http://i4.tinypic.com/853bwy1.png
You can do this test at home on your system, you will see how Phenom X4 perform ...
Config: RD-790FX, Phenom @default 2.4GHz, 2GB RAM, HD3870 ...
Printable View
http://i4.tinypic.com/853bwy1.png
You can do this test at home on your system, you will see how Phenom X4 perform ...
Config: RD-790FX, Phenom @default 2.4GHz, 2GB RAM, HD3870 ...
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcmv=3125
Q6600 @ 2.4GHz; 2GB, 8800GTX
Quote:
PCMarkSuite 4973 PCMarks
Memories Suite 4445
TV and Movies Suite 4154
Gaming Suite 4706
Music Suite 4478
Communications Suite 4138
Productivity Suite 4570
HDD Test Suite 4275
Hm, very competitive scores! At the same frequencies ...
Strange that memory seems so weak on phenom?
What's interesting is the "gaming" score. Any reason for this?
2*64bit mode may be selected in bios.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
i think it's score better with 128 bits mode :D
It was 128-bit mode ... This is setting before test ...
http://i9.tinypic.com/6jzggut.png
OBR thanks for the results,but couldn't you get a cas4 DDR2 ram?Today ,you can even get cheap cas4 DDR2-800 1GB modules.
As for mem. tests ,Phenom should have better mem. scores than AthlonX2.Don't know if it is BIOS setting,but your scores seem a bit low.
so its scores better then a C2D paired with a much more heavier GFX?:D
Pwned :D
Sweet, AMD can finally almost keep up with Intel's last generation offerings. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Everybody knows Nvidia Vista drivers are crap. I'd also like to see same graphics card used for both tests at same resolutions, and same OS environment, 32bit or 64bit.
Yep and intel's "new gen" products really pwn Conroe/kentsfield ,by a whole ~6% or so on average.
Well you see a higher score for phenom than for the c2d paired with a much more heavier GFX?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
:D
Yep it's a kentfield not a conroe ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
C2D=>C2Q :D
Since when is 3870 faster than 8800GTX :p: and since when c2d has 4 cores :p: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
I like it. The offering may not be on top of Intel, but it will offer alternatives of OEM computer companies and hopefully driving some competition into the market with the Phenom/790FX platform.
Also, first post :)
:welcome:
looks like its gunna be sweet!
its a little faster then the Q6600. works for me:yepp:
Before NDA ends i can tell this: At the same frequencies are Phenom X4 and Kensfield (Yorkfield is better anyway) very close, and performance is almost the same ... BUT, Phenoms cant to overclock so easily like Kensfield ... that a problem. My max stable Phenom is about 3GHz ... and Kensfield 3.6GHz and more ...
Well seeing how the Q6600 overclocks well over 1Ghz, then.....Phenom does suck. Not to mention Yorkfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by knightwolf654
Like a 400Mhz overclock compared to 1.4Ghz overclock. Yea. That could be problematic.
Is it crossfire or a single card?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
In this case not the Phenom or the actual CPU architecture suck, but the manufacturing process and maximal transistors switch speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Don't know how score the hd3870 on pcmark vantage...But you're right I've missed that it was a traditionnal AMD biased comparison... Compare a cpu with the same price, and the same number of core that a quad to a duo... :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
But at least orb give us a clear information:"At the same frequencies are Phenom X4 and Kensfield (Yorkfield is better anyway) very close, and performance is almost the same"
for people who do not overclock, yorkfield will be better, so AMD loses here
for people who do oc, yorkfield is better and even kentsfield.
rough times for AMD...
I dont really seeing a point in going for this chip since Q6600 can overclock 1ghz and will be out performing it. If you plan to run stock thats a different story though
Pgi 7.1 :d
funny thing is that there are results at nearly stock voltage where phenoms runs at 3300mhz...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
it becomes problematic soon.:D
Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
they are in his store. :ROTF: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Are you serious? Is this guy a joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
well lets say, he claimed certain things, without delivering any proof till now. ;)
search XS news, and the overdrive tool ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Cant you just link it with out being vague?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: So true :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
And he call others for trolls...
So lets see:
1. Barcelona in MASSIVE stock.
2. Some "chinese site" showing Phenom is over 5% faster than Core 2.
3. A 3.3Ghz Phenom on stock voltage. (Did they raise that to 1.7V or so?)
Anyway, we are waiting for some links and documentation as usual.
He seems to have memory problems.
Dont know if is bios/board/CPU or ram problem.
Nah, he is deadly serious. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Agreed, completely. Seems like every thread on this forum has him posting this 'info' without any proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
maybe an disguised AMD marketing manager :D
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacha
I hope not, otherwise he's not doing a very good job! Maybe informal, nn_step or Knightswolf would be better choices. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_q_9a4zDps
i hope the 9400 can do this :up:
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
But it doesn't matter. Many AMD enthusiast will happily pay more, hotter, and more power hungry Phenom.
