# AMD Phenom X3 2.3GHz Tested



## malware (Nov 24, 2007)

AMD Phenom X3 is supposed to fill the gap between today's dual-core and quad-core processors. First results with the new line of CPUs emerged earlier this weekend. The German site PCGamesHardware has tested AMD Phenom X3 working at 2.3GHz using AMD 790FX motherboard, 2x1GB PC2-6400 RAM (CL5-5-5-15), one NVIDIA 8800 GTX OC (626MHz core, 1458MHz shader and 1000MHz memory) and Windows Vista 32-bit OS.



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## robodude666 (Nov 24, 2007)

Pretty good results. If priced right, these can be successful. If these really are quad-cores where one core isn't working, then AMD can save some good money!

These are expected around mid-Q2 2008, right?


----------



## a111087 (Nov 24, 2007)

robodude666 said:


> Pretty good results. If priced right, these can be successful. If these really are quad-cores where one core isn't working, then AMD can save some good money!



they are, at least thats what is being said...
I don't think you could activate the 4th core though... its damaged anyway...


----------



## robodude666 (Nov 24, 2007)

a111087 said:


> they are, at least thats what is being said...
> I don't think you could activate the 4th core though... its damaged anyway...



Well, in that case, if they are quad cores with a defective core then AMD is making a really nice move! Instead of throwing out the bad chips and wasting money (they AMD has little of) they are selling them as triple-core processors  And their performance isn't even that bad either!

This is something Intel probably couldn't really do as it would cost them more money since their quad-core is two duals glued together .


----------



## KennyT772 (Nov 24, 2007)

Intel has a different scheme. Dies with one defective core become low power notebook chips. A correctly working die, that draws lots of power is a low end unit. The high end dies are ones that draw lease amount of power. The highest binned chips are the low power high freq units, those are the quads.


----------



## Sh00t1st (Nov 24, 2007)

i hate how the chips always say they are from the year before, what confidence to know a brand new chip is already a year old in the companys eyes lol.


----------



## a111087 (Nov 24, 2007)

spootity said:


> i hate how the chips always say they are from the year before, what confidence to know a brand new chip is already a year old in the companys eyes lol.



haha! well i think its because it was delayed so much


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 24, 2007)

"AMD Phenom X3 is supposed to fill the gap between today's dual-core and quad-core processors."

Phenom X3 2.3GHz get 2575 is 3DMark06 CPU score, I get 2627 with my dual @ 3GHz, so mine is better \o/  @2.66GHz I get 2367, so 2.3 GHz would be ~2100 and that would be a lot more than Phenom X2. Now if they make those X3s near same price as Core 2 Duos, then AMD got a winner


----------



## trog100 (Nov 24, 2007)

dont by fooled by the 2006 cpu score.. its a single core x 3.. your dual is a single core x 2.. being as most things stiil just use one of the cores its the single core score that really tells u how fast the things are..

sandra does pretty much the same thing.. pretends a quad core is 4 x as fast as a single.. which of course is utter rubbish in a world which is mostly single thread still..

trog


----------



## jocksteeluk (Nov 24, 2007)

well done AMD, thanks for triggering another Intel price cut, any ideas on how much these triple core cpu's will cost?


----------



## OrbitzXT (Nov 24, 2007)

I can't understand why people are pleased with these results. Intel's aging quad core beats all of AMD's new chips fairly easily at stock, and I have to believe the new 45nm chips will absolutely destroy them in benchmarks. Were also not mentioning how easily Intel's chips can OC, gaining more performance for price while staying cool. The Phenom 9500 on NewEgg is almost the same price as the Q6600, it's bugged or so I hear, and gets outperformed. The only thing ATI & AMD got right in my book in the last year or so is the 3800 series.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 25, 2007)

thats not a big jump vs the CPU with Lower Clocks. So it appears its making progress.


OnBoard said:


> "AMD Phenom X3 is supposed to fill the gap between today's dual-core and quad-core processors."
> 
> Phenom X3 2.3GHz get 2575 is 3DMark06 CPU score, I get 2627 with my dual @ 3GHz, so mine is better \o/  @2.66GHz I get 2367, so 2.3 GHz would be ~2100 and that would be a lot more than Phenom X2. Now if they make those X3s near same price as Core 2 Duos, then AMD got a winner


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 25, 2007)

OrbitzXT said:


> I can't understand why people are pleased with these results. Intel's aging quad core beats all of AMD's new chips fairly easily at stock, and I have to believe the new 45nm chips will absolutely destroy them in benchmarks. Were also not mentioning how easily Intel's chips can OC, gaining more performance for price while staying cool. The Phenom 9500 on NewEgg is almost the same price as the Q6600, it's bugged or so I hear, and gets outperformed. The only thing ATI & AMD got right in my book in the last year or so is the 3800 series.



