%-25% as claimed by some.
Anadtech
XbitLabs
FiringSquad
TechReport
LegitReviews
If AMD continues this trend of improving Phenom's OC-ing ability and reducing prices I'll buy one for sure.
I say finally that is great they are getting it sorted out on there side but downside is that well.. Its to late :( Some might be intrestest for sure but we'll have to see how it plays out.
And yes, C2D Quads out perform the current Phenom design flat out clock for clock, weather its at 2.4Ghz or 3.2Ghz. As people have mentioned thats not including the newer Intel 45nm chips that can added even more lead per clock speed.