AMD Phenom II Review Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Lost Planet and Quake 4 don't know but why use respectively 2006 and 2005 games to test 2009 processors? :rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Testing on that low resolution without filter higher fps values gain when there wasn't any action in the game is just plain stupid.

---

...because this is a CPU test so they tried to take the GPU out of the equation, by using old games at low resolutions. The GPU can crank out as many frames as the CPU can feed it.

Gosh, then you go on to attack the actual benchmarks saying, "well what if you're just standing around in game that's not a real situation." Look at all of HardOCP's other reviews: real world game situations with FPS over time graphs. What makes you think that they would do something stupid like load up level 1 of a game and just stand there?

Why don't you please prove the legitimacy of the other benchmarks that you say are so much better...oh wait...it's irrelevant, because every single website has the same ranking: i7 > Core 2 Quad > Phenom II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

edit : For Lost Planet HardOCP numbers are low for Phenom II compare to Firingsquad numbers, Phenom must score 100fps not 93fps and if we take into account difference in resolution.

---

Actually, the fact that FiringSquad and HardOCP both got 93fps at different resolutions confirms one thing: Phenom II is only capable of pushing 93fps to the video card no matter how much you lower the resolution. The Core2Quad pushes out about 10% more FPS because it's 10% faster per clock. The i7 pushes out 100% more frames, probably because of HyperThreading.

Did you even read my post pan? Or are you just going to ignore it? It seems very obvious that it is completely unclear what results in the review can be attributed to the chipset, the motherboard and the ram, and what results say something about Phenom.
Even kyle himself says something weird is going on with that motherboard.
Click my signature to read the post again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Could you explain why, after reading my post about the chipset he used, you are not questioning the numbers?
Just curious here.

---

Ok, this is ridiculous! You said the numbers don't matter! Now, you're saying they do? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Could you explain why, after reading my post about the chipset he used, you are not questioning the numbers?
Just curious here.

---

I'm not questioning that he is posting the actual numbers he got. There's no point in doing that (if you want to do that, why not just make up all the results). But I'm not considering his results "true" or "valid" in any way. As I said, there are good reviews and then we have this not so good one...

panfist: If you look strictly on performance yes. But if you add price in the equation it's more like i7 ~ C2Q ~ PII. And it's not 10% faster per clock (maybe in the given benchmark but not overall. Look at table in previous page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Did you even read my post pan? Or are you just going to ignore it? It seems very obvious that it is completely unclear what results in the review can be attributed to the chipset, the motherboard and the ram, and what results say something about Phenom.
Even kyle himself says something weird is going on with that motherboard.
Click my signature to read the post again.

---

You are attacking Kyle's methodology. I agree, it was very flawed.

My position is that regardless of Kyle's methodology, I agree with his conclusion. Why? Because you can cut and paste benchmark charts from ANY website, and the conclusion is still the same: i7 > Core 2 Quad > Phenom II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Ok, this is ridiculous! You said the numbers don't matter! Now, you're saying they do? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

---

Yes Zucker, it IS getting rather complex isn't it? Don't worry I will explain it to you again.
After the mess kyle made of the hardware setup, the numbers become irrelevant as it's not clear whether a benchmark result is corrupted by motherboard issues, pcie bandwidth issues, memory size issues, or memory speed issues.

Now look at the word irrelevant and think about its meaning for a second.

Some results could be right, some results are likely to be wrong. Noone knows what is the case for what results.
Trusting these results(as in thinking they say something valid about the Phenom II) is rather naive, as kyle himself pointed out how strangely the motherboard for the AMD system performed in an earlier review.

Anything else you want cleared up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

...because this is a CPU test so they tried to take the GPU out of the equation, by using old games at low resolutions. The GPU can crank out as many frames as the CPU can feed it.

---

Ok, but that has little to do with how good the processor is for the game. It's like super pi then. Just used to see how good number you can get but doesn't have any real value to see how good the processor in real use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

Gosh, then you go on to attack the actual benchmarks saying, "well what if you're just standing around in game that's not a real situation." Look at all of HardOCP's other reviews: real world game situations with FPS over time graphs. What makes you think that they would do something stupid like load up level 1 of a game and just stand there?

Why don't you please prove the legitimacy of the other benchmarks that you say are so much better...oh wait...[B]it's irrelevant, because every single website has the same ranking: i7 > Core 2 Quad > Phenom II.

---

I don't know about HardOCP's other reviews. I was informing about this and if they was using a configuration to crank out as many FPS as possible and used that to conclude how good the processor if for the game then that is really stupid.
Reading in the Hardforum and if that represent how HardOCP does review hardware then it makes sense because there are some intel fantatics that seems to spend all time to write about how bad AMD is. That forum is just one big joke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

Why? Because you can cut and paste benchmark charts from ANY website, and the conclusion is still the same: i7 > Core 2 Quad > Phenom II.

---

Well, if you like me do a lot multitasking and vmware then it is more like: Phenom II > i7 > Core 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

You are attacking Kyle's methodology. I agree, it was very flawed.

My position is that regardless of Kyle's methodology, I agree with his conclusion. Why? Because you can cut and paste benchmark charts from ANY website, and the conclusion is still the same: i7 > Core 2 Quad > Phenom II.

---

The conclusions I read implied Phenom II was competitive with Core 2 Quad. Though not mhz for mhz competitive, it is competitive. If you're considering overall performance, then yes, there are faster more expensive Core 2's not competing directly with Phenom 2. The conclusion can be correct in a certain light, though it's still a vague one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Well, if you like me do a lot multitasking and vmware then it is more like: Phenom II > i7 > Core 2

---

I would like to see some reviews that say this, because actually I am very interested in multitasking and vmware. I didn't find any reviews that discussed virtualization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

The conclusions I read implied Phenom II was competitive with Core 2 Quad. Though not mhz for mhz competitive, it is competitive. If you're considering overall performance, then yes, there are faster more expensive Core 2's not competing directly with Phenom 2. The conclusion is correct, though vague.

---

Clock for clock is the only comparison that is really relevant to me, because I'm not going to buy the top of the line, I'm going to buy a much cheaper model and overclock past the top of the line clock speed, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

It's really not about his numbers, it's about his attitude and subjective test setup.

---

:yepp: Stop dilly-dallying and be serious. You're actually competing with Informal for contradictory stands in the same thread.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2338339,00.asp

Quote:

---

AMD will also be at a memory bandwidth disadvantage with its DDR2 controller. While some DDR2 modules support 1066MHz operation, we've had difficulty overclocking the CPU while maintaining 1066MHz memory speeds; 800MHz seems generally more stable. Contrast that with DDR3 speeds starting at 1066MHz and going up. AMD will have an update to Phenom II sometime in the first half of the year, which will support DDR3 and DDR2 memory.

---

Kyle wasn't the only one to have problems with the RAM, maybe just early shake down jitters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

:yepp: Stop dilly-dallying and be serious. You're actually competing with Informal for contradictory stands in the same thread.

---

That was Miss Banana's opinion, then, after some great research, found more information and the opinion was re-evaluated. So, you can either berate them for becoming MORE informed and ignore the information that's been dug up, or realize you've got nothing to add and not click the "reply" button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

What Kyle did in his test was to focus on areas that isn't important and used that to conclude how good the processor was.

---

Why don't you post on his forums and explain to him the error of his ways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

I would like to see some reviews that say this, because actually I am very interested in multitasking and vmware. I didn't find any reviews that discussed virtualization.

---

You won't find any.
Have tried vmware on three different intel computes and there vmware workstation just sucks on intel. I can't use it because it is too slow.
Multitasking you need to read between the lines in tests and also read about how the processor works. As I understand it AMD is built to handle worst case scenarios good. It isn't built to be a dragster when all data is coming perfectly. Running a lot of applications then these worst case scenarios is showing up a lot more.
Intel has more focus on beeing fast when applications behave good. Worst case scenarios they will have bigger performance hit compared to Phenom.

I don't think a computer user could say which computer he if it was a i7 or a Phenom II though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

That was Miss Banana's opinion, then, after some great research, found more information and the opinion was re-evaluated. So, you can either berate them for becoming MORE informed and ignore the information that's been dug up, or realize you've got nothing to add and not click the "reply" button.

---

Since when did you become Miss Banana's spokesperson? I'm calling her (assumption) out. I'm sure she can defend herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

You won't find any.
Have tried vmware on three different intel computes and there vmware workstation just sucks on intel. I can't use it because it is too slow.
Multitasking you need to read between the lines in tests and also read about how the processor works. As I understand it AMD is built to handle worst case scenarios good. It isn't built to be a dragster when all data is coming perfectly. Running a lot of applications then these worst case scenarios is showing up a lot more.
Intel has more focus on beeing fast when applications behave good. Worst case scenarios they will have bigger performance hit compared to Phenom.

I don't think a computer user could say which computer he if it was a i7 or a Phenom II though.

---

Gosh stop being silly, Nehalem has eight threads and has proven capable of using them... well. I think you're an intelligent person, but the continuous use of this example to prove your point about nothing other than multi-tasking undermines that assumption on my part. You can't compare a dualcore to a quadcore in a multitasking environment - that is the sole purpose and strength of quads. Please save that comparison, I'm not interested. Have you tested Nehalem in a vmware environment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Since when did you become Miss Banana's spokesperson? I'm calling her (assumption) out. I'm sure she can defend herself.