Not everyone overclocks despite how it looks so looking at techpowerup users as a medium xD AMD has been faster in real games with similarly priced processors, don't know if they still are. Not all Core 2s stay cool while OCing. My chip goes superhot if you up the voltage a bit. Same for that Q6600, if it's not G0 stepping.


----------



## springs113 (Nov 25, 2007)

OnBoard said:


> Not everyone overclocks despite how it looks so looking at techpowerup users as a medium xD AMD has been faster in real games with similarly priced processors, don't know if they still are. Not all Core 2s stay cool while OCing. My chip goes superhot if you up the voltage a bit. Same for that Q6600, if it's not G0 stepping.



first off you are right not everyone overclocks...i didnt oc my e6420 until i decided that i was going to buy a new processor which i still havent bought yet ....
second amds athlon cpus were so good... i did not expect the improvement that the phenoms would be leaps and bounds overthem for the simple fact that they were already at a high....on the other hand
the p4s and the pentium ds... sucked so badly the only way for intel to go was up...not down...and if it werent for amd it would not be this way...
intel had to do something...and it did and i am glad....i
reviews have also shown that the nehalem or whatever and these yorkfields do not yield substantial improvement to be labeled as revolutionary products...IMHO i really do believe that yorkfield and nehalem are just improvements in the core architecture...the last one might be a new marchitecture but it is not leaps and bounds as of yet...it may be...and it might not be...
furthermore the phenom although quite unimpressive given its current state is no way at its best...and we must not forget that


----------



## Mussels (Nov 25, 2007)

springs113 said:


> first off you are right not everyone overclocks...i didnt oc my e6420 until i decided that i was going to buy a new processor which i still havent bought yet ....
> second amds athlon cpus were so good... i did not expect the improvement that the phenoms would be leaps and bounds overthem for the simple fact that they were already at a high....on the other hand
> the p4s and the pentium ds... sucked so badly the only way for intel to go was up...not down...and if it werent for amd it would not be this way...
> intel had to do something...and it did and i am glad....i
> ...



athlon64 was great... until the first core2 hit the market. from then on, intel has been in the lead and this doesnt help AMD get anywhere near intel. - dont forget this is compared to the Q6600 (kentsfield) and the new 45nm penryn is on its way out... and they are clocked a lot higher, and can do 4Ghz easily on air cooling. AMD cant keep up.




OnBoard said:


> Not everyone overclocks despite how it looks so looking at techpowerup users as a medium xD AMD has been faster in real games with similarly priced processors, don't know if they still are. Not all Core 2s stay cool while OCing. My chip goes superhot if you up the voltage a bit. Same for that Q6600, if it's not G0 stepping.



i've seen that with allendale chips mostly. (and the new variants, 2MB conroes) on the E4x00 series. I guess they were the failures, and thats why they got dropped to budget chips


----------



## Widjaja (Nov 25, 2007)

My athlon 64 still does a fine job.
Wonder what the price of these are going to be and the life span?

Will game devs use 3 cores in the future or will thay jump straight to utilizing 4 cores?


----------



## hat (Nov 25, 2007)

I believe multithreaded means that it takes advantage of any cores there. Doesn't matter how many cores you have.


----------



## tkpenalty (Nov 25, 2007)

hat said:


> I believe multithreaded means that it takes advantage of any cores there. Doesn't matter how many cores you have.



Thats correct.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 25, 2007)

tkpenalty said:


> Thats correct.



+1 to that - supreme commander scales well enough, on a quad core i can simply set the affinity to less cores and watch my FPS drop with each one.

to the AMD people: i have an FX-62 here as well (bought off this forum, in fact) and its got NOTHING on the intels for gaming. even at 3Ghz, it cant match a CPU at 1/8th its price (E6750) at stock, let alone OC'd. (gaming, not benchmarks - the AMD system sucks at supreme commander even with the same video card)


----------



## springs113 (Nov 25, 2007)

Mussels said:


> +1 to that - supreme commander scales well enough, on a quad core i can simply set the affinity to less cores and watch my FPS drop with each one.
> 
> to the AMD people: i have an FX-62 here as well (bought off this forum, in fact) and its got NOTHING on the intels for gaming. even at 3Ghz, it cant match a CPU at 1/8th its price (E6750) at stock, let alone OC'd. (gaming, not benchmarks - the AMD system sucks at supreme commander even with the same video card)



you must understand that and amd of yesterday is not gonna seriously beat or contend with its successor...

