Calling All Phenom Gamers And Overclockers

[chew*]

correct....... although intel threw a curveball into the model names when they went to 45nm.
I would also suffice to say that even 450 fsb is attainable very easily on a quad with an intel chipset board, my 24/7 stock voltage settings are 450 x 8.........If you like ATI then go with a x38 chipset or wait just a tad longer x48 is very near and better......Has some really nice tweaks I think you may find welcoming if you like to squeeze every little performance you can out of a system........

If you want the fastest, I hate to say it from an amd fan perspective but if you want quad get the intel.....If you can't stomach intel, get a dualcore amd.......from my perspective having been at 3.2 already 24/7 stable with 939, am2 dualcores weren't going to be a noticable upgrade for me, from your perspective however being that you were on a single core you would more than likely notice a big difference just going to a DC athlon........

I also have 3 phase units and got lucky with coldbugs on 939, I didn't want to waste them.....that also was a factor in my decision.........

[FireDemon666]

I think I might try top go intel this time around because I want quad for sure.

I haven't been keeping up on all the latest Intel trends though.

What are some good routes to go? Should I wait for the Intel 780i boards or are the Intel chipsets worth the money?

I'm planning on running DDR2 BTW not 3.

[FireDemon666]

Been doing some poking around on motherboards.

ASUS went all out like usual with the Maximus Extreme, however I can't help but notice Gigabyte seems to have taken the stability and reliability approach over Asus with their GA-X38-DQ6 board. The Maximus just looks to be crammed with eye candy that we won't use on a daily basis or hardly ever for that matter and cluttered with one click wonders. What's this overclocking tool I read about where you just choose the CPU model you want your chip clocked to and the bios does the rest? Where's the fun in that?

I guess the only thing holding me back from making my decision yet is that I'm not sure if I'm gonna go ATI or Nvidia. Both the 3870 X2 (With some mature drivers) and 9800 GX2 look very promising. The 3870 seems like a much more feasable option right now because two GPU's on one PCB is much more space efficient than two cards on space, especially when I need both of those PCI slots.

Suggestions?

[chew*]

I would sway you away from ddr3 boards for the time being.......ddr2 is just to cheap to pass up....corsair ddr2 800 2x2 2gig kits for less than $100 after rebates....rated for 5-5-5-12 mine pull 4-4-4-12.....

Maxximus chipsets run hot, x48 doesn't do a search for x48, free cable guy did a review, I think its right up your alley.....I have the maxximus formula now wishing i waited for x48....ala rampage formula.

Nvidia chipsets are buggy for either amd or intel IMO, stick with intel chipsets for intel boards..IF you want to go the nvidia vid card route a single card will be fine, if you want ati dual setups are available with intel chipsets....nvidia's new single card dual gpu is marketed towards boards that don't offer SLI which is better for endusers.....they have a choice...

[FireDemon666]

I'm more inclined right now to go with the gigabyte board. It looks like they favored stability/reliability and clean power across the board in leu of eye candy.

[[XC] gomeler]

The X38-DQ6 is indeed a nice board but unless you plan on utilizing Crossfire then a nice P35 board would fit the bill. From my experience, you can't really go wrong with a DDR2 P35 motherboard, I've been an evangelist for the MSI P35 Neo2-FR and that's the board I'd suggest if you can still find it. I've hit 520FSB with my Q6600 G0 with that board on phase, hit 480FSB with my QX9650 on phase, and I'm right now inching past 540FSB on my E8400, so all-round a solid board. Just get a Q6600 G0 as the Q6700 and QX6700/6850 offer nothing that you'll be able to utilize without a cascade. Your other option is to wait till the Q9450 launches, while it isn't guaranteed to overclock higher than the Q6600 G0, it will run a lot cooler if my QX9650 is any sign.

[FireDemon666]

I'm thinking I might do a dual crossifre setup. I'm still reluctant to switch back to ATI I still kinda have a sour taste leftover from when I made the switch to nvidia.


What is the expected launch of the Q9450 and is there a ballpark price yet?

