Phenom II 6 GHz+ OVERCLOCK

[informal]

But you don't know IF TURBO MODE was turned OFF for this shootout (for a clearer comparison). Usually, if these performace enhancers are turned on, there is usually a disclaimer. Even if it wasn't, it is a known fact that Nehalem generally offers NO improvements over C2Q in gaming.

Well, accrding to you, the benchmarks are GPU limited, so I guess:


CPU Effect = 0

Therefore:

PII 920 = Q9550 = PII 940 = Ci7 940

In case it's hard for you to understand, my argument is that that measly 6% you talk of, is enough to make up for the marginal difference (yes marginal difference) between Q9550 and PII 940. Mind you, not LINEARLY, if it was, it'll beat it by a relatively bigger margin.


This one needs quoting:

What you're saying will be true if the margins were bigger than is represented. Don't try throw dust into this; I'm looking at fractions of fps difference with compared to a relatively healthy 6%. I think it's enough to make up for those fractions, regardless of uarch, don't you? About uarch improvements to PII 2, my point was if that is the case, why isn't PII fairing any better in certain games than PI?

Finally, let's appeal to logic here:

IN ALL the AMD SLIDES WITH SEEN SO FAR, the Q9650 has not been featured. WHY? Its STOCK CLOCK IS 3GHZ TOO? WHY IN YOUR OPINION, INFORMAL, HASN'T ANYONE TESTED DENEB ALONGSIDE Q9650? YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.

First of all,we have obscure slides with no configurations at all.Turbo is out of the box feature and is always on.It is just as SMT ,a built in feature.

Second,your premise is false.CPU effect is not = 0.Therefore your conclusion is invalid.CPU effect is not as important in 16x10 as it is in 800x600(in which btw no1 games).In low res. you could probably see some differences that come from game engine optimizations(compilers,datasets used etc.).

In which games PhII doesn't fare any better than Phenom I?In the GPU limited ones where all CPUs have closely grouped scores?

As for the last question about slides and pricing,did it occur to you Q9650 is not priced the same as PhII 940?? AMD done-if the slide is from AMD in the first place- the price per. comparison by comparing systems that will cost similarly.PhII 940 will not cost the same as Q9650 and is logical not to compare it with that model. Have you heard of Radeon 4850/70 card? You know that 4870 model is at 80-85% the perf. of GT200(GTX280),somewhere even higher ,while costing A LOT less. That's called great value.

[Zucker2k]

First of all,we have obscure slides with no configurations at all.Turbo is out of the box feature and is always on.It is just as SMT ,a built in feature.

Second,your premise is false.CPU effect is not = 0.Therefore your conclusion is invalid.CPU effect is not as important in 16x10 as it is in 800x600(in which btw no1 games).In low res. you could probably see some differences that come from game engine optimizations(compilers,datasets used etc.).

In which games PhII doesn't fare any better than Phenom I?In the GPU limited ones where all CPUs have closely grouped scores?

As for the last question about slides and pricing,did it occur to you Q9650 is not priced the same as PhII 940?? AMD done-if the slide is from AMD in the first place- the price per. comparison by comparing systems that will cost similarly.PhII 940 will not cost the same as Q9650 and is logical not to compare it with that model. Have you heard of Radeon 4850/70 card? You know that 4870 model is at 80-85% the perf. of GT200(GTX280),somewhere even higher ,while costing A LOT less. That's called great value.

It looks like CPU does count for something then. YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED. YOU WERE MAKING A CLOCK FOR CLOCK ARGUMENT, NOW WHEN IT SUITS YOU, YOU SWITCH TO A "BANG FOR BUCK, BUT HEY, LOOK OUT FOR THE Q9550. IT'S GOING TO OFFER BETTER VALUE THAN PII 940 THE WAY THINGS LOOKING, UNLESS AMD IS GOING TO PRICE THE PII 940 @ $250.

Sorry for caps, my keyboard was acting up.

[informal]

It looks like CPU does count for something then. YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED. YOU WERE MAKING A CLOCK FOR CLOCK ARGUMENT, NOW WHEN IT SUITS YOU, YOU SWITCH TO A "BANG FOR BUCK, BUT HEY, LOOK OUT FOR THE Q9550. IT'S GOING TO OFFER BETTER VALUE THAN PII 940 THE WAY THINGS LOOKING, UNLESS AMD IS GOING TO PRICE THE PII 940 @ $250.

