# Phenom II against intels old and new chips all oced to 3.7ghz



## trt740 (Jan 5, 2009)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=el&tl=en&u=http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253

It doesn't beat the new and  old cpu's from Intel in most tests but is very competitive with the core 2 duo , but remember against the newer intel cpus it is only using DDR2 1066 not DDR3


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

trt740 said:


> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=el&tl=en&u=http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253
> 
> It doesn't beat the new and  old cpu's from Intel in most tests but is very competitive with the core 2 duo , but remember against the newer intel cpus it is only using DDR2 1066 not DDR3



Ah trasmissed text that seemed to fuddle, but was clear, for everyone . Good review though, I like the benchies they did and them using oc'd comparisons. Well, even if it is only challenging year old tech from the blue team, at least there is some competition in the mid-range. Doesn't really change anything from current scenarios though, AMD seems to be on their own time table now independent of intel, which works out fine as some don't consider intel anyway.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 5, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Ah trasmissed text that seemed to fuddle, but was clear, for everyone . Good review though, I like the benchies they did and them using oc'd comparisons. Well, even if it is only challenging year old tech from the blue team, at least there is some competition in the mid-range. Doesn't really change anything from current scenarios though, AMD seems to be on their own time table now independent of intel, which works out fine as some don't consider intel anyway.



still a giant improvement over prior AMD chips, and as AMD tries to so often, its backwards compatible.  Who knows how it will do with DDr3 maybe it will benefit more than core2 duos and be nearer the new Intel chips


----------



## LittleLizard (Jan 5, 2009)

amd phenom 2 with their cheapo high end boards is gonna come back


----------



## From_Nowhere (Jan 5, 2009)

Seems to perform similar to a Yorkfield, and that's not half bad considering the price on the new Phenoms.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

trt740 said:


> still a giant improvement over prior AMD chips and as AMD tries to so often its backwards compatible and who knows how it will do with DDr3 maybe it will benefit more than core2 duos and be nearer the new lintel chips



I doubt it. DDR3 won't make that much difference probably, but a very improved chipset may. I don't know, the more I look at this the worse it seems, there's too many tests where this doesn't even match up w/ the q6600 and is actually further behind it than ahead of Agena. It only seems to truly be competitive in a handful of benches, most notably the games at high res (where its more gpu dependent, and the differences are small anyway). Also the power consumption is near that of the i7. It really does look like they just jacked up the energy of the phenom to give it higher clocks and slightly better speed. Considering all that and the hype they received and a $200+ price tag, amd loyalty seems to be the only real reason to get pII (or maybe better mb costs). Maybe they'll have a trick w/ AM3 though.....


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Jan 5, 2009)

I'd think about it for the price, but then quickly reconsider as I am waiting till my single core shoots itself in the foot.


----------



## kysg (Jan 5, 2009)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I'd think about it for the price, but then quickly reconsider as I am waiting till my single core shoots itself in the foot.



no way you still rockin a single core well I'll be damned. Couldn't have been any worse when I used my sempron Le 1150 with 4850...but anyways on a side note phenom II is about the only way to go unless you are really broke.  In that case might as well get 7750 or a phenom x3.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 5, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I doubt it. DDR3 won't make that much difference probably, but a very improved chipset may. I don't know, the more I look at this the worse it seems, there's too many tests where this doesn't even match up w/ the q6600 and is actually further behind it than ahead of Agena. It only seems to truly be competitive in a handful of benches, most notably the games at high res (where its more gpu dependent, and the differences are small anyway). Also the power consumption is near that of the i7. It really does look like they just jacked up the energy of the phenom to give it higher clocks and slightly better speed. Considering all that and the hype they received and a $200+ price tag, amd loyalty seems to be the only real reason to get pII (or maybe better mb costs). Maybe they'll have a trick w/ AM3 though.....



well from what I'm told these P2 chips are still very fast


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

trt740 said:


> well from what I'm told these P2 chips are still very fast



Hey it's all relative, and if it works for ya, then it works for ya. Thanks for posting the review, I hope more sites do reviews of like this, it's set up very well.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 5, 2009)

From what iam seeing they are doing very well in performance, considering there on slower RAM, and HT as well, using older AM2+ Mobo's, thats one heck of a upgrade for a AMD user dam!!! and omg so much cheaper, all you gotta buy is a CPU and your not far off performance to a i7, now thats cheap, try to do that with a i7 system? lol I think with the new AM3 Mobo's we are going to see the new Phenom's about on par to the i7, or dam close 

Also i noticed the higher the res in games, the better they performed, the intels start to slow down. Thats good news for me as im all about game performance, and these seem to be doing very well


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)

guys can you explain to me what ar you all bitching about????????????looking at the game results it beats most of the time even i7!so how is it bad???????????????????????????????


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> guys can you explain to me what ar you all bitching about????????????looking at the game results it beats most of the time even i7!so how is it bad???????????????????????????????



I'm the only one "bitching" as you say, everyone else is staying positively optimistic or not posting. I already explained my reasoning in the above post, you can consult that if you want to know why. That it can game at high res is neither surprising nor impressive, as gpu is the main component w/ games. You can still get by pretty easily w/ a solid dual-core and a nice gpu if gaming is your only concern.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)




----------



## PaulieG (Jan 5, 2009)

I can tell you that so far, my PII "feels" faster than my old Q9550. I was only able to complete wprime, superpi and 3dmark06 benchmarks before my board died. I have a feeling that with the new board it will perform even better. I can say from my limited experience that it is NOT in the same realm as i7, but it is certainly on par with Yorkfield.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)

AMD sayd that nehalem is no match for i7!!And that is true but it is pretty competetive whit kentsfield and yorkfield


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 5, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> I can tell you that so far, my PII "feels" faster than my old Q9550. I was only able to complete wprime, superpi and 3dmark06 benchmarks before my board died. I have a feeling that with the new board it will perform even better. I can say from my limited experience that it is NOT in the same realm as i7, but it is certainly on par with Yorkfield.


r u shore or is it placebo type effect


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)

come to the green side we have cookies


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 5, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> r u shore or is it placebo type effect



LOL. I'm after the facts, and I'm not a fanboy. So yeah, I'm quite sure. The 945BE and Biostar 790GX was at least as responsive as my Q9550/Max Formula was.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> LOL. I'm after the facts, and I'm not a fanboy. So yeah, I'm quite sure. The 945BE and Biostar 790GX was at least as responsive as my Q9550/Max Formula was.



Well, really it comes down to that for most everyday use w/ a computer nothing even close to yorkfield/kentsfield/denab performance is needed. For the average person surfing the web and such, even for the enthusiast opening applications left and right a fast dual core (a la core 2 duo) is still plenty, as is Agena. In a purely subjective way I'd wager I'd have a hard time telling the difference b/t my e6750 and a PII when simply opening apps and such, it would take some encoding or some other cpu-intensive task to really show the difference. 

