FX80 and FX82 4 and 4.4GHZ quads from AMD?

[Donnie27]

I have WinXP Home and Vista Ultimate 64bit Dual Booted. I must agree to a point with the Phenom smoother, in 64bit thing. Missed and over stated by Ramsteiner and others is that once those apps are started, they still run faster on the Core processors. Making up for that 10th of second hitch, so no it is NOT slower LOL! In other words, last out the gate but first across the line.

There is also something to be said why some folks had legit complaints about Vista 64. I posted something about Intel depending optimized apps more while AMD ran poor/er code better than Intel and only that Core closed that gap. More proof. They could feed P4 well optimized code and it did wonders. But like stargazer, I'd love to see a review with numbers.! My buddies thought my rig was overclocked while looking at Vista and XP though, can't speak for anyone else. I've not felt the "smoother" while messing with my bud's Phenoms. That doesn't mean its like that for everyone. It would to a very quick stop to measure mine at stock and with RAM running only at 800MHz (6GB), not 1066MHz.

[xVeinx]

I noticed the "lack of smoothness" on occasion when I had first used my E6300 + P965 and XP; I don't see this at all with my E8400 and Vista. I'm not sure what value this provides AMD, but it was in part due to the FSB I would guess. Either way, it's not the issue now. When my E6300 could run NAMD sims over 30% faster than my AMD processor, none of that mattered anymore ...

[Shintai]

I have 3 PCs at work. 1 laptop, 2 desktops. One desktop is a Optiplex 740 with an Athlon X2. The other is an Optiplex with a E2x00

They are installed the same time, same memory, same disk, same conf, same patches etc. And the X2 is not a single bit more smooth.

As others already mentioned. If you have some Windows install with alot of installed/uninstalled games, lots of "oh let me just try this SW" and so on. Maybe disk change. Sure any new reinstalled system will be alot smoother. The same goes for the users here, surfing god knows what and then it takes 40seconds to open an Excel sheet. Then reinstall and its instant. Hardly the work of an IMC o.O

And I dont even wanna comment on the OP....

[Rammsteiner]

Then someone with a bit of intelligence will never buy a Phenom over an Athlon X2. Let alone C2D's and C2Q's.

Maybe you didnt know yet, Im not an AMD sales manager, Im not trying to get everyone to buy Phenom.

Also you seem to make a fair comparison between Windsor F3 @ 3.5Ghz vs Agena B3 @ 2.5Ghz? How is this possible? FYI, there's no Windsor F3 @ 3.5Ghz for sale. If you would be so nice to include my whole post for one comment, 3Ghz Agena will crush Windsor F3 @ 3.5Ghz.

So you're recommending a system that WILL have less perfomance compared to similar priced AMD or Intel offerings?

You might have missed my point there...

I simply said with a 9950BE and a SB750 board you're settled. How should it have less performance than a similar priced AMD/Intel system while it's the best combination to get both regarding TDP and OC-ability compared to more expensive non-SB750 boards

here we go again with the slower but smoother. Stop trying to make the guy buy the Phenom giving him false reasons and data.

What. So you actually accept you'd rather have a 5Ghz CPU lagging like compared to a less clocked CPU which runs it all great? Interesting idealogy there. Also that comment pretty much contradicts your first comment, but it fits your idealogy anyhow.

If you want to game (well and if you want to do anything else with your desktop PC) you should only consider AMD if your budget is low. If not, forget about the slower but smoother thing spreaded by AMD fanatics, do yourself a favor and buy an Intel rig.

Not only with a low-budget. My rig runs great and I dont see how a 6Ghz Skulltrail would have more benefit in my gaming experience since it already runs perfect. Also you seem to have a big hate over the 'smooth' part, but I did not say anything about Intel running less-smooth. I cant even say that since I dont own an Intel rig. So I dont get your offense here, but keep your flames out of here. Thanks very much.

But then again, what's the point of using the slowest space heater quad cores from AMD?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_7.html#sect1

Why exactly is that link valid to proof your non-excisting point but a link from the same site stating Phenom FX to run at 4Ghz(+) is non-valid? Also, have you looked at QX9775 heater core? It's even worse

[Rammsteiner]

I have WinXP Home and Vista Ultimate 64bit Dual Booted. I must agree to a point with the Phenom smoother, in 64bit thing. Missed and over stated by Ramsteiner and others is that once those apps are started, they still run faster on the Core processors. Making up for that 10th of second hitch, so no it is NOT slower LOL! In other words, last out the gate but first across the line.

So Im not ignored anymore then?

Anyhow, 1) I did not say Phenom to run smoother than C2D/Q, 2), proving the whole 'slower but smoother' part is incorrect is not done by saying a certain program runs faster on a C2D/Q... That's the whole point.