---

Because, it's obvious what happened. She(assumption continued) developed an opinion, then presents us with NEW(technically old) info, and the opinion changes. It doesn't need defending because it's blatantly obvious. Though it apparently needs to be explained for some people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Gosh stop being silly, Nehalem has eight threads and has proven capable of using them... well. I think you're an intelligent person, but the continuous use of this example to prove your point about nothing other than multi-tasking undermines that assumption on my part. You can't compare a dualcore to a quadcore in a multitasking environment - that is the sole purpose and strength of quads. Please save that comparison, I'm not interested. Have you tested Nehalem in a vmware environment?

---

I wasn't going to respond to Gosh because there is no data either way, that I can find. My gut instinct was that i7 would be better due to hyperthreading. I have an E8400 machine running Gentoo that hosts three virtual machines with VirtualBox and "slow" is not a word that I would use to describe it. I access the VMs solely through a remote desktop connection and they feel just like remoting into bare metal.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I did see some previews benching Phenom II in a server situation. It was indeed much improved over Intel's Xeons, but then when they benched i7 it blew Phenom II out of the water in multi-threaded situations.

Oh, and the sole purpose and strength of quads is not multitasking. There is also parallelized computation, like video encoding, servers, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

You won't find any.

---

kk :clap:

Stock clocks, imagination, emotional attachment or anything ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

I would like to see some reviews that say this, because actually I am very interested in multitasking and vmware. I didn't find any reviews that discussed virtualization.



Clock for clock is the only comparison that is really relevant to me, because I'm not going to buy the top of the line, I'm going to buy a much cheaper model and overclock past the top of the line clock speed, anyway.

---

Yeah, and if you look at it, if PII clocks 10% better than similarly priced Intel chip, the difference is gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

Because, it's obvious what happened. She(assumption continued) developed an opinion, then presents us with NEW(technically old) info, and the opinion changes. It doesn't need defending because it's blatantly obvious. Though it apparently needs to be explained for some people.

---

In case you forget, I was the one who raised the probability of a chipset or board limitation. I also, said maybe before folks rush into judgment, it might be wise to be sure the hardware wasn't the issue since Kyle had indicated he run into problems. That is showing sound judgment, don't you think? Miss Banana is the one with links in her sig and iswaging an all out foul cry, mixed with name callings and other outrages which can all be found in this thread and others in the AMD section. Where's the fire? None has done what Kyle did, and even though M B admits no one knows whether more ram would impact the reviews positively for PII, while at the same time admitting there was nothing wrong with the numbers, attacked Kyle's "attitude" and "subjective setup." The one constant for most in this thread is that regardless of ram timings or size the fact still remains that Ci7>C2Q>PII; that is the conclusion Kyle arrived at, even though his expression of that is very problematic and in bad taste; still takes nothing from the result, ultimately. I do reserve the right to give M B a hardd time for contradicting herself, it is a very bad thing indeed in a debate which I believe this thing is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

I wasn't going to respond to Gosh because there is no data either way, that I can find. My gut instinct was that i7 would be better due to hyperthreading. I have an E8400 machine running Gentoo that hosts three virtual machines with VirtualBox and "slow" is not a word that I would use to describe it. I access the VMs solely through a remote desktop connection and they feel just like remoting into bare metal.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I did see some previews benching Phenom II in a server situation. It was indeed much improved over Intel's Xeons, but then when they benched i7 it blew Phenom II out of the water in multi-threaded situations.

Oh, and the sole purpose and strength of quads is not multitasking. There is also parallelized computation, like video encoding, servers, etc.

---

Yeah, I should have said multi-threaded, which is also a plus for multitasking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Sorry Abel, but this is ridiculous! My God, Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!!! You made a mistake and you get straightened and then you start talking about some other nonsense!

Let's see the excuses here from the AMD crowd:

Board is defective/8x PCIE Lanes/Not enough PCIE Lanes :shocked: Immature bios
Ram is timings are loose/only 2GB used
The Games tested are too old
i7 is too expensive so the comparison is not fair
QX 9770 is on DDR3 and costs an arm and a leg
Why test with SLI/Why not test on Ati card, AMD will do better
The reviewer is biased/paid/drunk/incompetent/amateur
Etc.

Pathetic! :down:

---

Hey Genius, if you think your so $%@ing smart and know better then every high paid engineer at Amd why don't go over there and help them out with their next gen cpu design. Oh wait, you can't because your another idiotic fanboy troll. Keep trying to make yourself feel very important just because you have Intel in your system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

Yeah, and if you look at it, if PII clocks 10% better than similarly priced Intel chip, the difference is gone.

---

Where in the world did you get the idea that PII clocks higher than intel chips?

Most Intel 45nm Quads can get to 4GHz, or very close...how high does the Phenom II go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Yes Zucker, it IS getting rather complex isn't it? Don't worry I will explain it to you again.
After the mess kyle made of the hardware setup, the numbers become irrelevant as it's not clear whether a benchmark result is corrupted by motherboard issues, pcie bandwidth issues, memory size issues, or memory speed issues.

Now look at the word irrelevant and think about its meaning for a second.

Some results could be right, some results are likely to be wrong. Noone knows what is the case for what results.
Trusting these results(as in thinking they say something valid about the Phenom II) is rather naive, as kyle himself pointed out how strangely the motherboard for the AMD system performed in an earlier review.

Anything else you want cleared up?

---

Very well said, and pretty objective when looking at the facts.

Umm read the whole thing again...

He said similarly priced intel variant's....which would be the q9300/q9400 which won't clock to 3.8 or 4.0 reliably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

I wasn't going to respond to Gosh because there is no data either way, that I can find. My gut instinct was that i7 would be better due to hyperthreading. I have an E8400 machine running Gentoo that hosts three virtual machines with VirtualBox and "slow" is not a word that I would use to describe it. I access the VMs solely through a remote desktop connection and they feel just like remoting into bare metal.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I did see some previews benching Phenom II in a server situation. It was indeed much improved over Intel's Xeons, but then when they benched i7 it blew Phenom II out of the water in multi-threaded situations.

Oh, and the sole purpose and strength of quads is not multitasking. There is also parallelized computation, like video encoding, servers, etc.

---

I kinda doubt Phenom II exceeds i7 on the multitasking front. As far as VMware is concerned, Shanghai (server version of deneb) scored very well in virtualization compared to Intel, so his opinion seems plausible. I haven't seen any tests for virtualization on deneb, but it should be roughly comparable.

Edit: i realized earlier testing wasn't done versus i7, my bad. More testing will have to be done on that front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveman787

Umm read the whole thing again...

He said similarly priced intel variant's....which would be the q9300/q9400 which won't clock to 3.8 or 4.0 reliably.

---

Also because of Intels latest price drops add the Q9550 which reliably clocks to 4.0 into the similarly priced intels offerings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveman787

Umm read the whole thing again...

He said similarly priced intel variant's....which would be the q9300/q9400 which won't clock to 3.8 or 4.0 reliably.

---

That really depends on the motherboard more than the processor, IMO.

I think it's too early to tell how high the Phenom II will clock on average, over time.

We'll see how deep Intel's price cuts are.

You do have a point, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Since when did you become Miss Banana's spokesperson? I'm calling her (assumption) out. I'm sure she can defend herself.

---

I allready adressed you with my previous post, you have yet to respond to it, and your recent posts have been nothing but immature pieces of noncontent.
Do you have a point? Then spit it out. Otherwise stay clear of the reply button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

kk :clap:

Stock clocks, imagination, emotional attachment or anything ?

---

no, the strange thing is that review sites doesn't do this type of testing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

PS : what the BS with red font ? Starving for attention or something ?

---

Kinda like how your sig is only there to act as flamebait?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

What's yours ? Oh , I forgot , you've changed more times than a hooker changes its clients in a month.

Let me restate your progress : the numbers aren't good ; forget the numbers , it is the attitude ; forget the attitude it is RAM speed; forget RAM speed , it is RAM size ; forget RAM size , it is the board.Did I miss something ?

Each and every time , information surfaced which destroyed your point , sometimes ( the irony ) from yourself .

And now , you have gosh , a true and worthy companion.While Kyle probably is a jackass who likes to make a separate stand from the rest ; at least he explained his methodology , results and so on in a clear and logical fashion irrespective of how valuable his tests are in order to make more general assumptions.
You 2 OTOH hand , fail on all accounts.

PS : what the BS with red font ? Starving for attention or something ?

---

Well you sure seem to getting upset. If I would think you are reasonable I would try to explain it to you one more time, but I don't.
If you are really looking for answers, try to have another look at my last few posts. I can PM them to you if you want.

I noticed that you are now so desperately out of good points, that you start rambling about my red font.
Even though I don't really think I owe anyone, let stand you, an explanation, I will be a sport and say I picked this red font only to make you cry about it.
It seems to have worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

Hey Genius, if you think your so $%@ing smart and know better then every high paid engineer at Amd why don't go over there and help them out with their next gen cpu design. Oh wait, you can't because your another idiotic fanboy troll. Keep trying to make yourself feel very important just because you have Intel in your system.

---

Hey imbecile, if you have something to contribute that actually matters, do it. I am not an engineer, I am a consumer and I am more important than AMD engineers because if I don't buy, they're out of a job. :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

You can't compare a dualcore to a quadcore in a multitasking environment - that is the sole purpose and strength of quads. Please save that comparison, I'm not interested. Have you tested Nehalem in a vmware environment?

---

We are talking small differencenses here (haven't talked about dual in this thread). And reading about how these processors behave then I think Phenom II has a small advantage over i7 when there are more applications running. The reason for that is how the cache etc is built. i7 is more built to handle speed for single applications running, they can of course be threaded and that will be something i7 handles very well but different applications will make the situation more complex when they are running. In this situation I think Phenom has the edge over i7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Hey imbecile, if you have something to contribute that actually matters, do it. I am not an engineer, I am a consumer and I am more important than AMD engineers because if I don't buy, their out of a job. :ROTF:

---

Well, a heated debate surely makes the true Zucker come out.
You know, the one that only posts immature crap posts and calls people imbecile.

Maybe you need a vacation...




Oh and since we are in the Phenom II review thread anyways, I found a new review:
http://icrontic.com/articles/amd-phenom-ii-review

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Well you sure seem to getting upset. If I would think you are reasonable I would try to explain it to you one more time, but I don't.
If you are really looking for answers, try to have another look at my last few posts. I can PM them to you if you want.

I noticed that you are now so desperately out of good points, that you start rambling about my red font.
Even though I don't really think I owe anyone, let stand you, an explanation, I will be a sport and say I picked this red font only to make you cry about it.
It seems to have worked.

---

Maybe you're just an attention whore? I mean no one on XS is using a red font; this is out of respect for other members. Same reason why I'm not typing in 24 size fonts. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Maybe you're just an attention whore? I mean no one on XS is using a red font; this is out of respect for other members. Same reason why I'm not typing in 24 size fonts. :rolleyes:

---

Zucker, I don't think people would think any less of you if you did use a ridiculous font. I know I wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

We are talking small differencenses here (haven't talked about dual in this thread). And reading about how these processors behave then I think Phenom II has a small advantage over i7 when there are more applications running.

---

The reviews say otherwise; the i7 is a multi-tasking, multi-threading monster. Basically it's the equivalent of a 6-core Phenom II with better single-threaded performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Well, a heated debate surely makes the true Zucker come out.
You know, the one that only posts immature crap posts and calls people imbecile.

Maybe you need a vacation...

---

M B, that was no debate, he attacked me. Note that I asked him to actually contribute to the debate.:)

PS: Seriously, what's up with the red fonts? We can read your posts clearly in b&w; or is the color reflective of your mood or emotional state? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

The reviews say otherwise; the i7 is a multi-tasking, multi-threading monster. Basically it's the equivalent of a 6-core Phenom II with better single-threaded performance.

---

Where did you find those reviews?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Where did you find those reviews?

---

Just look at the benchmarks that can scale effectively to many threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

M B, that was no debate, he attacked me. Note that I asked him to actually contribute to the debate.:)

PS: Seriously, what's up with the red fonts? We can read your posts clearly in b&w; or is the color reflective of your mood or emotional state? :shrug:

---

If you would PM your ridiculous and off-topic questions to me, I may even give you a serious answer.

On topic, in the last review I pasted, it is shown that AMD currently has superior idle power consumption when compared to all intel alternatives. Pretty impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Just look at the benchmarks that can scale effectively to many threads.

---

I was talking about multitasking. When programmers develops their own applications they will of course optimize so that the applications works well. All those tricks that i7 has to load and write memory etc will work very well then. But when there are different applications added and they are also runing the situation gets much more complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

What's yours ? Oh , I forgot , you've changed more times than a hooker changes its clients in a month.
<snip> etc etc

---

Wow, comparing another poster to a prostitute. That's really low.

I realize that these topics can become heated, but that's no reason to drop any pretense of objectivity and just start attacking other posters outright. :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

If you would PM your ridiculous and off-topic questions to me, I may even give you a serious answer.

On topic, in the last review I pasted, it is shown that AMD currently has superior idle power consumption when compared to all intel alternatives. Pretty impressive.

---

I'm surprised the Phenom II system in that review had such a high load power consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

If you would PM your ridiculous and off-topic questions to me, I may even give you a serious answer.

On topic, in the last review I pasted, it is shown that AMD currently has superior idle power consumption when compared to all intel alternatives. Pretty impressive.

---

I guess you're the type that powers on their computer and watch it idle? I still doubt the truthfulness of that remark; you know why? Because you'd be talking about platform, because when it comes to the cpu itself, C2Q 45nm is better under idle and load conditions. PII actually is worse at utilizing power for actual task performed; guess which chip is best? You guessed wrong, Ci7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

I was talking about multitasking. When programmers develops their own applications they will of course optimize so that the applications works well. All those tricks that i7 has to load and write memory etc will work very well then. But when there are different applications added and they are also runing the situation gets much more complex.