:ROTF: I wanted Phenom, but now that I see how it performs and how it doesn't overclock as well, Yorkfield will be mine! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It doesn't need to LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
As I said to you in August, there's little need for secrecy if this thing kicked ass. I looked forward to Phenom as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Like I said in another thread, AMD has disappointed all of us...Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
No, AMD only dissapointed those with unrealistic demands and expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
So yea, basically Phenomenal suckage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Well, after all the hype, I honestly expected Phenom to beQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
1) At least equal to Kentsfield clock for clock
2) Be able to launch higher than 2.4GHz
Did I have unrealistic expectations?
Perhaps Rahul Sood didn't help with his comments of a 3GHz Phenom being a 'stone cold killer' of Kentsfield... :rolleyes: :shakes:
That AMD kept raising the expectations by making somewhat believable claims as to how well it performs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Wow intel boys to lazy to do some search :D
All the info is right here on these forums just put of those special glasses :ROTF:
look at this thread for instance
Phenom totally destroys an Q6600 with GTX, with a budget gfx cards and same cpu clock in the game test -->5000 vs 4700
Ylike said put of those glasses...
Why dont you show us. Because its not there and you just troll? You keep calling others fanboys and trolls. Yet you are the one failing to deliver any of your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Well I agree part of it was AMD, since they only showed SpecFP rates as bench. However some fansboys went nuts and made that into 40-50% lead in IPC in everything. And suddenly we had a period where "average xtremeer" also started to believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
troll = shintaisme?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
nah not my cup of tea :D
and read my edit, that's what i call pwned!
Q6600 @ 2.4GHz; 2GB, 8800GTX
Quote:
PCMarkSuite 4973 PCMarks
Memories Suite 4445
TV and Movies Suite 4154
Gaming Suite 4706
Music Suite 4478
Communications Suite 4138
Productivity Suite 4570
HDD Test Suite 4275
Now looking back to the startpost and it's gaming score
SURPRISE!!!5077 with an HD3870,
you fail to read and to understand it seems :D
LOL, just like a 2900XT is faster than a 8800GTX right? (Cept in futuremark benches) Also you sure they run on the same OS? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
I love how you "pwn" yourself.
I beg to differ, your screenshot shows "Ganged mode disabled", i.e. unganged mode enabled and that means 2x64bit not 1x128. Explanation is here:Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=343
However that should be the best option for K10, I dont care if some bandwidth benches will suffer from decreasing scores, overall performance in a multithreaded environment should be better with unganged mode.
cheers
Opteron
I love how you try to deny the facts :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Those numbers that you like to use, have owned you big time :yepp:
BeardyMan, how about we wait for some REAL game benches before calling Kentsfield... 'pwned' in gaming. You know, real games... like Crysis. :ROTF:
I have a sneaking suspicion, come the 19th... the only one getting 'pwned' will be yourself. :rofl:
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=49
Are for real or a mkt bot ?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
deny the facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
look at Barcelona numbers!!!!!! they have been out for a while and we have seen many phenom numbers popping up. and they all point to the K10 being SLOWER than intel. in all real life benches.
Could you link this please, I have yet to see such information.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Why don't we all simply ignore beardyman... he's obviously a relative of Sharikou.
If we all ignore what he says...he wouldn't have anything to say now would he?
But where is the fun in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
Makes sense:)Quote:
Originally Posted by n91htmare
Not too lazy... just wowed... the burden of proof is on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Phenom slower clock for clock...
http://www.xcpus.com/forums/cpus-mai...ce-crysis.html
Phenom slower than a FSB crippled Q6700:
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/giga...0FX-DQ6/b1.htm
Phenom does not overclock well:
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showth...threadid=68863
This in fairly good agreement with such reviews as:
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...?cid=2&id=2411
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13224
and of course Anands predictions: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3092
I just go a Q6600 for $234.00 Yesterday.. That's VALUE...
Fud.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
The true potencial can only be seen when oficial release come.
AMD has released so much information, this is about what we have. I don't necessarily disagree though, it is scant... but all the indicators, from Anands preivew to Techreport's runs, to the OCWorkbench data point in the same direction... clock for clock Phenom will come up short to the 65 nm Kentsfield and won't be competitive to Yorksfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
Of course, we will be treated to canned benchmark data on launch day anyway.... if rumors hold.
i'm not quite sure what to think about the memory performance we've seen in several benchmarks.
barcelona/phenom should be a monster in memory benchmarks, but somehow it's only on par with athlon x2's... makes me wonder what's wrong there :F
Can you run the test again in 64 Bit and IMC gangend mode?
Yep, it is very odd.... unless the memory benchmark is some sort of averaged memory performance of main memory, L3, L2, and L1 peformance with latency added in....Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
This reminds me of a thread I started about Intel's strategy once phenom drops: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=158609Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian MP5T
I think in spite of the lacklustre performance from AMD, Intel could further hurt AMD's release with surprise price-drops in the kentsfield range of products. This should also allow the newly released penryns to sit comfortably above their cousins, price-wise. We might just see $200 quadcores from Intel.