Also, for the millionth time, I did not say Phenom to run smoother than Intel. I hope that's clear for at least the rest of the day now

[STaRGaZeR]

Maybe you didnt know yet, Im not an AMD sales manager, Im not trying to get everyone to buy Phenom.

That's for sure, all AMD sales manager should be under a rock right now

Also you seem to make a fair comparison between Windsor F3 @ 3.5Ghz vs Agena B3 @ 2.5Ghz? How is this possible? FYI, there's no Windsor F3 @ 3.5Ghz for sale. If you would be so nice to include my whole post for one comment, 3Ghz Agena will crush Windsor F3 @ 3.5Ghz

First: only in apps that take advantage of 4 cores.
Second: so you want to take overclocking into the game or not? Then I shall start speaking about how Intel processors demolish AMD processors when heavily overclocked in desktop applications.

I simply said with a 9950BE and a SB750 board you're settled. How should it have less performance than a similar priced AMD/Intel system while it's the best combination to get both regarding TDP and OC-ability compared to more expensive non-SB750 boards

Ugh?

Intel: Q6600 $189 + Biostar P45 motherboard $99
AMD: Phenom 9950BE $179 + Biostar SB750 motherboard $99


The lower TDP goes to Intel, perfomance goes to Intel, the perfomance/watt ratio goes for Intel, the OCability goes hands down for Intel. Do you think my fanatism is worth 10$? I'm afraid the only here missing things is you. As I said, anyone with a bit of intelligence will never buy the combo you suggested over a similar priced Intel offering. Please take note, the AMD mobo is Newegg's cheapest having the SB750, while the Intel one is not. I didn't want to put there some Asrock crap.

What. So you actually accept you'd rather have a 5Ghz CPU lagging like compared to a less clocked CPU which runs it all great? Interesting idealogy there. Also that comment pretty much contradicts your first comment, but it fits your idealogy anyhow.

Maybe because a 5GHz CPU does not lag? I'm pretty sure AMD 5GHz processors wouldn't lag right? But unfortunately we won't see that number in AMD in the next few years.

[Hell Hound]

If vista uses gpu to accelerate windows,the smoothness of opening apps is not cpu depended anymore.Min fps is just as important as max,ex. amd min max 35-85,and intel 20-100.That 20 fps will feel laggy compared to 35,but you might not notice the difference between 85&100 fps.Can Someone can add to what im trying to say?

[Shintai]

If vista uses gpu to accelerate windows,the smoothness of opening apps is not cpu depended anymore.Min fps is just as important as max,ex. amd min max 35-85,and intel 20-100.That 20 fps will feel laggy compared to 35,but you might not notice the difference between 85&100 fps.Can Someone can add to what im trying to say?

What it uses is so little it doesnt matter. And everything without power to it cant run it anyway

[Hell Hound]

Sorry,I didn't fully understand what that mean if @ all.

[Shadowmage]

i think this "smoother experience" originates from other sources then the memory subsystem... hell we are talking about NANOSECONDES here. Way out of the perception range of any human.

I dont disagree with that some humans may can tell the difference between 60 and 80 fps but thats in the millisecond range, 6 orders of magnitude higher then nanoseconds.

People often go from a cramped old system to a completly new system with a fresh windows install, also they often change disks, going from ordinary 7200 8mb 13-14ms hdds to disks with more cache, lower access times etc. This factors would be far more noticeable then a memory subsystem that needs 44ns or 140ns to access the data...

You do realize that these nanoseconds add up, right? There's no point in the last decade of computer architecture improvements if memory accesses only took in the 10's of cycles to access. This is why most programs only have IPCs of less than 1, even though modern processors can theoretically sustain 3 (AMD) or 4 (Intel).

[Flambo]

Intel: Q6600 $189 + Biostar P45 motherboard $99
AMD: Phenom 9950BE $179 + Biostar SB750 motherboard $99

There is actually a $30 discount on the 9950BE and Biostar SB750 combo. So the total would be $249.98 and there isn't a corresponding discount for Q6600 and Biostar P45.

[Hornet331]

You do realize that these nanoseconds add up, right? There's no point in the last decade of computer architecture improvements if memory accesses only took in the 10's of cycles to access. This is why most programs only have IPCs of less than 1, even though modern processors can theoretically sustain 3 (AMD) or 4 (Intel).

sure they add up, but normal desktop apps arnt really that depended on the momory, if we look at the hpc sektor there you see the real benefit.

[STaRGaZeR]

There is actually a $30 discount on the 9950BE and Biostar SB750 combo. So the total would be $249.98 and there isn't a corresponding discount for Q6600 and Biostar P45.