That's what is really weird about the whole thing, the average person doesn't really benefit from these faster than god processors, but the average person doesn't know that, thus they just buy a dell or something w/ an intel in it b/c they heard it was faster. The enthusiasts tend to have a love affair w/ AMD, even though intel provides faster processors. It's ass-backwards I tell you.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)

Sure you not!!!!!! it not you pre ordered it all ready or anything


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> Sure you not!!!!!! it not you pre ordered it all ready or anything



I can't decipher that.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)

NOT YOU DUDE!!paulieg


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 5, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> Sure you not!!!!!! it not you pre ordered it all ready or anything



If you're saying he didn't have it then you are wrong. He has a 945BE but his biostar board kicked the can.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 5, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> Sure you not!!!!!! it not you pre ordered it all ready or anything



 I'm just about new hardware from either side, and I had an opportunity to get a "special" chip at a good price, so I jumped on it. If I had the same opportunity with i7, I would have done that too.


----------



## Darren (Jan 5, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> The enthusiasts tend to have a love affair w/ AMD, even though intel provides faster processors. It's ass-backwards I tell you.



Your ass backwards..

Not everyone is rich enough to afford Intel processors, in the UK Intel CPUs and motherboards are bloody expensive, I am I ass backwards for not having money?

DDR3 prices are stupid here in the UK, I can buy 16 GBs of PC6400 DDR2 for the Price of 4 GBs of DDR3. Again is it assed-backwards because I don't have money for DDR3?

If AMD is offering a cheaper solution that performs faster than the Kentfields, Yorkfields and sometimes the Nehalem what is the big deal. 

If someone was to buy a Q6600 Kentfield you would not call them ass-backwards, so if someone buys a Deneb which performs faster than a Kentfield for cheaper its ass-backward.

You have a serious AMD grudge and you need to sort it out.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 5, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> I'm just about new hardware from either side, and I had an opportunity to get a "special" chip at a good price, so I jumped on it. If I had the same opportunity with i7, I would have done that too.




P2 is as fast as Cor2duo chips and I've has 3 Qx9650 at 4.0+ ghz and these are as fast or very close.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

Darren said:


> Your ass backwards..
> 
> Not everyone is rich enough to afford Intel processors, in the UK Intel CPUs and motherboards are bloody expensive, I am I ass backwards for not having money?
> 
> ...



Don't respond insultingly or defensively, try logic. I have nothing at all against AMD other than what I already stated in the previous page. In the US it is not cheaper to get the denab than the q6600, which is not right. This processor also does nothing to aid the intel-dominant market and prices stay high. At least in the US. That's all I have "against" AMD. Don't take it so personally. Ass-backwards was in reference not to AMD but the situation I described. Read it again if you missed it.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 5, 2009)

Please keep the flavor of this thread neutral, thanks


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> I'm just about new hardware from either side, and I had an opportunity to get a "special" chip at a good price, so I jumped on it. If I had the same opportunity with i7, I would have done that too.





ShadowFold said:


> If you're saying he didn't have it then you are wrong. He has a 945BE but his biostar board kicked the can.



it was joke! your system specs was pre ordered PII 940


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 5, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> it was joke! your system specs was pre ordered PII 940



LOL. Didn't realize I hadn't changed that yet.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jan 5, 2009)

anyoff you now when the am3 boards will be apearing in stores?


----------



## Darren (Jan 5, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Don't respond insultingly or defensively, try logic.



It wasn't suppose to be an insult, but to be frank you started throwing the ass-backward statement around, so I thought it was fair game to throw it back.



farlex85 said:


> Ass-backwards was in reference not to AMD but the situation I described. Read it again if you missed it.



Fair enough, I agree with the fact that people buy with what they think is the fastest e.g. Dell computer with Intel. But I don't agree that AMD have a love affair, we just like cheap and fast processors, nothing more.



farlex85 said:


> In the US it is not cheaper to get the denab than the q6600, which is not right.



Not a valid excuse, because the Phenom 9950 BE is cheaper than the Q6600, performs on par too. 

Also, the Denebs have just been released, most retailers dont have them so its obvious that the prices will be expensive because they are rare and e-penises are willing to spend extra for the rare items to show off in forum. Wait a few weeks when all the  retailer's stock them, the prices will fall. 

This happens with all products. I can remember the 3870 being £170 on release, give it a few weeks it was £130, a couple of months £120. You cannot base pricing on the release price.

Edit:

Also I hate the way Americans think the world revolves around them, like because Intel is god in America with uber pricing this is a reflection elsewhere, because its not.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

Darren said:


> It wasn't suppose to be an insult, but to be frank you started throwing the ass-backward statement around, so I thought it was fair game to throw it back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again it's all relative. The 9950be is as fast as the q6600 in a subjective sense (just browsing around), and in gaming, but in raw power it is behind. That raw power isn't important to most though, especially strictly gamers, but for hardware enthusiasts it would seem to matter, thus what I was saying before. And it's true perhaps prices are inflated now, and hopefully they will drop quickly. The PII 940 around $200 is excellent (can't speak to UK prices) as it competes enough w/ yorkie that it will probably cause significant price drops at that level. Over that though and it just seems like AMD bring in a proc at the same price and w/ the same performance as the competitions year old tech (in some cases 2 year old tech, imagine if ATI just now released competition to G80 and G92), which just isn't very exciting. There's still more reviews to look at though, AM3, and price drops, so there is still things to come in the near future.

Edit: Everyone is ethnocentric and nationalistic to a certain degree, I could accuse you of the same fallacy, it is intrinsic to our experience (unless you travel a lot). We can only be enlightened by others through the webz.


----------



## HolyCow02 (Jan 5, 2009)

so how can I get the new chip with a good price? Special favors?!?!

But I'll only go so far


----------



## BloodTotal (Jan 5, 2009)

talk your gf into going to AMD headquarters


----------



## Darren (Jan 5, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Again it's all relative. The 9950be is as fast as the q6600 in a subjective sense (just browsing around), and in gaming, but in raw power it is behind.


That depends on how one measures raw power.
The two CPUs trade blows in an un-predictable manner, it's not as cut and dry as saying the 9950BE is only better in two tasks, browsing and gaming. 
Although the conclusion of the experiment might favour AMD for browsing and gaming no doubt that in encoding, rendering, file compressing etc the 9950BE would win the odd test as well as loose the odd test, again most likely in an unpredictable manner. The margin the Q6600 might win will be very small, again the margin the 9950BE might win will also be small.
It does not matter how you dress it up the Q6600 and 9950BE are equivalent CPUs. Although I agree that the average user doesn't need CPUs this powerful anyways, hence why I'm still happy on my overclocked 3800+ X2 



farlex85 said:


> competitions year old tech (in some cases 2 year old tech, imagine if ATI just now released competition to G80 and G92), which just isn't very exciting. There is still more reviews to look at though, AM3, and price drops, so there is still things to come in the near future.


The GPU market is different, in the sense that two years is the typical life span of a GPU. After 2 years a high-mid range GPU would be reaching the end of its shelve life as far as competing goes, whether you like it or not you'll be forced to play games at a low detail or a lower resolution.
However we are in a climate where the CPU can last a few years, maybe 3-4 years without replacement  or bottleneck.  E.g. the Athlon X2 series has been out for about 4 years,  I bought my 3800+ X2 almost 3 years ago granted I've got the newer energy efficient version and a better core revision,  but its enough for day to day applications, gaming, Adobe CS3 collection etc. In fact despite all these new CPUs that are being release I don't even feel the need to replace it. I could not say this about a midrange GPU after 4 years, or even 3 years.


farlex85 said:


> Edit: Everyone is ethnocentric and nationalistic to a certain degree, I could accuse you of the same fallacy, it is intrinsic to our experience (unless you travel a lot). We can only be enlightened by others through the webz.


Fair enough. We can both be in the wrong about this one


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 5, 2009)

I remember the Athlon x2 4800+ was selling at $1000 when it just released... (because at that time there is no other cpu that faster than it).

If Phenom II outperformed Intel's CPU, I'm sure you will see the Phenom II at $1000 right now. They want to put up a good fight and get back market share first, that's why the Phenom II platform is at "not too sky high" price. But at $250 and $280, It's still clearly a rip off in my sense. I expect Phenom II 920 at $200, and 940 at $230.

It's obvious that DDR3 is bloody expensive, but is that Intel's fault? I don't see anything wrong of putting the best/newest technology on a brand new chip.

So, there are Phenom II AM2+ (DDR2, to comfort AMD's fan, old mobo new CPU), and Phenom II AM3 (DDR2/3).

You will have to choose what kind of memory you gonna use, and then depend on the memory, you will choose a mobo for it. But in the end, If you use DDR3, it still gonna be blooody expensive.

The Phenom II offers dual-channel DDR2/3 (1333, need to OC for higher speed). 
While Core i7 offer triple-channel DDR3 (any speed), and Hyper Threading.

The current application/games can't take advance of triple channel memory or hyper threading, but is that Intel's fault?

Phenom II is clearly a rip off, yeah sure it can run as fast as Intel's CPU in most current application/games, but if you look at it as the "technology" point of view, which brand offer more advanced technologies?

Remember when Phenom I just released? Those processors priced at Q6600 range, they performed similar at stock speed, but who here use stock speed CPU?

In the last 2-3 years, who was the one that offer processors with good performance/money ratio for gamers?


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 5, 2009)

Darren said:


> That depends on how one measures raw power.
> The two CPUs trade blows in an un-predictable manner, it's not as cut and dry as saying the 9950BE is only better in two tasks, browsing and gaming.
> Although the conclusion of the experiment might favour AMD for browsing and gaming no doubt that in encoding, rendering, file compressing etc the 9950BE would win the odd test as well as loose the odd test, again most likely in an unpredictable manner. The margin the Q6600 might win will be very small, again the margin the 9950BE might win will also be small.
> It does not matter how you dress it up the Q6600 and 9950BE are equivalent CPUs. Although I agree that the average user doesn't need CPUs this powerful anyways, hence why I'm still happy on my overclocked 3800+ X2
> ...



I suppose that perhaps is true, from what I have seen the 9950 measures up in games and some encoding benchmarks, but falls behind in Sandrasoft and most other encoding which I consider (perhaps erroneously so) to be an indication of a processor's raw power (I suppose it's really all about the algorithms and instructions sets, it's made to be a certain way). It does indeed depend on the user though and what they will be doing, as in certain areas they seem to perform better than others.

And I agree the cpu and gpu market are different, especially since cpu's have reached a point where many don't need their power. I'm w/ you on that one, my e6750 still probably has a good 6 months or so at least until I change it out, although I may still snag a 45nm if the price is right. It still doesn't keep me from hoping AMD will do the same thing in the cpu market as the did in the gpu market with the 4000 series, come in at similar performance and a far lesser price than the competition. In some ways, they have accomplished that (gaming performance is top-notch), but in others they seem to have settled for not challenging intel at all but rather simply working on their own schedule and pricing (relative to themselves as opposed to intel), which won't drop the market's prices. AMD is usually pretty good about dropping prices though so we'll see.


----------



## Paintface (Jan 5, 2009)

I dont want to add feul to the fire but i got to respond to some of the posters here.

The clock per clock comparison is cool for us enthousiasts to compare the technologies, also comparing a phenom 940 to a core i7 940 gives us an idea just how much faster/slower the cpus are from both companies.

But what we should focus on is 2 things which consumers are concerned about

- Performance out of the box

- Price of the CPU + ram/mainboard

The phenom 2 wins compared to a Core 2 Quad in price and performance, even against the Q9550 which sells for $320 compared to the PII which is supposed to sell for $280, both use DDR2 ram and with AMD you can go a tad cheaper on the mainboard too.

This is what AMD was always good at since the first AMD i bought in 1994, for the performance i was looking for AMD was always cheaper + faster than a comparable Intel, its the very reason AMD still sells CPUs, and why they have such a dedicated userbase.

To the notion that a Phenom 2 is "good enough for the ones happy with that kind of speed" is rediculous, the PII is a very fast CPU and faster than comparable intel setups, i can live with it that a core i7 with expensive DDR3 and expensive mainboard is faster, cause my budget is $250 max for a CPU, and for that money the best choice is amd.
Hell i have a 6000+ currently and i play any game i throw at it at max settings without a hickup, besides gaming i only do some desktop work which could be done by a 3 year old cpu without noticing the difference, so much for the ones happy "with that kind of speed".


----------



## B1gg3stN00b (Jan 5, 2009)

I see no reason to worry about upgrading to either. Right now a C2d or Athlon x2 is still more than enough to handle most tasks.... Unless you're playing Crysis, then you need to upgrade to better taste in gaming


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jan 5, 2009)

B1gg3stN00b said:


> I see no reason to worry about upgrading to either. Right now a C2d or Athlon x2 is still more than enough to handle most tasks.... Unless you're playing Crysis, then you need to upgrade to better taste in gaming



lol

I agree.  I'm not gonna bother upgrading for a few years because I get awesome performance for every day tasks and gaming.  Nice to see PII's performance over PI though, should get a few AMD user's excited, especially as they've sorted out the overclocking issues.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 6, 2009)

Paintface said:


> I dont want to add feul to the fire but i got to respond to some of the posters here.
> 
> The clock per clock comparison is cool for us enthousiasts to compare the technologies, also comparing a phenom 940 to a core i7 940 gives us an idea just how much faster/slower the cpus are from both companies.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure who your quoting there b/c I didn't see anyone say any of the things you have in quotes. As for the better price/performance, this apparently is a subjective matter. According the bencies on the previous page, yorkfield is still a decent amount faster than denab in most applications (other than games really) and uses less power (and I'm assuming they mean full-fledged yorkfield w/ 12mb L2, although they are not specific). Now LGA 775 and AM2 mb's and ddr2 prices are similar across both platforms, so really all you have is price of the cpu. You say the q9550 is more expensive, well I say it's faster and uses less power, warranting the extra dough. So they are really on about the same price/performance level. B/c PII isn't dramatically cheaper, only a little bit, intel can likely ignore it all together as it won't take much more than it would anyway being a new proc. However, if they want to, they can drop it $20-30, not that big. If the PII comes in at $200, now that's something to cheer for imo. There's still more benchies to be done and it depends on application, but perhaps you see what I'm saying.

And really, it is just what someone is happy with. Others would not be happy w/ your 6000+ or my e6750, but for me and you they work fine, I am perfectly happy w/ "that kind of speed." That is not to say I wouldn't take more, but it's all about price/performance. I think intel usually wins that category atm though, but it depends on price and situation (for instance in my case upgrading to a yorkfield is more logical, as I already have the board, in your case upgrading to PII is better, it just depends).


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

I`m looking at different point of view. It is not just current price, but what it means. If AMD put 
PII 940 at 200$ it will be the best CPU on the market price-performance vise. But what it means for the big picture that AMD wont make any money out of it that it will continue to drown and with no pressure from AMD intel will keep the prices high.
And I want to present two facts.

First:
You are complaining about DDR3 prices being high do I need to remind you when DDR II prices fall down compare to DDRI when AMD switched to AM2 and DDRII it is the same for DDRIII.

Second:
Only reason why there are still C2DUOs is because of AMD. If AMD delivered what they promised C2DUOS  would be long gone. 

And what is deneb ? 
big shit >shrinked>little shit

It is the same if ATI instead of producing  3870 4870 they just shrinked 2900XT.
Intel made 3 series of quads and AMD only managed to shrink the die of agena. 

AMD need to wake up stories don`t sell cpu performance sell them.

And all funboys out there you are very easy to spot every user that has agena phenom is either missinformed or AMD funboy. 

And AMD are trying to present them selfs as people company, how they try to save you money. Who are they keeding if PII 940 was 20% faster than 3GHz i7 beleve me AMD would asked 1000 $ for it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 6, 2009)

hate to tell you but the 3870 is a shrinked 2900XT
Also i recall in the past AMD never asked for 1000 USD for their FX Lineup, so why would they now, because their fastest i believe only costed 500 USD at the time, its always been Intel charging 1000 USD for their EE parts when their lowerend always outdid their EE lineup, and that is FSB only.


r9 said:


> I`m looking at different point of view. It is not just current price, but what it means. If AMD put
> PII 940 at 200$ it will be the best CPU on the market price-performance vise. But what it means for the big picture that AMD wont make any money out of it that it will continue to drown and with no pressure from AMD intel will keep the prices high.
> And I want to present two facts.
> 
> ...


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

Paintface said:


> I dont want to add feul to the fire but i got to respond to some of the posters here.
> 
> The clock per clock comparison is cool for us enthousiasts to compare the technologies, also comparing a phenom 940 to a core i7 940 gives us an idea just how much faster/slower the cpus are from both companies.
> 
> ...



How about my E5200 it is cheaper than yours Athlon64 6000+. And who says that Intel boards are more expensive. My cpu could go 3.75 on P31 mobo 50$. And if you want to oc yours phenom 100 MHz you need 200$AMD mobo with sb750. How Intel boards more expensive no one are forcing you to buy x48 for C2Q you can go by with P35 just fine.
And only reason why Intel are making i7 platform so expensive is not hurt old series of quads.


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> hate to tell you but the 3870 is a shrinked 2900XT



Hate to tell you but it is not just shrinked because 3870 is 256bit and is as faster as 2900XT whitch is 512bit with better AA AF performance that is some thing that cant achive with simple die shrink.
Nice to join in the thread you may learn something.


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

i believe only costed 500 USD at the time, its always been Intel charging 1000 USD for their 

Only reason FX costed 500$ ( I beleve it was more ) is because it is AMD chip not Intel old proven CPU maker and AMD wanted to make share. Why they did not sell it 230$ like PII ?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 6, 2009)

boy even winners are sore losers

since you have a e5200 and love it so much, stop bashing the people who are goin with what they prefer, that to me is trolling.


----------



## BloodTotal (Jan 6, 2009)

How much better would a overcloked phenom 2 945 or 940 be over a overclocked q6600?


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

How do you expect me to comply with what AMD are trying to tell us that :
f`kin with limp dick is better that f`kin with stiff dick.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 6, 2009)

BloodTotal said:


> How much better would a overcloked phenom 2 945 or 940 be over a overclocked q6600?



Depends on the application. Apparently like 5% worse to 5% better (according to the review in this thread, note this is very rough math), depending. 945 and AM3 may shake the numbers up a bit though.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 6, 2009)

r9 said:


> How do you expect me to comply with what AMD are trying to tell us that :
> f`kin with limp dick is better that f`kin with stiff dick.




I swear you got issues dude, maybe you need to take a week break from these forums to recoup your demeanor cause belittling people here is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the normal members and the moderators.


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

I`v been on both sides :

K6-2 450 MHz voodoo banshee 16mb 
AthlonXP 2200+ connect3d 9600XT
Athlon64 3700+ X800 and X1950pro

And when AMD are going to be worth it I will gladly switch again.
And PII 920 for 200$ is great buy for me and you but not for AMD that is what I`m trying to say.
For company that is trying to turn the table top CPU price 230$ it is not the tide that it needs.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 6, 2009)

Ph2 wasnt expected to turn tables, to me its a calm before a storm, sort of like the 3800-> 4800 lineup.



r9 said:


> I`v been on both sides :
> 
> K6-2 450 MHz voodoo banshee 16mb
> AthlonXP 2200+ connect3d 9600XT
> ...


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 6, 2009)

That's a PERFECT review.


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ph2 wasnt expected to turn tables, to me its a calm before a storm, sort of like the 3800-> 4800 lineup.



What is the storm, PII with DDR3 something like 939 vs AM2 in my view point. 
I read some where comparation C2D vs Athlon64 with some software that measured cache guessing success and result was some thing like C2D was 60% accurate in assumptions and Athlon64 was 30%. And I think that Phenoms are suffering from same thing and why they don`t benefit that much from larger cache memory same could be sad for Athlon64. And why it is needed new architecture and not selling true quad type stories. 
And that slides that they make are misleading. When they compare i7 with PII and there is not noticable difference in performance. In the same way intel could compare Q6600 to PII.


----------



## Darren (Jan 6, 2009)

r9 said:


> You are complaining about DDR3 prices being high do I need to remind you when DDR II prices fall down compare to DDRI when AMD switched to AM2 and DDRII it is the same for DDRIII.



Well not everyone switched to DDR2 as soon as AMD switched to AM2, I stuck with DDR1 on socket 754 got as long as possible. When I made the switch DDR2 I waited for  prices to drop dramatically. AM2 users are doing the same thing now, we are waiting for DDR3 prices to drop before investing in AM3 as we did with the 754 to AM2 switch 

(or 939 to AM2 switch)





r9 said:


> Only reason why there are still C2DUOs is because of AMD. If AMD delivered what they promised C2DUOS  would be long gone.




What did AMD promise, I can remember the Athlon X2 being the Pentium Ds competition, I can also remember the Athlon X2 taking out its PD competition. 

The C2Duos where never meant to be aligned with the Athlon X2. The Agenda Phenoms were suppose to be the Qxxxx competition not the C2Duos,  so why are you bringing the C2Duos in the equation.





r9 said:


> AMD need to wake up stories don`t sell cpu performance sell them.



Although there might be truth in this, remember that AMD have marketing teams with PHDs that are better qualified at advising them.



r9 said:


> And all funboys out there you are very easy to spot every user that has agena phenom is either missinformed or AMD funboy.



So according to you, if I was to keep my existing motherboard and buy a Phenom 9950 (agena) I'm a fanboy?  

Are you going to pay for my new motherboard to jump on the AM3 or i7 route? 

Apparently recycling your motherboard and going from an Athlon X2 to Phenom 9950 is a fan boy decision according to your statement. 

The Q6600 still costs more than the 9950 here in the UK, Intel motherboards are stupidly priced in comparison, knowing this I'm miss informed for wanting the cheapest upgrade, knowing this iam a fan boy for caring about my wallet.




r9 said:


> if PII 940 was 20% faster than 3GHz i7 beleve me AMD would asked 1000 $ for it.



NO.

If the Phenom 940 was *only *20% faster and costed *$1,000*, Intels i7 would be the best bang for your buck. However that is not the case and the roles are to a degree reversed

Its a shame a few people are still confused by the "best bang for your buck statement"
 


r9 said:


> How about my E5200 it is cheaper than yours Athlon64 6000+. And who says that Intel boards are more expensive. My cpu could go 3.75 on P31 mobo 50$. And if you want to oc yours phenom 100 MHz you need 200$AMD mobo with sb750. How Intel boards more expensive no one are forcing you to buy x48 for C2Q you can go by with P35 just fine.


Remember the pricing system varies country to country. Just because where you live the E5200 is cheaper it does not mean it is the same for everyone. I purchased my 3800 X2+ almost three years for about £45, they are worth like £30 now. The E5200 is about £70 and my 3800+ X2 at near 2.8 GHz is above the E6400 according to Sandra. 

PS.  Here in the UK the ancient Athlon 6000+ X2 is cheaper than the E5200 




BloodTotal said:


> How much better would a overcloked phenom 2 945 or 940 be over a overclocked q6600?



It's too early to say, but a overclocked Phenom 9950 is about the same speed as a overclocked Q6600, so I would say the Phenom II would have about a 10-40% advantage, depending on applications. Lets wait and see.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 6, 2009)

r9 said:


> What is the storm, PII with DDR3 something like 939 vs AM2 in my view point.
> I read some where comparation C2D vs Athlon64 with some software that measured cache guessing success and result was some thing like C2D was 60% accurate in assumptions and Athlon64 was 30%. And I think that Phenoms are suffering from same thing and why they don`t benefit that much from larger cache memory same could be sad for Athlon64. And why it is needed new architecture and not selling true quad type stories.
> And that slides that they make are misleading. When they compare i7 with PII and there is not noticable difference in performance. In the same way intel could compare Q6600 to PII.



well on about core i7, to me its just a Core 2 that has been improved in the Media Encoding Dept, where gaming is pretty much the same.

On about Q9000 lineup, the P2 should force intel to drop the pricing on their Q9000 series if they want to maintain a iron grip on the market, but to me that would make Intel Fans happy cause then they can afford an excellent CPU that doesnt need the overclocking that the lower parts need, and will make intel exhaust the Core 2 Market so they can push the Core i7 totally.


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> well on about core i7, to me its just a Core 2 that has been improved in the Media Encoding Dept, where gaming is pretty much the same.
> 
> Yes but C2 is great basis of improvement P1 it is not. P1 needed redesign. And design needs engineers and AMD lay off 1 000 of them. I simply don`t like where it is going. If AMD closes.
> Intel in the next 10 years it is going to sell us i7s.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 6, 2009)

r9 said:


> eidairaman1 said:
> 
> 
> > well on about core i7, to me its just a Core 2 that has been improved in the Media Encoding Dept, where gaming is pretty much the same.
> ...


----------



## Darren (Jan 6, 2009)

R9, 

It would appear that you have made an extra special effort to be as awkward as possible when addressing the Phenom II and i7 situation. You've made a great effort to debunk AMDs reasoning for releasing a price competitive CPU however upon challenging your views in post #58  you've decided not to pursue your constant AMD bashing, you've since ignored my post despite it answering the questions you were confused about. I have since concluded that either you are attempting to stir trouble or you have troll tendencies


r9 said:


> And design needs engineers and AMD lay off 1 000 of them. I simply don`t like where it is going. If AMD closes.


I can remember Intel laying off thousands of staff as well but I don't see you talking about Intel's making their staff redundant!
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1014_3-6111478.html
http://invest-n-trade.blogspot.com/2008/12/intel-layoffs-job-cut-may-layoff.html


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 6, 2009)

Darren there is no need to pick fights, and also that quote that was posted, i didnt post that, that was R9 

arigatou gozaimasu.



Darren said:


> R9,
> 
> It would appear that you have made an extra special effort to be as awkward as possible when addressing the Phenom II and i7 situation. You've made a great effort to debunk AMDs reasoning for releasing a price competitive CPU however upon challenging your views in post #58  you've decided not to pursue your constant AMD bashing, you've since ignored my post despite it answering the questions you were confused about. I have since concluded that either you are attempting to stir trouble or you have troll tendencies
> 
> ...


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 6, 2009)

Just keep it civil guys. Anyone else here have any real world experience with both the Intel Quad cores AND the new PII? I can tell you from personal experience that I am impressed with PII. It is a fast processor. As I said earlier, it seems faster to me than the Q6600 or Q9550 ever did, and I fully tested both of those processors. I'm not sure how to explain it, except it's kind of like ATI and Nvidia. Ati for picture quality and Nvidia for raw benchmarking speed.


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

Darren Let me simplify:
About memory DDR3 price will match that of DDRII when AMD would completly switch to DDR3.

*The C2Duos where never meant to be aligned with the Athlon X2.*
Meant or not meant the fact that Athlon64 5200+ - 6400+ was left to fight dual core battle vs C2D that is why comparation review was made that is made from some else sharing my opinion.

*Although there might be truth in this, remember that AMD have marketing teams with PHDs that are better qualified at advising them.*
Twisting the truth is twisting the truth the fact that is done by teams with PHDs doesn`t make a difference.

*So according to you, if I was to keep my existing motherboard and buy a Phenom 9950 (agena) I'm a fanboy? *
OK you may be part of the grey area. 

*If the Phenom 940 was only 20% faster and costed $1,000, Intels i7 would be the best bang for your buck. However that is not the case and the roles are to a degree reversed

I*ts a shame a few people are still confused by the "best bang for your buck statement"
I don`t know what are trying to say but my point was that AMD are not robin hoods that sell 1000$ CPUs for 200$ that is the max that they could get for them.

Remember the pricing system varies country to country. Just because where you live the E5200 is cheaper it does not mean it is the same for everyone. I purchased my 3800 X2+ almost three years for about £45, they are worth like £30 now. *The E5200 is about £70 and my 3800+ X2 at near 2.8 GHz is above the E6400 according to Sandra. *

I don`t know what are you comparing my 3.8GHz is as 4x6000+ athlons 

*It's too early to say, but a overclocked Phenom 9950 is about the same speed as a overclocked Q6600, so I would say the Phenom II would have about a 10-40% advantage, depending on applications. Lets wait and see.*

I don`t know how do you plan to oc Phenom 9950 to Q6600 speeds 3.6-3.8


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

And I have never read so many words with so little meaning like I was watching  Political TV show.


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

Where I`m it is 5 AM. It is enough. I`m going to bed. If anyone wants to fight leave me PM  
And this time sentence even have more meaning why would I smile wile inviting some one to LIVE FIGHT


----------



## Wile E (Jan 6, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> hate to tell you but the 3870 is a shrinked 2900XT
> Also i recall in the past AMD never asked for 1000 USD for their FX Lineup, so why would they now, because their fastest i believe only costed 500 USD at the time, its always been Intel charging 1000 USD for their EE parts when their lowerend always outdid their EE lineup, and that is FSB only.



The FX-60 did release at $1000. $1031 tray price, to be exact.


----------



## Darren (Jan 6, 2009)

r9 said:


> Darren Let me simplify:
> About memory DDR3 price will match that of DDRII when AMD would completly switch to DDR3.



I'm happy to see DDR3 prices match DDR2 prices and when that happens I'll consider building a i7 or Phenom II rig, until then. 



r9 said:


> *The C2Duos where never meant to be aligned with the Athlon X2.*
> Meant or not meant the fact that Athlon64 5200+ - 6400+ was left to fight dual core battle vs C2D that is why comparation review was made that is made from some else sharing my opinion.



Fair enough its not Intels fault that AMD were too slow to implement an affective Core 2 Duo counter, however they've since aligned the E7xx/8xxx series with the AMD Phenom X3 8750 as far as performance goes.

In the UK the Phenom X3 is cheaper too...




r9 said:


> I don`t know what are you comparing my 3.8GHz is as 4x6000+ athlons



In post #46

You said that the E5200 was cheaper than the Athlon 6000+ X2, I made a point of saying that my 3800+ X2 is cheaper than a E5200 by a huge margin yet overclocks faster than the E5200 at stock. I also made a point in saying in the UK the Athlon 6000+ X2 is cheaper than the E5200 and hence your statement that the E5200 is cheaper is invalid.



r9 said:


> _How about my E5200 it is cheaper than yours Athlon64 6000+. And who says that Intel boards are more expensive. _.







r9 said:


> I don`t know how do you plan to oc Phenom 9950 to Q6600 speeds 3.6-3.8



Perhaps the initial Q6600s went as high as 3.8GHz, but Intel soon made a stop to that with the newever revisions which would struggle to overclock to 3.4 GHz on a high end board, similarly to the Phenom 9950 BE.

Edit: 

3:50 am here, bed time.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 6, 2009)

r9 said:


> Hate to tell you but it is not just shrinked because 3870 is 256bit and is as faster as 2900XT whitch is 512bit with better AA AF performance that is some thing that cant achive with simple die shrink.
> Nice to join in the thread you may learn something.


No, the 3870 does not out perform the 2900XT in most cases.


----------



## erocker (Jan 6, 2009)

r9 is done for the evening.  Let's keep the discussion civil please.


----------



## Polaris573 (Jan 6, 2009)

Those of you who are triple posting need to know that it is unacceptable.  Please use the edit button if you have something to add, or the multi-quote button if you want to quote more than one person.  Thank you.


----------



## Aevum (Jan 6, 2009)

i think that the strong part of the "phenom II" family isnt going to be the quad core processors, its going to be the dirt cheap dual cores, the 7750 seems like nice, cheap and overclockable workhorse, while you might want a top of the line Core7 processor for the flagship, the machine you pump out the show off numbers with and do weird overclocking experiments, you know that for  a work mule that you just want it to work decently for gaming and aplications without costing an arm and a leg, the diesel powered AMD´s are better, 

you could probobly build a very decent gaming machine for under 400 euros using a 7750 and a 4670/4830,


----------



## r9 (Jan 6, 2009)

For AMD selling cheap CPU wont lead the to salvation. 
For us 45nm AMD and competitive price suts us just fine.
What about Athlon x4 does not have L3 cache no biggie and some like 2.4 GHz for example.
In time that they come up prices of Phenom II will fall furder and lets guess PII 940 for 200$ in three - four moths time when Athlon x4 would came up in the scale

PII 940 200
PII 920 170
Athlon 2.7 GHz or some thing 140 and when you get to the athlon x4 2.4 it will cost around 100 $ and it is 45nm and I`m guessing that it will overclock great.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 6, 2009)

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=1170&page=9



> The X2 range has four current processor models. The 4800+ sits at 2.4GHz with 1MiB, the 4600+ is 2.4GHz and 512KiB, the 4400+ is 2.2GHz and 1MiB and looks like a solid choice, and finally there's the 4200+ with 2.2GHz and, you guessed it, 512KiB. Prices are $1001, $803, $581 and $537 respectively.



Yeah, AMD was *always* cheap. I guess...? NO! They launched the Phenom I at $200+, while the Q6600 was at the same price range, and their potential is SOO much different. And look at the current prices, how much did they drop the price?

Which CPU has more stable price? 

The reasonable price for Phenom II 920 is $209, and $239 for 940. Higher than that = rip-off.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 7, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=1170&page=9
> 
> 
> 
> ...





not really remember these chips ,phenom II s ,are running in two + year old chipsets, with new chipsets and DDR3 you have know idea how fast they might be. Look at how fast they are already with AM2 and AM2+ chipsets, with pre beta bios, and ES samples.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 7, 2009)

so tom how much percent do you think is in the bag


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 7, 2009)

trt740 said:


> not really remember these chips ,phenom II s ,are running in two + year old chipsets, with new chipsets and DDR3 you have know idea how fast they might be. Look at how fast they are already with AM2 and AM2+ chipsets, with pre beta bios, and ES samples.



http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1124/1/ddr_3_gaming_performance_analysis/index.html

http://www.breakitdownblog.com/ddr2-800-vs-ddr3-1333-does-speed-matter/

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2989&p=1
....


----------



## trt740 (Jan 7, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1124/1/ddr_3_gaming_performance_analysis/index.html
> 
> http://www.breakitdownblog.com/ddr2-800-vs-ddr3-1333-does-speed-matter/
> 
> ...



Not sure what these are for , they are with intel chips not AMD and your are assuming they are engineered the same ( and they are not similar at all), and your not taking into account a new chip set is coming for AMD.  This would be like putting a new 1366 chip in a old 775 chipset, with ddr2 and saying it would perform like it does now. Remember AMD has alway been better with memory than intel and has been in the memory controller business alot longer than intel.


----------



## xvi (Jan 7, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> I can tell you that so far, my PII "feels" faster than my old Q9550.



 Ahahaha! I... You.. you said *old*.. WAAAHahahaha!

If that's old, then what would you call this machine I picked up. 166 MHz Pentium with MMX.
Froze in the middle of POST. Fixed it by re-seating the external L2. Does your fancy-smancy Phenom II or your Core 2 Quad have external L2? Yeah, I didn't *think* so.

Even Ol' Sempy (in system specs) is getting a bit long in the tooth.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 7, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Not sure what these are for , they are with intel chips not AMD and your are assuming they are engineered the same ( and they are not similar at all), and your not taking into account a new chip set is coming for AMD.  This would be like putting a new 1366 chip in a old 775 chipset, with ddr2 and saying it would perform like it does now. Remember AMD has alway been better with memory than intel and has been in the memory controller business alot longer than intel.



Longer doesn't mean better, the bandwidth king is no longer AMD's.

But well, there are plenty of time until AM3 DDR3 is out.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 7, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> Longer doesn't mean better, the bandwidth king is no longer AMD's.
> 
> But well, there are plenty of time until AM3 DDR3 is out.



longer? we have no idea how ddr3 will effect the performance of the P2 or a updated chipset. You don't know that intel is the bandwidth king.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 7, 2009)

xvi said:


> Ahahaha! I... You.. you said *old*.. WAAAHahahaha!
> 
> If that's old, then what would you call this machine I picked up. 166 MHz Pentium with MMX.
> Froze in the middle of POST. Fixed it by re-seating the external L2. Does your fancy-smancy Phenom II or your Core 2 Quad have external L2? Yeah, I didn't *think* so.
> ...





kysg said:


> SEMPY!!!!  gotta love the semprons anyways man that Pentium with MMX we would just go ahead and call that grandpa or gramps, but hey pentiums aren't bad they can still play Doom.



neither of these posts belong on this thread.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 7, 2009)

Games don't need more bandwidth than the current DDR2 can offers, new chipset or faster DDR3 won't help much.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 7, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Not sure what these are for , they are with intel chips not AMD and your are assuming they are engineered the same ( and they are not similar at all), and your not taking into account a new chip set is coming for AMD.  This would be like putting a new 1366 chip in a old 775 chipset, with ddr2 and saying it would perform like it does now. Remember AMD has alway been better with memory than intel and has been in the memory controller business alot longer than intel.



That's not really a fair analogy, as 1366 brought a number of architectural changes, well a complete overhaul: QPI, DDR3, HT, ect. AM3 as far as I can tell is simply AM2 w/ DDR3, same old K10. I can't see the improvement being as drastic as in intel's case, and that's why you couldn't use a i7 in 775.



kid41212003 said:


> Games don't need more bandwidth than the current DDR2 can offers, new chipset or faster DDR3 won't help much.



There's more than just games though, games really aren't that relevant outside of gpu benches. I was under the impression memory speed and bandwidth made very little difference on gaming performance (within reason of course, and w/o dedicated gddr it gets more important).


----------



## kysg (Jan 7, 2009)

trt740 said:


> neither of these posts belong on this thread.



and you making comments about it geez your worse than a little kid...lighten up

but before I get told off on what I should be saying.  I'll say this much, phenom II is doing pretty good. I just don't see it happening it getting released at 200 bucks though for the 920.  Just couldn't imagine it, unless they plan on kicking x3's out there for cheap.  It is good to see it doing better than agena, even better than some of the quads.  Still I am skeptical about performance of DDR3 and the AM3 chipset as a whole, the most we can really expect is just lower consumption on the memory, heck we have yet to see a chipset that made a cpu run that much better with the exception to ocing.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 7, 2009)

trt740 said:


> longer? we have no idea how ddr3 will effect the performance of the P2 or a updated chipset. You don't know that intel is the bandwidth king.



To be honest Tom, AMD's IMC's have always kinda been under performing in terms of bandwidth. Just look at the bandwidth tests in the link in the OP. The 775 setup had more bandwidth than the AMD setups. The AMDs did have slightly better latency, tho.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> To be honest Tom, AMD's IMC's have always kinda been under performing in terms of bandwidth. Just look at the bandwidth tests in the link in the OP. The 775 setup had more bandwidth than the AMD setups. The AMDs did have slightly better latency, tho.



We will have to wait and see and I wasn't only taking about ram I was also talking about on chip memory management as well. Remember the phenom does have a DDR3 controller aswell, why AMD doesn't use it is because it didn't make much difference , but the new Phenom is 45nm, has an a improved  DDR2 and DDR3 controller, more on chip memory, better chipset instruction ,built in ACC  and appears on average to over clock about 800 mghz, each core higher on existing platforms than the phenom did.  That to me is hardly the same chip.


----------



## xvi (Jan 7, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> Games don't need more bandwidth than the current DDR2 can offers, new chipset or faster DDR3 won't help much.



If I recall correctly, the Phenom II suffered a bit in core to core bandwidth. The new, increased HyperTransport bus should aid in that, should it not?

I agree with you that DDR3 may not offer much to the AM3 Phenoms (if not hurt with their higher latencies), but can anything be said about the chipset yet? Will we still be using SB750s? Improved IMC?

Come to think of it, will we see *any* changes in the AM3 Phenom II? ..or will it just be "adapted" for AM3.


----------



## r9 (Jan 8, 2009)

Just read my signature. 
And some facts why I`m not impressed.
i7 at 2.6 GHz is 20+ % faster than 15% higher clocked PII 940 that is roughly 35%+ lower performance efficiency MHz to MHz from CPU that have equal transistor count and because of that similar production cost i7 that is.


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 8, 2009)

WOW TPU members are so passionate about their processors
You can take my house.
You can take My job .
You can take my car.
BUT DON'T TOUCH THE PC !
lol
Back to the subject:The PII is at least now heading in the correct direction..maybe the next editions will be right on par!?! ...I hope so because I miss stomping benchmarks with an AMD !But for now I am sticking with Intel's i7 so I can get to stomping benchmarks !


----------



## trt740 (Jan 9, 2009)

r9 said:


> Just read my signature.
> And some facts why I`m not impressed.
> i7 at 2.6 GHz is 20+ % faster than 15% higher clocked PII 940 that is roughly 35%+ lower performance efficiency MHz to MHz from CPU that have equal transistor count and because of that similar production cost i7 that is.



and a i7 costs about 50.00 or more and it's motherboard averages about 200.00 to 250.00 more than a decent phenom board, plus decent ddr3 is about 50.00 more expensive per kit than ddr2 . So for that 20 percent you are paying 350.00 to 400.00 more for the intel system and that is not worth it considering a Phenom II will eat up anything, anyone can throw at it ,and will not bottle neck any gpu out. The intel system is overkill and I for one am a fan of overkill, but the phenom II is the better bang for the buck.


----------



## r9 (Jan 9, 2009)

I`m talking about the CPU only not whole platform that is different matter.
And what Phenom II means for AMD and from tech view.
For the price of platform, yes Phenom II does make sense.
And in my opinion for AM3 Phenoms II it would be better to use extra die space for triple channel mem controler than backwards compatibility to DDRII that would give em more edge.
And that advantage in price of mobo and memory will dissolve in short time cheaper intel mobos will surface and DDRIII price will fall.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 9, 2009)

r9 said:


> I`m talking about the CPU only not whole platform that is different matter.
> And what Phenom II means for AMD and from tech view.
> For the price of platform, yes Phenom II does make sense.



What the phenom II means to AMD is you don't have to throw out your whole system, buy new ram and motherboard to increase performance significantly. Intel on the other hand wants to make you constantly do total rebuilds, and intel changes it's socket as often as it can thats what it means to people who are tired of that crap, and to AMD I say bravo


----------



## r9 (Jan 9, 2009)

trt740 said:


> What the phenom II means to AMD is you don't have to throw out your whole system, buy new ram and motherboard to increase performance significantly. Intel on the other hand wants to make you constantly do total rebuilds, and intel changes it's socket as often as it can thats what it means to people who are tired of that crap, and to AMD I say bravo



And price difference is 25$ no more.
AMD and Intel about socket number they are the same.
Some times when you want to make step up in performace changes are need that means both for AMD and Intel.

I`m not trying to start fight just common sense and facts.
We all are using our CPU overclocked so when we compare CPU for us it is overclocked frequency that matters. From that point of view i7 is 4.2GHz and PII is 3.9 and that is because of yours OC every overclock that I read is 3.8 GHz.
And i7 at 2.6 GHz is 20%+ faster what is happening when i7 is 300 MHz over PII and take in to account 35%+ eficency MHz to MHz and 7% those 300MHz extra you end up with 40% performance difference. That my man how you chose to look at it makes not difference it is a big gap for 25$ in price difference. 
And difference between Q6600 at 2.4 and PII 940 at 3.0 GHz is just 12% and Q6600 is 100$ cheaper and it uses DDRII and mobo in price range of PII board even cheaper P35 will do the job.
All the numbers are from reviews that come up today.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 9, 2009)

trt740 said:


> What the phenom II means to AMD is you don't have to throw out your whole system, buy new ram and motherboard to increase performance significantly. Intel on the other hand wants to make you constantly do total rebuilds, and intel changes it's socket as often as it can thats what it means to people who are tired of that crap, and to AMD I say bravo



AMD did that with 939 to AM2, then AM2 to AM2+, soon AM3... LGA 775 has been around since p4 and intel just changed it.

The phenom is a good chip, it has its strengths... but its a bit too late.  All intel has to do is drop Q9550 price.


----------



## Darren (Jan 9, 2009)

R9, 

Sorry for calling you a troll earlier, I should have been a bit more patient. However, when you boast about having an "Anti-AMD" quote in your signature it is only natural that people will get offended. Your signature also shows that you're immature and childish that you're unable to articulate a discussion and your only objective is to force propaganda  down our throats.

You have already expressed that a few days ago that you are not happy with the AMDs Phenom IIs performance and pricing, these are your opinions and you have every right to express them. However, you constantly create new posts that contain very little value to the positive discussion it gets quite frustrating, especially when you make bogus attempts to convert everybody into embracing Intel. If you are so in love with the Intel's range what is stopping you creating a thread based around the i7? if you can not respect peoples reasoning for making a educated purchase then people might find it hard to respect you, the Phenom II can be considered an educated purchase. 

I've already explained yesterday that the pricing for Intel and AMD components vary country to country and I've already explained that prices of all components are high during the initial release period because retailers know that fan boys will buy overpriced components on release just for the luxury of owning the first batch. Prices will eventually stablise in a few weeks. I've already said this before and you even agreed with me, yet you've brought up this weak pricing argument yet again in #95. 

PS.
For someone that likes quoting Anandtech's "final words" in your signature you do a bad job of it, below makes up for your Intel bias quoting 

_Compared to the Core 2 Quad  Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. 

the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Q9300/Q8200; AMD wins that comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X4 920 falls behind..
if you have a Socket-AM2+ motherboard with BIOS support for Phenom II there's no question - Phenom II is the best upgrade path for you. ._

_If you are trying to build a new system from scratch, I'd suggest waiting for either the Socket-AM3 CPUs or see what Intel does with its pricing later this month._

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=20


----------



## Conflict0s (Jan 9, 2009)

I think what Amd are doing now with there Cpu's and Mb it great, because people can upgrade more efficiently and "keep up to times" with technology at a cheaper cost, So if people have a little spare cash and they want to update there pc a little, they can get rid of there DD2 and put some DDR3 in, weather this will make a different or not to performance, it is still nice to have that choice in most peoples eyes (I know Intel do this also, I am just pointing out). Also there mb's you can have old Cpu’s in along with new processers. Overall I believe Amd are going in the right direction. I mean I am just thinking outside the box here a little but image in the future having a Phenom II in a laptop, personally I think the laptop would be allot cheaper than if an i7 was in it (judging by my opinion in prices Vs each other).
On the other hand, I also love what Intel are doing as they are pushing technology to show what they can do, and personally if I was Intel I would be pushing to see how fast I could get a cpu and if that made the price a little higher for that extra performance then so be it because they have "fall back cpu's" that if people want a good cpu for a good price then they have it, But for enthusiast’s such as yourselves can go out and buy faster chips. I mean you can’t deny that i7 cores are selling like crazy just because people want/need the performance and in some cases just want to show off their pc that they love so much.

Anyways I know this is probably going to get ripped to bits by people but I just wanted to say my opinion. And trust me when I say, I think of AMD and Intel as equals weather it be price to performance or whatever, I am sure they already have plans for what there cpu's will be used for and who they intend to aim at.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 9, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> AMD did that with 939 to AM2, then AM2 to AM2+, soon AM3... LGA 775 has been around since p4 and intel just changed it.
> 
> The phenom is a good chip, it has its strengths... but its a bit too late.  All intel has to do is drop Q9550 price.



Am2 chips are compatible with AM2+ and Am3+ chips are compatible with Am2 and Am2+ motherboards. They have only changed the socket once  in your analogy. Not sure your point now had the new intel chips been been 775 compatible your point may have made sense but they are not. As to the 25.00 difference well your forgetting the DDR3 upgrade and motherboard are you not? and even with a 25. 00 difference the motherboard are very far apart price wise. It still makes the upgrade at least 275.00 or more over a Phenom II system. Also my overclock is with a 59.00 motherboard or atleast it was when I bought it and it has only three cpu voltage settings.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 9, 2009)

trt740 said:


> and a i7 costs about 50.00 or more and it's motherboard averages about 200.00 to 250.00 more than a decent phenom board, plus decent ddr3 is about 50.00 more expensive per kit than ddr2 . So for that 20 percent you are paying 350.00 to 400.00 more for the intel system and that is not worth it considering a Phenom II will eat up anything, anyone can throw at it ,and will not bottle neck any gpu out. The intel system is overkill and I for one am a fan of overkill, but the phenom II is the better bang for the buck.



The Core i7 is not a mainstream platform, It's for enthusiast.

If the rumor about the Core i5 is true, then you will see this board using dual channel DDR2. Which will replace the current mainstream, E8000, Q9000.

AMD did sell some of their processors at $1000 mark, because it was the fastest one at that time, If Phenom II 940BE is the fastest processor right now, you will see AMD price them at $1000 mark. It's normal for both Intel and AMD.

AMD started doing "Low cost, budget platform that great for gamers", since the Core 2 Duo started showing up.

How much the Phenom II is faster than Q6600? And how much it cost more? I can build a same system which is cheaper with Q6600, or E8400, and still run games as fast.

The current price for Phenom II is unreasonable. I expect them to drop respectively from $280, and $230 to $235, and $200.


----------



## Jaffakeik (Jan 9, 2009)

I decided not to buy PII for now i will tkae time and wait till 2009 fall.and maybe i will change to pentium i7 if PII performance with am3 will be bad as now it is.


----------



## r9 (Jan 9, 2009)

Darren said:


> R9,
> 
> Sorry for calling you a troll earlier, I should have been a bit more patient. However, when you boast about having an "Anti-AMD" quote in your signature it is only natural that people will get offended. Your signature also shows that you're immature and childish that you're unable to articulate a discussion and your only objective is to force propaganda  down our throats.
> 
> ...



That in my signature are facts, not propaganda they are just numbers and numbers don`t have two sides or point of view. I`m just being real I don`t care what will you buy. If I was building system from zero and if I wanted to go QUAD I would go for PII 920 provable and that would be just I`m little bored with intel that wont change facts. And I`m not trying to tell any one not to buy PII I would like AMD to survive every one benfits from competition.
But what ever I write even if quoting other that know much more than me and you I`m still managing to piss some off I`m like AMD fanboy magnet.


----------

