There are golden Phenom X4 B3s out there capable of hitting 3.2Ghz on air!

[triple_A]

if 9550's are also able to pull off speeds like this it makes for pretty nice cpus at their current price.

Or are phenoms still awefully fsb limited so you need an unlocked multi in order to get past 2.5Ghz?

[Donnie27]

if 9550's are also able to pull off speeds like this it makes for pretty nice cpus at their current price.

Or are phenoms still awefully fsb limited so you need an unlocked multi in order to get past 2.5Ghz?

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz? AMD fantoys will miss this point but it just like bragging about Smithfield while X2 pimpslapped it at almost stock speed I'll be glad when K10.5 or 11 ships and provides some real competition.

[Jakko]

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz?

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

[jas420221]

yes we all know that for +6 months, if nothing more to say then stay in the intel forum, there are actually people that like to test and have these chips because they are difficult (read knowledge on htt-nb-mem-etc) to OC and not just pump up the fsb and vcore.

Try since the release of C2D architecture... like what, 1.5 years????

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

Thats the point. Clock for clock Phenom is slower than C2D architecutre. A 3.2Ghz phenom does not perform as well as a 3.2Ghz Quad. We arent even talking Penryn either which makes that small gap larger.

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

Ehhh, no. Thats the thing. A Q6600 can be had for $199 at Microcenter. A quick look for the 9550 gives me $210.

[triple_A]

Try since the release of C2D architecture... like what, 1.5 years????

Thats the point. Clock for clock Phenom is slower than C2D architecutre. A 3.2Ghz phenom does not perform as well as a 3.2Ghz Quad. We arent even talking Penryn either which makes that small gap larger.

Ehhh, no. Thats the thing. A Q6600 can be had for $199 at Microcenter. A quick look for the 9550 gives me $210.

Over here in NL a 9550 starts at a little under 150euro.

[keithlm]

A 3.2Ghz phenom does not perform as well as a 3.2Ghz Quad.

Interesting. I have not seen any 3.2Ghz Phenom benchmarks to support your statement.

Until I see such a benchmark then your statement is a "theory". You may be correct. On the other hand it is possible that your theory is not correct. There is no way of knowing at this time since no such benchmarks exist.

Although it appears that we might have benchmarks at that speed soon.

[jas420221]

Interesting. I have not seen any 3.2Ghz Phenom benchmarks to support your statement.

Until I see such a benchmark then your statement is a "theory". You may be correct. On the other hand it is possible that your theory is not correct. There is no way of knowing at this time since no such benchmarks exist.

Although it appears that we might have benchmarks at that speed soon.

You just havent been looking. Im not here to spew FUD or hate on AMD. Its just the way it is. I will go find one bench of phenom vs quad and link it, but the rest is up to you. What Im saying is, what I posted is common knowledge that non penryn quads outperform phenom in the majority of testing at the same clocks. In all fairness there are some benches (Divx encoding, WAV to name a couple) that phenom accels at over Q6600. Overall though, clock for clock the Q6600 is faster at the same clockspeed. The margin may be little but it is there. Throw Penryn on top of that, and that gap increases to something more than a negligable win.

Let me find a review since you wont...http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=9

AMD's nascent Phenom also suffers under the considerable yoke of Intel's Core 2 Quad 6600 pricing, which at £165 for a hugely-overclockable 2.4GHz part is something of a bargain. AMD, though, is pitching its slightly underperforming quad-core part at roughly the same price. The industry needs AMD to survive and succeed yet it's very difficult to make a compelling buying recommendation for a processor that's a year behind its competitor - one who has already moved on to a more-efficient 45nm manufacturing process - is between 10-20 percent slower in most benchmarks, and costs much the same.

Our HEXUS.bang4buck graphs show that AMD needs to lower the pricing of the Phenom 9600 to, say, around £135 before it becomes a genuinely viable option to Intel's '6600, should your usage pattern reflect that of a heavy multitasker. If the Phenom 9600's pricing (£159) stays exactly where it is right now, it's a case of too little, too late, we're afraid.

Bottom line: the new Phenom quad-core processor and 7-series chipset pack in some potent technology. Trouble is, Intel got there first. You need to be better than the competition if coming from behind: AMD's new launches aren't quite that.

EDIT: or just read the link above your last post that covers the exact same thing I just mentioned.

Since TF2 doesn't make use of any more than two CPU cores, the Phenoms have no advantage over dual-core chips. Clock for clock, Intel's Core 2 chips are faster here; at 2.4GHz, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms the Phenom X4 9750. And the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 are both well ahead of the Phenom X4 9850.