Thanks. So the gap is now $40. Then it's your option, a slower but cheaper rig or a faster but a bit more expensive one. The other parts are the same for both (DDR2, VGA, etc.).

BTW I don't know why he uses the TDP argument, when the 9950BE has an horrible 140W TDP.

[informal]

Thanks. So the gap is now $40. Then it's your option, a slower but cheaper rig or a faster but a bit more expensive one. The other parts are the same for both (DDR2, VGA, etc.).

BTW I don't know why he uses the TDP argument, when the 9950BE has an horrible 140W TDP.

2.6Ghz K10 matches well enough the 2.4Ghz Kentsfield.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=201
On average,9850 is 2.62% slower than Q6600.So 9950 is more than a match.
Overclocking is a different thing,i'd guess Q6600 has a slight advantage there,depending on the stepping(some are good for OC,some not so good).

edit: 9950 just got a reduction in TDP,it will be 125W from now on.But there will be 140W until the new stepping hits the retail,which should be soon.
Oh,btw it doesn't consume the 140W,as you can see from Lost Circuits and AnandTech reviews,among others.

[ryboto]

Thanks. So the gap is now $40. Then it's your option, a slower but cheaper rig or a faster but a bit more expensive one. The other parts are the same for both (DDR2, VGA, etc.).

BTW I don't know why he uses the TDP argument, when the 9950BE has an horrible 140W TDP.

Sure, the TDP is high, but the actual power consumption of the 9850 and 9950 is closer to ~100W. The Q6600 has a TDP of 95W, but it probably consumes somewhere around 80W.

[G0ldBr1ck]

@STaRGaZeR: I have not seen Rammsteiner say that because he gets a smoother feel from the phenom that its better than a Intel quad. I dont in the least bit think that a Phenom is better than an Intel quad but you got it so stuck in your head that its imposable for some people to percieve this smoothness because "Intel is better". Im sure 99.99% of those who notice this could agree that this feel falls very short for making up for Its lack of performance vs Intel but it is worth noting. And sure, there could very well be that .01% that would prefer this small smoothness increase over anything else and thats there choice and a right they have. If you would just loose the attitude of "Intel is better and I cant let anyone say somthing positive about an AMD CPU" and exept that you dont know what other people percieve or prefer and that there perceptions dont change the proven facts, you wouldnt have to try to discredit anyone that dont see eye to eye with you.
.
.
.

As others already mentioned. If you have some Windows install with alot of installed/uninstalled games, lots of "oh let me just try this SW" and so on. Maybe disk change. Sure any new reinstalled system will be alot smoother. The same goes for the users here, surfing god knows what and then it takes 40seconds to open an Excel sheet. Then reinstall and its instant. Hardly the work of an IMC o.O

This is a point worth noting as others have pointed out. Most of us thow are experianced would not let this happen when we comare CPU's I have used fresh installs on my benching and im sure most others would not overlook it if they were comparing a fresh instal to a old fragmented disk. So In most of our cases I dont think this has anything to do with it.

[Rammsteiner]

That's for sure, all AMD sales manager should be under a rock right now

Fail flame

First: only in apps that take advantage of 4 cores.
Second: so you want to take overclocking into the game or not? Then I shall start speaking about how Intel processors demolish AMD processors when heavily overclocked in desktop applications.

No... You already took OC'ing in it, 'fair' was sarcasm. Also, another fail flame. Even my dead dog could OC those chip, why even bother going there.

The lower TDP goes to Intel, perfomance goes to Intel, the perfomance/watt ratio goes for Intel, the OCability goes hands down for Intel. Do you think my fanatism is worth 10$? I'm afraid the only here missing things is you. As I said, anyone with a bit of intelligence will never buy the combo you suggested over a similar priced Intel offering. Please take note, the AMD mobo is Newegg's cheapest having the SB750, while the Intel one is not. I didn't want to put there some Asrock crap.

Maybe you missed the 'more expensive non-SB750' part.

Maybe because a 5GHz CPU does not lag? I'm pretty sure AMD 5GHz processors wouldn't lag right? But unfortunately we won't see that number in AMD in the next few years.

How do you know? Source? Technical prints?

Im pretty sure a single core @ 5Ghz would still lag while running said game, some back ground aps and Winamp, no? Although the architecture was a bit different, I noticed quite an improvement between my Opteron 939 and my AM2 Athlon X2. Things simply went smoother, just like any single core --> x core upgrade would be like.