Sorry for caps, my keyboard was acting up.

Calm down,are you getting excited over there?

You may have exposed yourself.I made a clock for clock comparison because you asked me to do it(remember the math comment?).You seem to not understand that games at 16x10 are not CPU limited.CPU helps though,but as you can see,a cache+core uplift means more than pure Mhz uplift(PhII vs PhI).

Second,again you asked me why no Q9650 in the comparisons and when i give you logical response you go all wild with *closed ears with both hands* na-na-na-na comment .
I told you why there is no comparison with Q9650.I can tell you it would fare better in those games but 6% uplift in freq. wouldn't lead to that bigger scores,so it would fall in line with Phenom II @ 3Ghz(again back to GPU limitation @ 16x10,for 100th time).

How about we wait for real reviews instead this one which isn't online anymore? I want to see how all 4 CPU generations perfrom in real gaming situations,with SLI/CF or 4870X2/GTX280,in high res. and full details.hat's how you can measure how one chip performs and will it suit your needs in this type of usage.

[Zucker2k]

Calm down,are you getting excited over there?

You may have exposed yourself.I made a clock for clock comparison because you asked me to do it(remember the math comment?).You seem to not understand that games at 16x10 are not CPU limited.CPU helps though,but as you can see,a cache+core uplift means more than pure Mhz uplift(PhII vs PhI).

Second,again you asked me why no Q9650 in the comparisons and when i give you logical response you go all wild with *closed ears with both hands* na-na-na-na comment .
I told you why there is no comparison with Q9650.I can tell you it would fare better in those games but 6% uplift in freq. wouldn't lead to that bigger scores,so it would fall in line with Phenom II @ 3Ghz(again back to GPU limitation @ 16x10,for 100th time).

What bigger? Are you pretending to not see the fractions between PII 940 and Q9550? Price-wise, the Ci7 940 is not in the same price segment as the Q9550. There, your price argument is out the window what next?

Do you see fractions too?

STALKER CLEAR SKY, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 41.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 41.2

.5

CRYSIS WARHEAD, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 35.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 35.0

.7

DEAD SPACE, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 219.0
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 214.4

4.4 (about 1.8%)

FAR CRY 2, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 54.4
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 46.2

8.2 (16%)

WORLD AT WAR, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 48.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 57.3

8.6 (16%+)

WORLD IN CONFLICT, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 92.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 95.0

2.3

[charged3800z24]

GUYS!!!! what I find most interesting about the scores, is how much better Phenom II was over Phenom.. I know. I know.. 400MHZ more... but stock.. it is finally a competive clock...that in its self is a much desirable improvement.. get AMD in the same playing field finally....Added Unlocked (again) multi...it is a no brainer OC...cheap swap in for current owners.. and cheaper then i7 ...so it will finally be a option to Intel (compitition is grand )

[qurious63ss]

First of all,we have obscure slides with no configurations at all.Turbo is out of the box feature and is always on.It is just as SMT ,a built in feature.

Second,your premise is false.CPU effect is not = 0.Therefore your conclusion is invalid.CPU effect is not as important in 16x10 as it is in 800x600(in which btw no1 games).In low res. you could probably see some differences that come from game engine optimizations(compilers,datasets used etc.).

In which games PhII doesn't fare any better than Phenom I?In the GPU limited ones where all CPUs have closely grouped scores?

As for the last question about slides and pricing,did it occur to you Q9650 is not priced the same as PhII 940?? AMD done-if the slide is from AMD in the first place- the price per. comparison by comparing systems that will cost similarly.PhII 940 will not cost the same as Q9650 and is logical not to compare it with that model. Have you heard of Radeon 4850/70 card? You know that 4870 model is at 80-85% the perf. of GT200(GTX280),somewhere even higher ,while costing A LOT less. That's called great value.

I don't think the reason they don't compare to Q9650 is because of price difference but because of performance difference. If the PII 940 was able to be competitive with the Q9650 then you would see Amd showing slides left and right that their ~$300 part can compete with a ~$600 Intel part.

On the second part, the 4870 cost less then the GT200 because the die is less then half as big 250mm2 vs 600mms, thus cost less to manufacture. Unfortunely for Amd their is no advantage there in the CPU front since the k10 is 260mm2 and the c2q is 214mm2.