[GunterFalstaff]

Ehhh, no. Thats the thing. A Q6600 can be had for $199 at Microcenter. A quick look for the 9550 gives me $210.

try $199 ... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103251

[jas420221]

try $199 ... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103251

Good find, though my point still stands...(debunking TripleA's point I guess)

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

Significantly cheaper != same price (for less performance).

[triple_A]

Good find, though my point still stands...(debunking TripleA's point I guess)

Significantly cheaper != same price (for less performance).

lol whatever

I was looking at prices in the Netherlands cause those are the only prices that matter to me, and over here a 9550 is significantly cheaper than a q6600.

[irev210]

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

What is really sad is many people are buying Dell Inspiron 530's and just BSEL modding from 2.4GHz to 3GHz on stock mobo/voltage.


When every Core 2 Quad can be overclocked to 3GHz on stock voltage that tells you something.

Pretty much all core 2 quads can hit at least 3.6GHz.

So I dont really understand what the point of comparing a 3.2GHz core 2 quad to a Phenom is anyway since when overclocked @ best case senarios it would be 3.6-4GHz vs 3.2GHz.

Any way you look at it, Intel currently has a better offering. That doesn't mean AMD wont ever again, etc... but lets be realistic.

[xlink]

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

it's found that clock per clock core is a faster uarch.


face it newer itterations of core can do 4Ghz on air AND are around 15-20% faster per clock

[ryboto]

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz? AMD fantoys will miss this point but it just like bragging about Smithfield while X2 pimpslapped at almost stock speed I'll be glad when K10.5 or 11 ships and provides some real competition.

I don't think the clock speed difference is that high, maybe for core2 vs k8, but there were definitely some improvements in K10.

[naokaji]

I don't think the clock speed difference is that high, maybe for core2 vs k8, but there were definitely some improvements in K10.

true, look at video encoding performance of k10 vs k8 (k8's weak spot) it improved massively.

but, k10 simply isnt a amazing chip like c2d, it would slap a 4ghz p4... but no chance against c2d, sorry but intel clearly won this round.

[triple_A]

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz? AMD fantoys will miss this point but it just like bragging about Smithfield while X2 pimpslapped it at almost stock speed I'll be glad when K10.5 or 11 ships and provides some real competition.

well as far as i know phenom does scale pretty well with clock increases.
So i also think a 3.2Ghz phenom can keep up pretty well with 3-3.2Ghz kentfield..

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

[Donnie27]

well as far as i know phenom does scale pretty well with clock increases.
So i also think a 3.2Ghz phenom can keep up pretty well with 3-3.2Ghz kentfield..

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

But Q6600 will clock higher than 3.2GHz. I'm not trying to compare a Penryn at 3.2GHz already or something like the Q6600 or etc... Who said Clock for Clock equals?

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/4

[triple_A]

But Q6600 will clock higher than 3.2GHz. I'm not trying to compare a Penryn at 3.2GHz already or something like the Q6600 or etc... Who said Clock for Clock equals?

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/4

I know Q6600's clock higher, 9550's are cheaper (or atleast they are over here ) so that put's it at around the same price/performance ratio.

But if the netherlands is the only country where a 9550 is cheaper than a q6600; sure, if a q6600 costs the same or even less than a 9550 it's a way better deal.

[Donnie27]

I know Q6600's clock higher, 9550's are cheaper (or atleast they are over here ) so that put's it at around the same price/performance ratio.

But if the netherlands is the only country where a 9550 is cheaper than a q6600; sure, if a q6600 costs the same or even less than a 9550 it's a way better deal.

No NO NO! That's the Q6600 running at stock 2.4GHz speed and running as fast as the ES Phenom at 2.6GHz. Now if you try and scale the speed, go from 2.4GHz to 2.6GHz for Phenom most times (clearly not all) it would need to be 2.8 to 3GHz to get a better result. Even with Games that aren't GPU Bottlenecked. Sure with some apps the Gap is small.

One example. The Valve particle test. Phenom 9750 = 66.0, Phenom 9850 = 72 FPS 100MHz faster = 6FPS. Core2Q 6600 = 83 FPS. So if we scaled just as an example only, we'd need 12 more FPS or 200MHz more to get 2.7GHz to reach 84 FPS. Since HT is running 200MHz faster that might be more like using 4 or 5 FPS per 100MHz CPU speed. I based this on 6 FPS and did a mulligan (give me) of the HT bus. So Q6600 is a similar speed at 2.4 compared to 2.7GHz or at a 300MHz Deficit ON THIS TEST.

That's just one test and others vary but Phenom was NEVER clock for clock on more than 1 or 2 tests. Some times it much closer and other time the GAP is wider. That unless some folks think Sandra is an app?