[Donnie27]

@STaRGaZeR: I have not seen Rammsteiner say that because he gets a smoother feel from the phenom that its better than a Intel quad. I dont in the least bit think that a Phenom is better than an Intel quad but you got it so stuck in your head that its imposable for some people to percieve this smoothness because "Intel is better". Im sure 99.99% of those who notice this could agree that this feel falls very short for making up for Its lack of performance vs Intel but it is worth noting. And sure, there could very well be that .01% that would prefer this small smoothness increase over anything else and thats there choice and a right they have. If you would just loose the attitude of "Intel is better and I cant let anyone say somthing positive about an AMD CPU" and exept that you dont know what other people percieve or prefer and that there perceptions dont change the proven facts, you wouldnt have to try to discredit anyone that dont see eye to eye with you.

This is a point worth noting as others have pointed out. Most of us thow are experianced would not let this happen when we comare CPU's I have used fresh installs on my benching and im sure most others would not overlook it if they were comparing a fresh instal to a old fragmented disk. So In most of our cases I dont think this has anything to do with it.

I have a Test hard drive or one of my buds brings one with them. We defrag before testing or just playing around with it. Fresh installs on a Raptor, last WinXP installed in 8 minutes 25 secs.

I think you got it backwards. There are many good things to say about AMD, X2 and Phenom. The problems pop up when lies are passed off as good things.

Of course folks are going to get called on lies, half truths, FUD and just general BS! Look at the Usaine "Lighting" Bolt? Was he first out of the starting blocks? No. Is there any news about the two guys who beat him out the blocks? Hell no.

[STaRGaZeR]

2.6Ghz K10 matches well enough the 2.4Ghz Kentsfield.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=201
On average,9850 is 2.62% slower than Q6600.So 9950 is more than a match.
Overclocking is a different thing,i'd guess Q6600 has a slight advantage there,depending on the stepping(some are good for OC,some not so good).

edit: 9950 just got a reduction in TDP,it will be 125W from now on.But there will be 140W until the new stepping hits the retail,which should be soon.
Oh,btw it doesn't consume the 140W,as you can see from Lost Circuits and AnandTech reviews,among others.

Yep, but we are now building budget rigs for perfomance including OC, and you know that when overclocked the differences are night and day between the two. Of course a processor on daily usage never consumes its TDP, but the same goes for both. Also when overclocked the power consumption of the Phenom raises much higher and faster than the Q6600, and that Biostar board looks too weak to handle the load of a Phenom at 3.0+GHz.

Sure, the TDP is high, but the actual power consumption of the 9850 and 9950 is closer to ~100W. The Q6600 has a TDP of 95W, but it probably consumes somewhere around 80W.

And even less, both of them. The point still stands, the perfomance/watt and perfomance/€ ratios are superior in the Intel offering.

[cky2k6]

@STaRGaZeR: I have not seen Rammsteiner say that because he gets a smoother feel from the phenom that its better than a Intel quad. I dont in the least bit think that a Phenom is better than an Intel quad but you got it so stuck in your head that its imposable for some people to percieve this smoothness because "Intel is better". Im sure 99.99% of those who notice this could agree that this feel falls very short for making up for Its lack of performance vs Intel but it is worth noting. And sure, there could very well be that .01% that would prefer this small smoothness increase over anything else and thats there choice and a right they have. If you would just loose the attitude of "Intel is better and I cant let anyone say somthing positive about an AMD CPU" and exept that you dont know what other people percieve or prefer and that there perceptions dont change the proven facts, you wouldnt have to try to discredit anyone that dont see eye to eye with you.
.
.
.


This is a point worth noting as others have pointed out. Most of us thow are experianced would not let this happen when we comare CPU's I have used fresh installs on my benching and im sure most others would not overlook it if they were comparing a fresh instal to a old fragmented disk. So In most of our cases I dont think this has anything to do with it.

well put. obviously, I kept my q6600, lol. It is a superior cpu to my opty no doubt about it, but this weird thing still exists, at least in my perception.

[Jethro]

Let us worship thee fastest computers and render all those that are inferior useless I say!! What possible good purpose could anyone with a phenom serve!! Take away my outlet as im not even worthy of the juice it provides!!!

[Macadamia]

Let us worship thee fastest computers and render all those that are inferior useless I say!! What possible good purpose could anyone with a phenom serve!! Take away my outlet as im not even worthy of the juice it provides!!!

[AbelJemka]

And even less, both of them. The point still stands, the perfomance/watt and perfomance/€ ratios are superior in the Intel offering.

If you build for performance/€ AMD doesn't need a graphic card

[gOJDO]

If you build for performance/€ AMD doesn't need a graphic card

You mean low performance?
If you need VGA performance then any onboard VGA is garbage.
If you need CPU performance then AMD can't offer top performance, nor can offer better mainstream performance/price than Intel.

[G0ldBr1ck]

lol....guess we got so far of topic we were moved. Good idea

@AbelJemka: Im not sure what your trying to say above ^