Phenom GP 7000 2.0ghz vs A64 6400 3.2ghz

[BeardyMan]

http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2...8206d6758.html





if repost please delete.

[alayashu]

the memory BW suggests another 'bad config' case
...a few more weeks till some undeniable and unquestionable benches

[[XC] gomeler]

Shows some promise, just need to ramp the clocks up by 50%

[Epsilon84]

I guess the question on my mind is - can Phenom, supposedly debuting @ 2.4GHz, defeat the 3.2GHz X2 6400+? Looking at these results, if they are indeed valid, would suggest the 3.2GHz X2 would hold an edge over the 2.4GHz Phenom X4 in single/double threaded applications. Only in heavily threaded applications/benchmarks would Phenom come out on top... IMO that would be sort of embarrassing and bad PR if that were to be the case.

Perhaps it would be best to launch Phenom @ 2.6GHz+? Stuff low TDPs, 125W for a quad is perfectly acceptable, at least have your next gen chip OUTPERFORM your last gen chip in all benchmarks, that should be the minimum requirement.

[Don_Won]

pwnt?

[Sneil]

lame

[Nedjo]

Only in heavily threaded applications/benchmarks would Phenom come out on top... IMO that would be sort of embarrassing and bad PR if that were to be the case.

What's embarrassing about that? Hell we have similar scenario today with Q6600 vs. X2 6400 Black!

BTW there's no such thing as quad core GP 7000 Phenom!

[Epsilon84]

What's embarrassing about that? Hell we have similar scenario today with Q6600 vs. X2 6400 Black!

BTW there's no such thing as quad core GP 7000 Phenom!

Gosh, why turn everything into Intel vs AMD?! I'm simply talking K10 vs K8 here. Due to the low clock rate of Phenom, it will most likely be outperformed by the X2 6400+ and perhaps even the X2 6000+ in non heavily threaded applications.

Thus, in certain benchmarks we will have a case of old outperforming the new. That is bad PR.

Unlike AMD, Intel actually has equivalently clocked quads (albeit much more expensive). That is the difference.

[informal]

What's embarrassing about that? Hell we have similar scenario today with Q6600 vs. X2 6400 Black!

BTW there's no such thing as quad core GP 7000 Phenom!

My thoughts too.

[HamidFULL]

then Phenom GP @ 3GHz would have decent power but I bet even Phenom X4@ 3.2GHz will lose to Yorkfield @ 3.2GHz

[hardrail]

Gosh, why turn everything into Intel vs AMD?! I'm simply talking K10 vs K8 here. Due to the low clock rate of Phenom, it will most likely be outperformed by the X2 6400+ and perhaps even the X2 6000+ in non heavily threaded applications.

Thus, in certain benchmarks we will have a case of old outperforming the new. That is bad PR.

Unlike AMD, Intel actually has equivalently clocked quads (albeit much more expensive). That is the difference.

I agree with your assessment of the K10. I'm waiting for Phenom before my next build, because I want to go AMD. But not if their new architecture gets outperformed by their old line.

[bedlamite]

Well, we've already seen 3GHz+ OC for Phenoms, so outperfoming by old series is kinda not possble.
And still nobody have ever seen "famous" B2 revision's results.
Not much time left to wait and see.

[RPGWiZaRD]

I'd wanna see some proper comparisions where CPU performance is measured, not system and VGA performance thanks.

[justapost]

That sandra memory benchmark looks like single slot with DDR2-1066 but they used two memory modules.
CPU and multimedia is more than twice as fast as my X2 3800 at 2.0 GHz.
I assume the phenom sytem is more energy efficient (89W TDP) that the x2 6400 system (120W TDP).
I'd be interested in the idle power consumption of the phenom system compared to an X2 at same clock speed.

[OBR]

4 cores against 2 is useless test ...

[Zytek_Fan]

Fake me thinks.

[ryboto]

4 cores against 2 is useless test ...

do all of those tests use all 4 cores?

[informal]

do all of those tests use all 4 cores?

Very few of those do.

[da-key]

I would gladly take that setup to see if I could fix the obvious problem with the memory bandwidth.

Overall just more FUD imo.

[Warship]

Wow, how surprising! New gen tech being faster than old gen tech? Pleeeease

[savantu]

My oh my , the doubters are still unconvinced...Heh , we'll wait 3 more weeks until their fantasy world will crumble.

[justapost]

In case of sandra's cpu benchmark, it uses four cores, so is it a phenom x4 or a GP-7xxx (tri-core)?
On an 2x2210 system i get 97% better results using 4 in oposite to 2 cores on the sandra 07 cpu benchmark.
Using the 14500 i get on an X2 at 2 GHZ as the basis would mean 28565 with four and 21420 with tri cores.
So if it's a tri-core it is around 40% faster at the same clock. If it's a quad core it is around 6% faster in that benchmark.

[Brother Esau]

lame

Thats how it appears to me also!

[Zytek_Fan]

http://www.expreview.com/

That's why. Who's been the biggest source of FUD in the past few weeks?

[Kasparz]

Baton 3200+ was faster than Winchester 3000+ years ago. Its clearly that fastest old gen CPU is little faster than slowest new gen.
Compare EE netburst Pentiums with e6300. EE will be faster in most benchmarks for sure. But while having both overclocked e6300 will trash EE. Same with K8 vs K7. Same with 6400+ vs GP7000. If first batch Phenoms can do 3Ghz+ on air then its very possible that first retail Phenoms can hit 4Ghz stable with good aircooling.