EDIT: N/M they're all over froogle priced at about $330. Think I mihgt wait this one out. Any telling when they will become available?

[KTE]

So, for someone who loves to push their CPU to the very last mhz and is running phase change, which would you out of all honesty recommend. The Q6600, or the 9600BE?

Some of the ones I tested in the last 3 months. You can make up your own mind.

Typical Air Cooling Limits (same cooling):

X2 5000+ BE: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=278843
C2D E6750: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=274830
Phenom 9500: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=280406
Phenom 9600: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=288979
Phenom 9600 2: (same)
Phenom 9600 BE: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=295791
Phenom 9600 BE 2: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=304222
C2Q Q6600: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=301096

-31-0C:

Phenom 9500: no gain
Phenom 9600: no gain
Phenom 9600 2: not tested
Phenom 9600 BE: not tested
Phenom 9600 BE 2: no gain
C2Q Q6600: not tested but gained 100MHz by just dropping idle temp to 20C.

Phenoms: IME don't gain anything past 3GHz in cold.
C2Q: Gains 100-1500MHz the colder you go, chip dependent.

Performance? Depends, and you have to be very specific here. If you want a general answer, then Core 2 CPUs wins overall at the same clock over X2 and X4. However, some uses do favor Phenom over Core 2 Quad although the high clock speed oc of C2 would take that advantage away very very quickly. That and the fact that GFX performs better with a better performing CPU.

Check this. I ran three GFX/CPU tests just around 10 hrs ago with my 9600 BE and Q6600. 3DMark06, 3DMark01 and AquaMark03 at as close clocks to each other as possible using a low end GPU (Sapphire HD 2600 XT) at stock. Both had their "FSB" oc'd a little and RAm was close by. You can decide for yourself which is better.

Phenom 9600 BE : Core 2 Quad Q6600

Setup
:

2k1
:

2k6
:

AM3
:

I have to mention one extra thing though. I've had 2 Q6600 G0s and 2 E6750 G0s recently but only the above AMD CPUs in a while plus an X2 BE 2350 I love to use regular. I would use the C2D over the X2 for gaming consistent but I wouldn't use the C2Q over Phenom for gaming. The AMD system had much better IQ and color, tone, saturation, clarity (look at the above PNG images) than the same GPU/settings with the Intel Quad system. There is no doubt about that in my usage and it's why I have to change system when I game. I don't like gaming with the Q6600 but gaming even with a 2.2G Phenom was a much better experience (where you were not CPU limited).

[Eternalightwith]

I would use the C2D over the X2 for gaming consistent but I wouldn't use the C2Q over Phenom for gaming. The AMD system had much better IQ and color, tone, saturation, clarity (look at the above PNG images) than the same GPU/settings with the Intel Quad system. There is no doubt about that in my usage and it's why I have to change system when I game. I don't like gaming with the Q6600 but gaming even with a 2.2G Phenom was a much better experience (where you were not CPU limited).

KTE,

How and why was Phenom better experience?
And IQ,color, tone, saturation would have to do with you using a radeon card versus a Geforce card. CPU wouldn't do anything about that.
I've heard from numerous sources that multi-tasking is smoother with phenom.
While I've read the other threads that deal with this, and they aren't very pretty, I wanted to ask you this question from strictly a gaming perspective.

ETlight

[KTE]

I'll be honest, I'm going to stall now. How and why are personal feelings through experience which words don't and can't even begin to describe too well. Humans have barriers where words cannot even describe 1/10th of everything. That's why none can describe love as it is, only the feeling and experience describes it accurately. You know when you walk into a place and you feel "uncomfortable"... you just do. You know when you see a lass and you're strongly attracted to her... you just do. It's almost impossible to pin it down to why, which is why people error repeatedly when they try to or assume, and you really don't bother about it even, because the amount the brain processes to give you those feelings it would take years to line up and investigate one by one.

Those are my personal observational notes. Someone else may well differ and you should ask them earnestly, but sure, that won't change what I see and feel when I use them both interchangeably one minute after another. Trying my best to explain, is like I'm missing some crucial vocabulary needed here now.
It's just a personal usage feeling you get when you see the game/pic running on both systems with the same GPU at max locked FPS (say 90). I've been running Q6600 all day today trying to figure this exact thing out and now started up Phenom. The difference is there and it's there very boldly yet I'm basically not understanding why.
Each driver+GPU displays and functions with separate tweaks on a different chipset+CPU combo and the Phenom+HD 2000/3000+RD790 combo shines nicely with image quality and desktop flowness in normal usage as well as with gaming usage compared to X2+HD2000/3000+RD790 or C2D/C2Q+HD2000/3000+P35 (non CPU dependent gaming, if CPU is bottlenecked then C2D/Q will give you much better perf.) The desktop usage is down primarily to IMC/L3, high bandwidth and native design. The image/gaming, IDK why or how but it exists.
Not tried X38 because a) it's pointless b) it's in a 2.5-3x higher price band to the RD790 board I obtained and still not as feature rich.

Sorry, the question wasn't really answered specifically at all but I don't know how to either.

[Eternalightwith]

Sorry, the question wasn't really answered specifically at all but I don't know how to either.

I understand what you are trying to say.
I was thinking about the higher bandwidth and the lower latency of the spider platform. And while I know this is good for multi-tasking, I was having trouble seeing this as the basis for what you are describing. Because, most games aren't multi-threaded and if they are, don't use more than 2 cores effeciently... only SupCom uses 4 cores with any efficiency.
If it was me, I'd say it was, lower latency (always a strength for AMD) and the high bandwidth HT link which allows quick off-loading of OS processes to a separate core, allowing the game to use core 0 exclusively.

ETlight

[YukonTrooper]

Sounds like placebo to me. Just my "personal feeling".

[KTE]

Sounds like placebo to me. Just my "personal feeling".

You have experimental experience to base your feelings off?
That's what I had thought too. Trying it 4 weeks every day you soon realize, no.

[SocketMan]

I'll take an "educated" guess and say that (imo) it's because of Hyper Transport 3. From what I understand it improves the "link"
beetweem CPU (phenom) and Video Card . There is (almost) no
difference in any benchmarks with the HT speed set to different values.
Then again which benchmark measures that "link"?
With Quadfire (CrossFireX) I would imagine, we'll see a difference in 3D marks from increasing the HT speed/frequency.

[tbone8ty]

And FWIW, I have a 9600 BE and a Q6600 G0 right here now, I know how they perform, overclock and what to expect.

so which is the better phenom to get? a 9600 BE or the regular 9600

i heard the regular 9600 OC's better? is this true


is there a thread starting that show which bin/week is better that others like we did for the dual core opterons?

[informal]

KTE,i totally understand what you're talking about .It's still inexplicable and can be just "felt".That's why i still prefer AMD over intel(no matter if its DC or QC).Although i assembled a lot of PCs by now(many of them being intel based),still the feeling is present and strong.
For my regular daily usage,it just feels better using X2.

[keithlm]

KTE,i totally understand what you're talking about .It's still inexplicable and can be just "felt".That's why i still prefer AMD over intel(no matter if its DC or QC).Although i assembled a lot of PCs by now(many of them being intel based),still the feeling is present and strong.
For my regular daily usage,it just feels better using X2.

I also agree.

I can speculate as to "why".

There is a method being employed by the competition that might have a bit to do with why some of us have these experiences. They did it in the past and they are starting to do it again: Over time they increase their cache size... again and again. THis gives them an advantage when running single threaded applications which includes many benchmarks.

If the cache is big enough it is no longer a "cache" but is actually just a faster form of main memory. This will have great advantages when running some applications and benchmarks over a chip that has a small and efficient cache that is actually acting like a cache.

However when a LOT of multi-tasking and task-switching is done this large cache might have adverse affects... which can actually be NOTICED by people. (But it is something that is not easy to benchmark or measure.)

I also suspect strongly that the the actual method of maintaining the cache will change as the size of the cache gets bigger. The big cache doesn't need a very efficient cache mechanism since it isn't really performing the job of a cache. So when it actually HAS to act like a cache..... OOPS.

In this case the chip with the smaller efficient cache will have the advantage.

Now start overclocking the less efficient mechanism to get even better benchmark results. You are now on a crazy train that LOOKS great... but the increased frequency will compound any problems created by a less efficient cache. (Although the chip will look GREAT on benchmarks.)

Of course many people will call you crazy and try to tell you that since this unexplainable "feeling" can't be benchmarked... that it is not real and not important. (And they will also attempt to discredit ANY post that is similar to what has been posted in this thread.)

Of course it also COULD just be "in our minds". But I do not believe so... which is why I'm personally willing to sacrifice some performance to get this advantage. Although you really don't have to sacrifice as much as some people claim. I don't overclock... so the difference is much less than some people would have you believe.

I fully believe that over time more complex benchmarks or methods of running them will be created that will reveal the benefits that we are discussing.

[zanzabar]

with the amd cpu the ram is linked with acctual clock and not the core clock so the unlocked multi dont have the same effect, but the amd u will need more than 230htt (phenom limit of stability last time i heard of one) to get a good clock so the black is well worth the extra money (but they are both 225 so it dosnt matter)

on the intel side the core fsb can easily go to 500-550mhz with a p35 or x38 chipset so the multi dosnt mean as much since at 4.0-4.5 u will run into problems on air or liquid and 5ghz is about the top for reliable use that ive seen so 625x8 ~ 5ghz and thats to high of a core, 555x9 ~ 5ghz, 500x10 = 5ghz so u can see how u wont need a high multi. but if u want sli then u wont be able to pass the 400mhz core fsb stable on an intel quad so u would need the unlocked multi, so if u go with an intel chipset u wont need the unlocked and there is a $500+ difference from a 10 multi to an unlocked g0 chip or 45nm and its $700 difference for a g0 9 multi and the unlocked so the intel i wouldent go unlocked

for intel i would highly recamend an x38 and 2x 3870 or a 3870x2 over the 780i for stability purposes, NV on intel is a edit bad idea

for amd i would go 790fx with 2x 3870 (if the 780a ever came out i might have a different opinion for amd)


edit - i just relized that there was a page 2 and this isnt of importance

u wont see a difference with memory to out weigh the loss in clock speed when things are equal performance at clock for clock and one in 30-50% faster, by next year amd will be back ahead if they improve and intel goes through with the IMC to ruin their chip

[Dainas]

Sounds like placebo to me. Just my "personal feeling".

Thats putting it as lightly as one can.

[chew*]

Funny I got that feeling recently when i upgraded......from an x2. the system just clicked and all the components just appear to complement each other......systems a q6600, asus x38 board,2gigs of corsair that actually run better than specs at rated speed.( 5-5-5-12 ddr2800 runs 4-4-4-9 same speed 1.8v with no tweaking ) my old x1900xt.........

I think this is just the effect you will see when you put together a system that just meshes together really well........Ever get a system that you just didn't like the way it ran, always seemed unstable but it wasn't? That same system just didn't like some types of ram? Sometimes you get lucky sometimes you dont......

I got that same unstable feeling playing with a celeron DC today, my board just hated it....I mean granted a 1.6g chip at 3.0g but still i had the feeling no matter what speed it was......so bad i ripped my torture chip back out and tossed my quad back in.......

Consequently i just built 15 celeron rigs for a small business and all those components meshed really well, I almost forgot they were 1.8 single core celly's thats how smooth they ran.......I tossed the DC celly in my prototype rig that i use as a sales pitch and the system felt queasy.......Btw this DC has a very very small cache

Yes 1.8 775 cellies were an upgrade for them, they were on socket 478 1.7 cellies with 256mb SD ram running xp pro.........I skimped on the cpu's and crammed them with the poormans upgrade (2gigs ram)