If it doesn't happen after Phenom launch, expect it to happen when the X3's launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
lol now i get it what BeardyMan means.... that PCMark Vantage score... uh yeah makes real sense that a 3870 is faster then a gtx... :rolleyes:
I'd rather say it means that Phenom @default 2.4GHz + HD3875 is faster than Q6600 @ 2.4GHz + gfx
If they both was run under the same OS and such (The Q6600 was with Vista and 163.75 drivers). And last time i checked, AMD did better with Futuremark benches than actual games and graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
Did it hurt you THAT much to see AMD finally going faster than your Intel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
;)
Link to the amd overdrive screen with one core over 3.3ghz
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ight=overdrive
yeah i also can get my c2d screenshot stable on 3.8ghz (on air). Doesn't mean it acutally is stable.
Well..here is alittle surprise!
Gaming test.
Part 1 is one of the 3Dmark06 scenes.
Part 2 is a HD ONLY test with no GFX or CPU load!
And those 2 gives the result. So I´m sure you could also make a 8600GTS beat a 8800Ultra with a good raid setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
lol great, so this score is even more "worthless" then 3dmark. :down:
Ye, its a system test. HD is big part of every single test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Also even my wussy Seagate 7200.10 setup beats the used compared Q6600 one.
So ye...as expected ;)
That link was not about results:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lastviking
It really doesn't matter since the 1st post and second post in this thread had comparable HDD test scores .And you can see in fact that Q6600 had a little better results in some other tests: memory score (lol?) ,TV and Movies Suite(8800GTX at play probably),music score (better sound card probably) ,Communications score, even in HDD test suit...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
And still both had almost equal total score which tells us that Phenom+Radeon got more at gaming.
So whats the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
What we have is nothing to talk so much as you talk.
So wait till 19. It´s so hard?
On that PCMark the Phenom also have Memory cripled, so just wait for oficial reviews.
Please go study the scores for once. If you even would note the HDD suite bench is also CPU taxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
HDD 1
HDD - Windows Defender
HDD 2
HDD - gaming
HDD 3
HDD - importing pictures to Windows Photo Gallery
HDD 4
HDD - Windows Vista startup
HDD 5
HDD - video editing using Windows Movie Maker
HDD 6
HDD - Windows Media Center
HDD 7
HDD - adding music to Windows Media Player
HDD 8
HDD - application loading
Sorry to bust your dream. But they aint raw HD tests.
All i can see is that both systems had comparable HDD test scores(total score for HDD suit).Apart from the fact that this test depends a lot on other hardware in your system,it shows us a rough comparison of two platforms.
Nah...Intel doesn't need to drop prices. Performance-minded folk will still buy the higher performing chip even for a little more $$$. Intel can charge higher and AMD is still limited in what it can charge, which is bleeding AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Well, the thing is even on a forum like ours, you have people who would be content with their quadcore systems running at 1.6 Ghz. For those people, price is all that matters. Plus, they'll be told they have more power than they'll actually ever need :). So, while Intel may not compete with these quadcores, it has to find a way to chop off some of the profit from AMDs higher clocked cpus. Yes, for Intel it will be the lower end, but by virtue of the fact that penryn is here, the best scenario for Intel is to let the Kents muddy the waters at the lower mainstream market, while lower clocked penryns would become entry level highend.Quote:
Originally Posted by zornundo
That is very encouraging. Thanks for the info. My only question is power consumption, and what heatsink are you using on the Phenom?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
NIce.... that for sure BLOW... :explode: .... :banana: :banana: :banana: out of channel...Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
:D
Considering your membership status (you KNOW what I mean), you should be extremely hesitant to continue trolling in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Not that trolling is acceptable by anyone, but your leash is much, much shorter than everyone else's.
well mister smart, can you tell me then where i will be able to buy 2,2 -2,4GHZ yorkfield quad @200-250$Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacha
a link to an etailer is enough :rofl:
20posts in one thread from shintai again as usual.... its an AMD thread...get a life, looking at you're sig you can only dream of a decent hw setup. Look at you're board it's a 965 chipset INTEL screwed YOU BIGTIME with that chipset.
look around in the buying forums and check the amount of q6600 that are bought against others high speed bins.... AMD is a direct competitor now for those.Quote:
Originally Posted by zornundo
its not only the proc, people look power, powerconsumption and total price, you also need a board. Total offering is much higher now with fx790 boards.
only few % will OC, 50% of those few % use AI of board or small tools, the new overdrive will do great to that community.
Situation about AMD CPUs are exactly the same like on GFX market ... no absolutely high-end, only mainstream with good price ... thats all.
can we make a decree that from now on, cinebench 10 will be the official cpu bench for everyone? all these other programs piss me off lol. 3dmark06 cpu test is influenced by graphics card, and graphics card driver version, so thats out. pcmark is influenced by hardrive. cinebench is just pure unadulterated cpu and memory bandwith bench afaik
Yeah, this is the way it is looking to shape up..... They certianly moved closer IPC-wise, it may take some time to close the clocking gap though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
is this the new bench that takes 2 hours to finish or something? :stick:
Yeah, it's new and I ran it on a couple of different rigs ... it is more of a HD bench than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya