Quad Core Round Up: AMD Vs Intel Clock to Clock(deneb vs agena + deneb vs intel)

Funny thread. Most of us only care about games. I don't play cinebench, 3D Mark, or any of those other "bench" tools. If you game in the area of 1680X1050 with AA/AF applied then you'd be hard pressed to tell a big difference between AMD/Intel newest Quads. So for gamers all this non sense really don't matter because they are all damn near even when it comes to REAL WORLD gaming. So as a gamer I will buy the cheapest that allows me to game efficiently. With that said, hell I may instead get a 9850 or 9950 once Deneb come out. They should be dirt cheap then. The 9850's are already selling for 147USD and should drop to less than 125USD once Deneb hits shelves...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throwed

Funny thread. Most of us only care about games. I don't play cinebench, 3D Mark, or any of those other "bench" tools. If you game in the area of 1680X1050 with AA/AF applied then you'd be hard pressed to tell a big difference between AMD/Intel newest Quads. So for gamers all this non sense really don't matter because they are all damn near even when it comes to REAL WORLD gaming. So as a gamer I will buy the cheapest that allows me to game efficiently. With that said, hell I may instead get a 9850 or 9950 once Deneb come out. They should be dirt cheap then. The 9850's are already selling for 147USD and should drop to less than 125USD once Deneb hits shelves...

---

games matter the most to me since i don't render, need file compression, try to calculate world records of prime numbers, want to see how fast i can calculate fpu mandel, graphics design, don't do video conversion on a large scale. ill use the benchies when im tweaking to see the difference but how the results compare to other cpus is meaningless to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leoy

@ zucker2k
All i see is that i am right again.
[IMG]http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8827/cinebench37vl3.png[/I]
Score of yorkfield @3.7 @ hwbox : 14602 (with 411 fsb )
http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253&garpg=12

Wanna put the nb little higher too???
Unless yorkfield also wins 2000 points when going 64bit :p:

---

not again with cinebench(dont forget that i run 32bit which is way slower than 64bit).Why most of amd guys are you stuck at this?
I am amd fanboy too,but not this way...
Clock to clock the best that deneb can do at cinebench @ 64bit is to be equal or JUST over yorkfield.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=137

plz dont make me to assemble again the s775+am2 platform for one freaking cinebench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

games matter the most to me since i don't render, need file compression, try to calculate world records of prime numbers, want to see how fast i can calculate fpu mandel, graphics design, don't do video conversion on a large scale. ill use the benchies when im tweaking to see the difference but how the results compare to other cpus is meaningless to me.

---

I'm the same. I usually run apps like WinRAR in the background and make DVD's and such in the background too while gaming. So I could careless how fast or slow it converts as long as it converts and don't bog my system down to the point that it makes my gaming screwy. With damn near every Quad core, you can multitask and game at the sametime. So, as long as I can game with acceptable frames rates(above 60+ in fast paced and 30+ in slow paced), I am OK. I seriously think I am going to go all out on a GPU and get a cheap Phenom 9850/9950.

People that have a HD4000 series/GTX2XX or better paired with a decent clocked Quad core should be fine no matter what. IMO, gamers that already own a quad Core are doing nothing but wasting their time upgrading to Core i7 or Phenom II. Core i7&Phenom II is an efficient upgrade for people still running dual core. Others that upgrade are only doing it for either the love of the hobby or because they have too much money/time to waste.

I think it's hilarious when people say "Hey, look how fast my CPU is!!!!!!"..............at a resolution of 1280X1024 or less. Pffft.....Who really cares about those LOW resolutions. :rofl:....or the ones that say...."Hey look at my benchmark numbers".......as if they can play Super Pi, Cine Bench, Prime, SANDRA, 3DMark, Aqua Mark and etc. :rofl: If I can game with a 150 dollar Quad Core and still get basically the same frames per sec as someone with a CPU that cost 2, 3, or 4 times the cost then I am going to save money. It's cool to be PRO AMD or PRO Intel.......just don't be PRO Stupid.

I think a lot of people who were waiting to upgrade to i7 will probably end up with Phenom 2 systems. Great performance, better prices, awesome overclockability... An unlocked extreme chip for less than $350, how can you not want to go amd!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

I think a lot of people who were waiting to upgrade to i7 will probably end up with Phenom 2 systems. Great performance, better prices, awesome overclockability... An unlocked extreme chip for less than $350, how can you not want to go amd!

---

PhII in my view is competing more against the E8400, E8500 & Q9550 than the i7, so what Intel does on pricing in the next month or two, will have a massive impact on how well the PhII fares in sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

PhII in my view is competing more against the E8400, E8500 & Q9550 than the i7, so what Intel does on pricing in the next month or two, will have a massive impact on how well the PhII fares in sales.

---

If Intel lowers prices so will amd, actually i'm hoping that happens asap:D

It just blows my mind that people seem to be upset or even angry that we have such great competition and choices atm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

If Intel lowers prices so will amd, actually i'm hoping that happens asap:D

It just blows my mind that people seem to be upset or even angry that we have such great competition and choices atm.

---

Here Here!!! :up:

In the right hands PhII is going to gonna give most of the Yorkie/Kents a run for their money, and I7's don't seem to be all that impressive gaming anyway...

Seems like a Win/Win for consumers... Thanks AMD. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

It just blows my mind that people seem to be upset or even angry that we have such great competition and choices atm.

---

Who do you think is angry or upset over great competition or choices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Who do you think is angry or upset over great competition or choices?

---

hes just saying that all the intel fanboys are mad that deneb doesn't completely suck. when it works to their advantage that deneb comes out and is highly competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

hes just saying that all the intel fanboys are mad that deneb doesn't completely suck. when it works to their advantage that deneb comes out and is highly competitive.

---

Yeah I don't understand some people here. Deneb will be good for all.....

1. It will make Core i7/C2Q cheaper due to competition.(For Pro Intel guys)
2. It will make current Phenoms cheaper and the refresh of PII is exciting.(For Pro AMD guys)

...what's to complain about really. :up: I think ALL folks should wait until Deneb is released if they want to save money when they upgrade.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throwed

2. It will make current Phenoms cheaper and the refresh of PII is exciting.(For Pro AMD guys)

---

hell i can't wait to get rid of this 9600. not even a black edition. i can't wait for it. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

hell i can't wait to get rid of this 9600. not even a black edition. i can't wait for it. :D

---

Yeah, the 9600's aren't that great. The B.E 9950's/9850's aren't that far behind Phenom II 920 performance so that's a cheap viable upgrade. :up: Looking at the review in the thread shows the Agena is no punk. For me I don't really need the newest nor the fastest. Just wanna play my games for the least possible cost. :pimp:

yea hopefully i should have my 940 in a few days.

Sorry but the people who are pro amd are usually those that are the thread destroyers, they defend amd's honor like it was theirs own. Who cares its just a piece of silicone that is overpriced anyway. Sorry again but my vote is for the q6600 and its a cheap quad that is perfectly suited for games when we take price and performance in consideration. Here in sweden it is only 20€ more expensive than the lowest clocked phenom1. Like somebody said if ya have a quad at a reasonable speed then stick with it.


One more thing OverClocker_gr you have done a hell of a review, even from the begging when it only had 3 games included. Now it even got better! beats out a lot of sites that I usually go to for reviews. Such an effort, Thanx man!

Rather than putting 3gb in triple channel on the Core i7, you should have used Dual Channel the same as the Core2's and the same memory amount, at the same speeds - i'd imagine that'd have an effect on the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leoy

@ zucker2k
All i see is that i am right again.
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8...bench37vl3.png
Score of yorkfield @3.7 @ hwbox : 14602 (with 411 fsb )
http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253&garpg=12

Wanna put the nb little higher too???
Unless yorkfield also wins 2000 points when going 64bit :p:

---

No, you're wrong again. Hopefully you and a few others in this thread are learning something new everyday....

That's almost 1Ghz advantage to PHII with virtually the same score. Don't bring PHII to a cinebench party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr

not again with cinebench(dont forget that i run 32bit which is way slower than 64bit).Why most of amd guys are you stuck at this?
I am amd fanboy too,but not this way...
Clock to clock the best that deneb can do at cinebench @ 64bit is to be equal or JUST over yorkfield.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=137

plz dont make me to assemble again the s775+am2 platform for one freaking cinebench.

---

NO man. U don't have too. Just anwsering too someones wrong belief and i used the yorkfiled cinenench score from the review.

Quote:

---

No, you're wrong again. Hopefully you and a few others in this thread are learning something new everyday....

That's almost 1Ghz advantage to PHII with virtually the same score. Don't bring PHII to a cinebench party.

---

You are ruining this thread with both your ignorance and your fanboyism. Please stop. And grow up for Christs sake!...

Quote:

---

Who cares its just a piece of silicone that is overpriced anyway. Sorry again but my vote is for the q6600 and its a cheap quad that is perfectly suited for games when we take price and performance in consideration. Here in sweden it is only 20€ more expensive than the lowest clocked phenom1. Like somebody said if ya have a quad at a reasonable speed then stick with it.

---

I have to agree with that. Here is Greece Q6600 has the same price as 9950BE, and certainly makes a very attractive candidate for both a mainstream 4 core system and a gaming rig. And all that, 2 years after its launch. EPIC CPU indeed...:clap:

Deneb is also a very good alternative from what we 've seen till now. Its looks like there is a 6-8% improvement over agena clock for clock, it is cooler, consumes less energy and clocks like a wolfdale. Its performance in real life applications is definitely comparable to its intel counterparts (in the same price segment of course), it is an upgrade option for AM2+ boards, and makes AMD certainly more competitive in the market.

And did a mention a price war starting after almost 2 years?....happy times ahead for all...:up::up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

games matter the most to me since i don't render, need file compression, try to calculate world records of prime numbers, want to see how fast i can calculate fpu mandel, graphics design, don't do video conversion on a large scale. ill use the benchies when im tweaking to see the difference but how the results compare to other cpus is meaningless to me.

---

Then why are you(and others) here "spamming" the forums?
This is XtremeSystems, the "premiere" site for us benchers, record-seekers.
Not "lamegamer.org" or similar.
If any of you really were into gaming you would not be here defending certain CPU makers calling other poster names/trolls/boasting about knowledge about "ignore-button".
:)
Do some gameing instead.
Or better yet, accept other peoples views and right to an opinion.
Even those you dislike. :)

PS/Edit:
When you really wants performance in games you buy the best(price vs.performance) GPU for your favorite game.
There are as other points out little that differ between AMD/Intel CPU's when using eyecandy/hig res.
(Well.. unless you use a Celeron D). :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

Then why are you(and others) here "spamming" the forums?
This is XtremeSystems, the "premiere" site for us benchers, record-seekers.
Not "lamegamer.org" or similar.
If any of you really were into gaming you would not be here defending certain CPU makers calling other poster names/trolls/boasting about knowledge about "ignore-button".
:)
Do some gameing instead.
Or better yet, accept other peoples views and right to an opinion.
Even those you dislike. :)

PS/Edit:
When you really wants performance in games you buy the best(price vs.performance) GPU for your favorite game.
There are as other points out little that differ between AMD/Intel CPU's when using eyecandy/hig res.
(Well.. unless you use a Celeron D). :)

---

With the money saved building a deneb rig, i'll be able to get a much better vga and monitor. Not to mention the awesome overclocks and the chance to upgrade when amd releases their 6 and 8 core cpu's later this year. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

There are as other points out little that differ between AMD/Intel CPU's when using eyecandy/hig res.

---

Care to elaborate? My old overclocked Q6600 system was no faster at gaming than my friends 9850BE when gaming at our native of 1680X1050 AA/AF. Looking at the review in this very thread proves that there is no difference between frames per sec at 1680X1050.....even when AA/AF aren't applied sometimes. Now if you know something I don't then please let me know.

BTW, nice try at flame baiting.:down: Don't throw rocks then hide your hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

Not to mention the awesome overclocks and the chance to upgrade when amd releases their 6 and 8 core cpu's later this year. :up:

---

Good point. I think that is when I am going to splurge. For now a drop in upgrade is all I need with the current setup I have. There should be a better selection of motherboards later on too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throwed

Care to elaborate? My old overclocked Q6600 system was no faster at gaming than my friends 9850BE when gaming at our native of 1680X1050 AA/AF. Looking at the review in this very thread proves that there is no difference between frames per sec at 1680X1050.....even when AA/AF aren't applied sometimes. Now if you know something I don't then please let me know.

BTW, nice try at flame baiting.:down:

---

You are a crown example of a fanboi.
What did I write, and what did you answer?
Hint:
The same piece of fact.
There are few reasons to choose an Intel CPU based rig over an AMD ditto as long as you are using 1680x1050+AA/AF in your favorite game.
The *TOPIC* we are discussing, the test done by Overclocker_gr confirm this.
It is more important to choose the correct brand/setup of GPU depending of the game.
Can you or other blind fanbois get on in your life now?
What a crap post you managed to write!
:mad:

Just for s&gs I downclocked to 3.7 and ran the cinebench on the ole q6600 and still got the result below. It should be noted when cinebench is run only using the multicore test (as shown in the phenom II screenshot above) this decreased my score by about 500 points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillo-kun

Sorry but the people who are pro amd are usually those that are the thread destroyers

---

thats obviously not the case in this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

Then why are you(and others) here "spamming" the forums?
This is XtremeSystems, the "premiere" site for us benchers, record-seekers.
Not "lamegamer.org" or similar.
If any of you really were into gaming you would not be here defending certain CPU makers calling other poster names/trolls/boasting about knowledge about "ignore-button".
:)
Do some gameing instead.
Or better yet, accept other peoples views and right to an opinion.
Even those you dislike. :)

PS/Edit:
When you really wants performance in games you buy the best(price vs.performance) GPU for your favorite game.
There are as other points out little that differ between AMD/Intel CPU's when using eyecandy/hig res.
(Well.. unless you use a Celeron D). :)

---

wait you are telling me to accept others opinions in the same exact post that they are telling me to not care about gaming benchmarks? :ROTF:i am accepting others opinions i just think that some people like zucker here don't have an opinion and instead are just posting to bash someone about something. and yes as far as performance goes gaming performance matters the most to me. but does that mean i don't care about anything else and only want gaming benchmarks? ummmm no. i just find it crazy that people can look at benchmarks and think that the performance shown by them will show real world performance and show exactly how the cpu is. benchmarks are useful for comparing the same cpu with others. as we have seen here clock to clock agena is better sometimes. why? because the benchmark favors its core. i find many benchmarks to be completely useless but its nice to use benchmarks when you are tweaking your system to see how it changes its results.