---

Hexus.net has some "mega-tasking" numbers:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16757&page=9

Information about the power consumption CPU itself is hard to translate when you talk about C2Q, as those processors do not have the memory controlled onboard.
At some point a platform comparison makes most sense, and at this point I think it is clear AMD shows the better idle numbers.

If I would spend my days rendering or encoding, I7 would be a better pick yes, but for a system on which music is produced, games are played and audio is recorded, the low idle power consumption is a big plus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Information about the power consumption CPU itself is hard to translate when you talk about C2Q, as those processors do not have the memory controlled onboard.
At some point a platform comparison makes most sense, and at this point I think it is clear AMD shows the better idle numbers.

If I would spend my days rendering or encoding, I7 would be a better pick yes, but for a system on which music is produced, games are played and audio is recorded, the low idle power consumption is a big plus.

---

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.ph...=16757&page=10 Every single point you've made has turned out worse for you; at this point I don't know how you can save face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

I guess you're the type that powers on their computer and watch it idle? I still doubt the truthfulness of that remark; you know why? Because you'd be talking about platform, because when it comes to the cpu itself, C2Q 45nm is better under idle and load conditions. PII actually is worse at utilizing power for actual task performed; guess which chip is best? You guessed wrong, Ci7.

---

Well, we need some better CPU+VRM tests for current AMD and Intel parts to truly confirm that. i7 will be difficult though, since it takes power from the MB and the VRMs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

On topic, in the last review I pasted, it is shown that AMD currently has superior idle power consumption when compared to all intel alternatives. Pretty impressive.[/COLOR]

---

A Q6600 isn't all Intel alternatives. Yorkfields would drop idle and load power consumption even further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.ph...=16757&page=10 Every single you've made has turned out worse for you; at this point I don't know how you can save face.

---

Yes, on hexus power draw is a bit higher than on some other websites, very good Zucker!
I don't quite get how I have to save my face now that you show me a website that shows slightly different results, than the one I was talking about.

If you are assuming I am in any way interested in what you think about me, I have to disappoint you. I could not care less if my life depended on it.

Oh and when I said the intel alternatives, I ment the intel alternatives in that review, being the Q6600 and the I7. I guess you guys are not going to make it easy for me, which is understandable when one realizes just how much feelings you have for intel.

Like I said, power consumption needs to be reviewed more in depth. Lostcircuits had Phenom II 940 using 8-13W at idle(depending on board), and 68-77W at load(again, they used 2 different boards). The multitasking looks good based on the hexus review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Yes, on hexus power draw is a bit higher than on some other websites, very good Zucker!
I don't quite get how I have to save my face now that you show me a website that shows slightly different results, than the one I was talking about.

If you are assuming I am in any way interested in what you think about me, I have to disappoint you. I could not care less if my life depended on it.

Oh and when I said the intel alternatives, I ment the intel alternatives in that review, being the Q6600 and the I7. I guess you guys are not going to make it easy for me, which is understandable when one realizes just how much feelings you have for your beloved intel.

---

It doesn't matter, the onus is on you to make yourself clear:

here's more for you from the tech report, for links check the first page of this thread. Note that the Intel systems are on Extreme chipsets, x48/x58 which are powerhogs; the P45 will show lower numbers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

Kinda like how your sig is only there to act as flamebait?

---

Huh ? First of all, I'm quoting a fellow forum member , who's opinion was worth reading and secondly , AMD themselves, positioned Phenom 2 as a competitor for Q9400 and asked accordingly to be reviewed,

How exactly is this a flamebait ? Overly sensitive today ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

Wow, comparing another poster to a prostitute. That's really low.

I realize that these topics can become heated, but that's no reason to drop any pretense of objectivity and just start attacking other posters outright. :shakes:

---

Yeah , the comparison might not be the smartest, either way I apologize for it and reaffirm my intention of debating forcefully, ironically and last but not least ,in a not personal fashion.

My point about the red text still stands however. It's fine for reinforcing a point ; posting everything in red is a sign of disrespect towards the forum members IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Oh and when I said the intel alternatives, I ment the intel alternatives in that review, being the Q6600 and the I7. I guess you guys are not going to make it easy for me, which is understandable when one realizes just how much feelings you have for intel.

---

You said "all intel alternatives", which include the Q9400 and Q9550.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

Where in the world did you get the idea that PII clocks higher than intel chips?

Most Intel 45nm Quads can get to 4GHz, or very close...how high does the Phenom II go?

---

If you read every word in my post you would've noticed the little "if". So, I wasn't making any assumptions or conclusions about anything, I was giving a hypothetical scenario - one that might be true.

Sad to see were this thread is going the last two pages. Just because of a (bad) review.

And Zucker: In the Hexus review, Ci7 draws just about 25% more than a 25% slower PII. Care to comment? ;) (In idle the numbers are 16%.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Yeah , the comparison might not be the smartest, either way I apologize for it and reaffirm my intention of debating forcefully, ironically and last but not least ,in a not personal fashion.

My point about the red text still stands however. It's fine for reinforcing a point ; posting everything in red is a sign of disrespect towards the forum members IMO.

---

Apology accepted, people often say things they don't mean when they get upset. I do not think that the shade of red I picked is in any way disturbing or making my posts or this forum less readable, but if you strongly disagree with me, feel free to ignore me.


About the power consumption, intel does better for a given rendering or encoding text, but someone does not render or encode, and a system spends a lot of time idling, the platform with the best idle power consumption is still the best choice the way I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

You said "all intel alternatives", which include the Q9400 and Q9550.

---

What I ment was all the intel alternatives participating in that benchmark. Making a statement about intel processors NOT in that benchmark, when the statement itself is a RESULT of that benchmark is rather silly.

If it really makes you happy we can pretend you are right though, having an argument with you about what I ment is a bit pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

And Zucker: In the Hexus review, Ci7 draws just about 25% more than a 25% slower PII. Care to comment? ;) (In idle the numbers are 16%.)

---

Check the task energy graph of my post above from the TechReport: Even though Ci7 draws more power it finishes the task way faster than the PhII; in effect, for the amount of energy used in the completion a given task, the Ci7 is better than any other processor to date: Which would you rather have: a processor that consumes 2000w in 4hours to complete a given task, or a processor that consumes 1500w in 3 hours to complete that same task?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

It doesn't matter, the onus is on you to make yourself clear:

here's more for you from the tech report, for links check the first page of this thread. Note that the Intel systems are on Extreme chipsets, x48/x58 which are powerhogs; the P45 will show lower numbers:

---

To be fair, that's really only one perspective, Cinebench...other tasks might stress the system differently, and different platforms could show different power numbers. So it's not the best test to examine CPU power consumption Again, Lostcircuits showed that a motherboard alone can add or subtract 10W for the Phenom II. As for the Intel chipsets, I read the TDP's on the x48/58 aren't actually that high.
TDP's: ( i didn't see x58 on the list, i'll look for it elsewhere)
X48: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P45: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
edit: X58: 20-24W, 8W idle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

To be fair, that's really only one perspective, Cinebench...other tasks might stress the system differently, and different platforms could show different power numbers. So it's not the best test to examine CPU power consumption Again, Lostcircuits showed that a motherboard alone can add or subtract 10W for the Phenom II. As for the Intel chipsets, I read the TDP's on the x48/58 aren't actually that high.
TDP's:( i didn't see x58 on the list, i'll look for it elsewhere)
X48: 26.5 W, 12.3 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB
P45: 22 W, 9 W idle, with 333 MHz FSB

---

Look at the graph I posted above and calculate how much more power it would take for the AMD system to equal the Ci7 system. You'll have your answer then.

Edit: If you subtract those numbers from the TDP of P45 from X48, then the C2Q system wins all across the board on the hexus review. The point is, when it comes to power consumption, nothing that AMD offers on the desktop actually fares better than any Intel, based on actual system usage save for the 65nm quads from Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Look at the graph I posted above and calculate how much more power it would take for the AMD system to equal the Ci7 system. You'll have your answer then.

---

Sorry to step in here, but are you even reading ryboto's post?
Let me help out:

Quote:

---

To be fair, that's really only one perspective, Cinebench...other tasks might stress the system differently

---

What this means is that there are other tasks besides Cinebench that a computer can do, that show a different result for power consumption per task.

I understand you are very happy you saw a power consumption per task benchmark where intel beats AMD, but telling us once would have been enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

How exactly is this a flamebait ? Overly sensitive today ?

---

How is a sig full of anti-AMD rehtoric flamebait? You need this explained to you? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Look at the graph I posted above and calculate how much more power it would take for the AMD system to equal the Ci7 system. You'll have your answer then.

Edit: If you subtract those numbers from the TDP of P45 from X48, then the C2Q system wins all across the board on the hexus review. The point is, when it comes to power consumption, nothing that AMD offers on the desktop actually fares better than any Intel, based on actual system usage.

---

The chipset, the RAM, the southbridge, all of these consume power, the ICH10 has a TDP of 4.5W. Doing subtraction is going to give you approximates. Even the 790 chipsets use power, so if you subtract from the intel system, you'll have to do similar math for the AMD system also. Plus, TDP is maximum, so using that number is a large assumption. Like I said, look to LostCircuits, I even posted the figures way back in the infancy of this thread.

Doing some minor cleanup here....:rolleyes:

Jakko, you've worn out your welcome here. And as it turns out, FUGGER did not give you permission for a 2nd account after your first was removed from Xtreme News!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Check the task energy graph of my post above from the TechReport: Even though Ci7 draws more power it finishes the task way faster than the PhII; in effect, for the amount of energy used in the completion a given task, the Ci7 is better than any other processor to date: Which would you rather have: a processor that consumes 2000w in 4hours to complete a given task, or a processor that consumes 1500w in 3 hours to complete that same task?

Show me a quote where I denounced AMD? You are a liar, its as simple as that.

---

Well it's easy math. If CPU A consumes 25% more energy than CPU B while being 25% faster it is going to consume the same amount of energy. So the Cinebench (as previous poster stated) does not show the whole picture.

Besides, your example is quite stupid, a CPU that consumes more for a longer period of time than a processor that's faster and consumes less, yeah I would choose the latter (that being the PII no? ;)). Saying CPU A consumes 2000W in 3 hours(6kWh) instead of CPU B consuming 1500W in 4 hours (6kWh) is better, but the results (in performance per watt) are the same... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Flight

I also made a note about the "hateful burning mad red" you are posting with now. As was pointed out earlier people take that to mean you are posting with pure hate.

---

Hahaha, well that sure is an interesting (and hysterical) way to interpret a color. I think if my motive would have been to come across hating, I would have picked a brighter, more agressive shade of red. :)

No I do not hate anyone T Flight, allthough I do think some of the people here could use a vacation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Sorry to step in here, but are you even reading ryboto's post?
Let me help out:



What this means is that there are other tasks besides Cinebench that a computer can do, that show a different result for power consumption per task.

I understand you are very happy you saw a power consumption per task benchmark where intel beats AMD, but telling us once would have been enough.

---

Yes I noticed, but that is his opinion, my opinion is that cinebench loads all four cores, isn't that worth a mention? Also, other reviews show the same. Ci7 healthily beating PII and drawing more power while doing so, but the logic remains the same: Ci7 always producing more and doing the finishing the average task in less time. My prediction is you'll see this happen in an overwhelming majority of cases. It is not about power draw, it is about power consumption needed to finish a task. Haven't you geniuses figured that out yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Yes I noticed, but that is his opinion, my opinion is that cinebench loads all four cores, isn't that worth a mention? Also, other reviews show the same. Ci7 healthily beating PII and drawing more power while doing so, but the logic remains the same: Ci7 always producing more and doing the finishing the average task in less time. My prediction is you'll see this happen in an overwhelming majority of cases. It is not about power draw, it is about power consumption needed to finish a task. Haven't you geniuses figured that out yet?

---

Good post with a sentence that goes too far :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

The chipset, the RAM, the southbridge, all of these consume power, the ICH10 has a TDP of 4.5W. Doing subtraction is going to give you approximates. Even the 790 chipsets use power, so if you subtract from the intel system, you'll have to do similar math for the AMD system also. Plus, TDP is maximum, so using that number is a large assumption. Like I said, look to LostCircuits, I even posted the figures way back in the infancy of this thread.

---

TDP is maximum if you're not overclocking :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Yes I noticed, but that is his opinion, my opinion is that cinebench loads all four cores, isn't that worth a mention? Also, other reviews show the same. Ci7 healthily beating PII and drawing more power while doing so, but the logic remains the same: Ci7 always producing more and doing the finishing the average task in less time. My prediction is you'll see this happen in an overwhelming majority of cases. It is not about power draw, it is about power consumption needed to finish a task. Haven't you geniuses figured that out yet?

---

Did anyone argue about the task efficiency? Seriously? I just said it only defines one case. Sure the i7 has it beat, but as I recall, Phenom 2 is competing with Core 2 Quads, not i7. Not to discount the ability of i7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

TDP is maximum if you're not overclocking :cool:

---

do you mean TDP can be considered maximum when overclocking? I'd agree, it's probably higher. These reviews were testing stock though, so you can't technically assume chipsets are using their full TDP in those tests, especially considering CPUs rarely live up to their TDPs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

No I do not hate anyone T Flight, allthough I do think some of the people here could use a vacation.

---

How ironic :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

Did anyone argue about the task efficiency? Seriously? I just said it only defines one case. Sure the i7 has it beat, but as I recall, Phenom 2 is competing with Core 2 Quads, not i7. Not to discount the ability of i7.

---

See, this is the problem: if you even bothered reading the posts in this thread you'd have noticed this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

And Zucker: In the Hexus review, Ci7 draws just about 25% more than a 25% slower PII. Care to comment? ;) (In idle the numbers are 16%.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

See, this is the problem: if you even bothered reading the posts in this thread you'd have noticed this:

---

Fine, I'll change my statement. Did I argue about task efficiency?? Don't quote me when you're making a point to someone else.

Okay, thread closed....:rolleyes:

This probably isn't a temporary thing either.