and to the guy who replied to my post...i think you miss the point... i basically meant that the leaps in improvements from the a64 to phenom should not be that great early...in the long run we will see the benefit alot more...thats why we have a thing called revisions...the leap from the athlon xps to the 64s were enormous because it was a change in the marchitectural structure and design...in reference to the phenom being a change like that is absurd in more ways than one... a look at DAAMITs roadmap would show this....

also all amd need is just to recoup as much as possible...and to tell you the truth...the reason why you can go to newegg and still see the first batch of phenom 9500 available is because thats the low end...and no one building a system around their so called spider system wants to build it with a weak processor when they know that if they already have an am2 proc they can tough it out so to speak and wait for the better processors that will/should be arriving shortly...i for one is doing that and i own both a am2 sys and a core2...i support em all....i run nvidias chipsets/gpus...intels cpu/chipsets/even gpu (laptop)...amds chipset(790fx)/gpu/and of course their cpus

So no fanboi here im an avid supporter of them all and i will be getting a q9450, phenom black ed(higher than 2.3 stock), another 3870 and if the 3870 x2 can run cx withe the 3870 then i will just substitute that instead, another 8800gt and i might just change my intel mobo...


----------



## rhythmeister (Nov 25, 2007)

Mussels said:


> +1 to that - supreme commander scales well enough, on a quad core i can simply set the affinity to less cores and watch my FPS drop with each one.
> 
> to the AMD people: i have an FX-62 here as well (bought off this forum, in fact) and its got NOTHING on the intels for gaming. even at 3Ghz, it cant match a CPU at 1/8th its price (E6750) at stock, let alone OC'd. (gaming, not benchmarks - the AMD system sucks at supreme commander even with the same video card)



I have the same cpu at the same speed as yours, I can't understand your problem with gaming tho, I only have issues with Crysis but then again I've only got 2GB or ram and a 256MB x1950 Pro! Also, where can I buy an E6750 for 1/8th of the price of an FX-62? The cheapest I've found a retail E6750 in the UK is £116 but the fx-62 can commonly be purchased on fleabay for similar dough if rip-off merchants are avoided, they're not as common a chip I believe!


----------



## rhythmeister (Nov 25, 2007)

Oh, and GO AMD WOOT WOOT!


----------



## WarEagleAU (Nov 25, 2007)

Hell yeah, yall are right. I sincerely hope that is what AMD is doing. Makes alot of sense and they could also make X2s if two cores were damaged or no good. If they did it that way, they wouldnt have to have two different lines tooled to make x2s and x4s <G>


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Nov 25, 2007)

Not bad...


----------



## Mussels (Nov 26, 2007)

rhythmeister said:


> I have the same cpu at the same speed as yours, I can't understand your problem with gaming tho, I only have issues with Crysis but then again I've only got 2GB or ram and a 256MB x1950 Pro! Also, where can I buy an E6750 for 1/8th of the price of an FX-62? The cheapest I've found a retail E6750 in the UK is £116 but the fx-62 can commonly be purchased on fleabay for similar dough if rip-off merchants are avoided, they're not as common a chip I believe!



The FX chips cost a ton here in aus, so it will be different overseas. The sup com issue is odd, but may just be related to the expansion - everything runs great on the two intel systems, but slow as poop on the AMD system with the 8600GT.

Price wise, the FX-62 retails for $1100 in aus, while my quad core goes for $350.

However the phenom just hit the market here, around $350 for the quad 9500 model. This puts aside my price concerns, however i do think the performance will be lacking compared to intel... so these tri-cores better have a good price advantage when they hit.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 26, 2007)

trog100 said:


> dont by fooled by the 2006 cpu score.. its a single core x 3.. your dual is a single core x 2.. being as most things stiil just use one of the cores its the single core score that really tells u how fast the things are..
> 
> sandra does pretty much the same thing.. pretends a quad core is 4 x as fast as a single.. which of course is utter rubbish in a world which is mostly single thread still..
> 
> trog



The quad actually is nearly 4 times as fast, Sandra does multithreaded tests. Saying it isn't 4 x as fast because not everything utilizes the processing power available is a non-argument. It's like saying your C2D or X2 isn't faster than a P100 Because MS-DOS doesn't utilize anything.

There is no "pretending".


----------



## KennyT772 (Nov 26, 2007)

trog100 said:


> dont by fooled by the 2006 cpu score.. its a single core x 3.. your dual is a single core x 2.. being as most things stiil just use one of the cores its the single core score that really tells u how fast the things are..
> 
> sandra does pretty much the same thing.. pretends a quad core is 4 x as fast as a single.. which of course is utter rubbish in a world which is mostly single thread still..
> 
> trog



Trog before you stuff your foot in your mouth, go run 2006 and check cpu useage during the two tests. 

Open mouth, insert foot.


----------



## rhythmeister (Nov 26, 2007)

Mussels said:


> The FX chips cost a ton here in aus, so it will be different overseas. The sup com issue is odd, but may just be related to the expansion - everything runs great on the two intel systems, but slow as poop on the AMD system with the 8600GT.
> 
> Price wise, the FX-62 retails for $1100 in aus, while my quad core goes for $350.
> 
> However the phenom just hit the market here, around $350 for the quad 9500 model. This puts aside my price concerns, however i do think the performance will be lacking compared to intel... so these tri-cores better have a good price advantage when they hit.



Don't buy from yr country then if it's too expensive, get us other tech heads to sort out a deal with you to save you cash! I got my FX from the states as I did the 2 2GB ram kits I use and the 6100 AM2 from Sovereign


----------



## Mussels (Nov 27, 2007)

rhythmeister said:


> Don't buy from yr country then if it's too expensive, get us other tech heads to sort out a deal with you to save you cash! I got my FX from the states as I did the 2 2GB ram kits I use and the 6100 AM2 from Sovereign



yeah i did, got the FX off this forum  m original point was merely about pricing, since they were so expensive here... but then the quad cores came out at a respectable price, so it doesnt really matter now.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 28, 2007)

i know some of you guys are doubting AMD for what they are releasing, but i say its far better than what they released, because AMD was sitting high and dry for a year- a year and a half, CPU Pricing for the A64 was out of my range, well now the 5000 BE is in my range and i intend on grabbing that along with a Asus/DFI 790FX motherboard, ATi Radeon 3850 (First party) 512, and a HT Omega Sound Card.


----------



## Sapientwolf (Nov 28, 2007)

Yeah I think AMD can still compete, but it's going to have to be a price war, if they can get those X3's in range of the Core 2 Duos they can do some damage.

Oh yeah, and HT Omega sound cards rule, I have an HT OMEGA Claro+


----------



## Oden (Apr 3, 2008)

OrbitzXT said:


> I can't understand why people are pleased with these results. Intel's aging quad core beats all of AMD's new chips fairly easily at stock, and I have to believe the new 45nm chips will absolutely destroy them in benchmarks. Were also not mentioning how easily Intel's chips can OC, gaining more performance for price while staying cool. The Phenom 9500 on NewEgg is almost the same price as the Q6600, it's bugged or so I hear, and gets outperformed. The only thing ATI & AMD got right in my book in the last year or so is the 3800 series.



Hey the Intel is clocked higher & has masive cache "Q6600, 65 nm, 8MB L2, 2.40 GHz" That is the only reason it wins the benches.  disable cache on each processor and see what happens, I think you might be supprised and clock them both the same. AMD cpu's have always been overclockable.  Then you might have something to talk about. 

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2ghz (Clocked at 2.53ghz stock cooler *31 degees*) 4gb PC6400 DDR2800, MSI K9A2 790X MB, ATI X1800XT (60FPS in WoW all day long) adding second Crossfire X1800 this week.  I know graphic cards are aging but they work great.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 3, 2008)

Oden said:


> Hey the Intel is clocked higher & has masive cache "Q6600, 65 nm, 8MB L2, 2.40 GHz" That is the only reason it wins the benches.  disable cache on each processor and see what happens, I think you might be supprised and clock them both the same. AMD cpu's have always been overclockable.  Then you might have something to talk about.



so let me get this str8 ... "i" have an advantage and "i" must remove it so "you" can feel better about "yourself"?


----------



## Oden (Apr 3, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> so let me get this str8 ... "i" have an advantage and "i" must remove it so "you" can feel better about "yourself"?



That is not what I said.  I said basically if you want to compare processor power you should disable the cache and clock them the same.  Then you can see which is the more powerful core.  It is a Apples to Apples test, not a Apple to watermellon test that I am sugesting.  I apoliguise if it came across that I thought you should remove your advantage.  I just ment it is hard to compare things that are so different with out trying to level the field.   I mean Phenom is giving up 6mb cache and some speed and I think it would be much closer should the playing field (i.e. cache and speed) be matched.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 3, 2008)

Oden said:


> That is not what I said.  I said basically if you want to compare processor power you should disable the cache and clock them the same.  Then you can see which is the more powerful core.  It is a Apples to Apples test, not a Apple to watermellon test that I am sugesting.  I apoliguise if it came across that I thought you should remove your advantage.  I just ment it is hard to compare things that are so different with out trying to level the field.   I mean Phenom is giving up 6mb cache and some speed and I think it would be much closer should the playing field (i.e. cache and speed) be matched.



but thats not how i get it out of the box ... i understand if u said overclock, but intentionally cripple ... naw brah


----------



## Oden (Apr 3, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> but thats not how i get it out of the box ... i understand if u said overclock, but intentionally cripple ... naw brah



I was saying cripple them both the same not cripple Intel and leave tha Phenom alone.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 3, 2008)

Oden said:


> Hey the Intel is clocked higher & has masive cache "Q6600, 65 nm, 8MB L2, 2.40 GHz" That is the only reason it wins the benches.  disable cache on each processor and see what happens, I think you might be supprised and clock them both the same. AMD cpu's have always been overclockable.  Then you might have something to talk about.
> 
> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2ghz (Clocked at 2.53ghz stock cooler *31 degees*) 4gb PC6400 DDR2800, MSI K9A2 790X MB, ATI X1800XT (60FPS in WoW all day long) adding second Crossfire X1800 this week.  I know graphic cards are aging but they work great.



so intels clockspeed advantage doesnt count? yes it does, because AMD *cannot* OC any higher. their chips are bumming out around 3GHz on air, vs 3.6GHz on the intels - intel already has a performance per MHz lead, so that just means AMD cant compete.

Disable cache... lol, now you're reaching for it. disable the cache and who gives a shit, everything will run slow. We arent here to find out how to make the AMD faster, we're here to find and use the fastest for our own uses.

AMD's cpu's have always been overclockable... oh sure. its just that intel clocks higher now. core2 series kinda owns phenom in that respect. oh and nevermind that the 45nm intels have more cache and OC even higher, so things are looking kinda bad for phenom...


----------



## Oden (Apr 3, 2008)

Over Clocking is on a per processor basis, and you might get a Intel up to 3.0+GHz but the same version of that processor might fry at 2.9GHz it is not consistant on all chips.  I have seen AMD's Clocked over 3.0+ghz on air and not fry.  It is a gamble if you get that one chip that overclocks perfect or not, and we all know not all of the processor Intel or AMD ship are perfect for overclocking.

What I am trying to say is that you seam to be hating on a more bang for the buck crowd.  You tell me what requires the CPU power we have and can tax any of the processors with the right amount of ram and a good video card.  I can build a AMD Based system for less then a comparible Intel System.


----------



## devguy (Apr 3, 2008)

Oden said:


> Over Clocking is on a per processor basis, and you might get a Intel up to 3.0+GHz but the same version of that processor might fry at 2.9GHz it is not consistant on all chips.  I have seen AMD's Clocked over 3.0+ghz on air and not fry.  It is a gamble if you get that one chip that overclocks perfect or not, and we all know not all of the processor Intel or AMD ship are perfect for overclocking.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that you seam to be hating on a more bang for the buck crowd.  You tell me what requires the CPU power we have and can tax any of the processors with the right amount of ram and a good video card.  I can build a AMD Based system for less then a comparable Intel System.



Sorry buddy, but Core 2's tend to have an overclocking history far better than the phenoms.  In fact, the only Phenoms I've seen at 3ghz were early engineering samples (kinda odd), and the new 9850s.  The Athlon 64s get way better overclock percentages (especially in AM2+ motherboards like mine) than any K10 processor does, but they compare even worse clock for clock with Core 2 than the phenoms do.

Don't get me wrong, I am an AMD fan (just fan, not fanboy) and I plan to stick with AMD because I like their chipset platform of not making me purchase a new motherboard to run newer processors (like some Intel and Nvidia ones -exclude s939 to AM2 plz) and you're right that you can build a comparable AMD system to an intel system for the same price usually.  The only downside is that provided you don't buy a prebuilt machine and have a decent motherboard, those same two PCs with similar performance becomes dissimilar as soon as you put the Core 2 one at the same speed as the Athlon 64 (start: Intel 2.4 and AMD 2.8-3.0; finish Intel 3.0 and AMD 3.0).  Even worse is that Intels can usually get around 3.4ghz with air cooling typically and AMDs Athlons on Brisbane rarely pass 3.2ghz and the Windsors rarely pass 3.6ghz.

However, I am looking forward to seeing how the tri cores (8x50) overclock now that a troublesome core has been disabled (it is kinda ironic that there are two instances of "Core 2" giving AMD trouble).


----------



## Mussels (Apr 3, 2008)

Oden said:


> Over Clocking is on a per processor basis, and you might get a Intel up to 3.0+GHz but the same version of that processor might fry at 2.9GHz it is not consistant on all chips.  I have seen AMD's Clocked over 3.0+ghz on air and not fry.  It is a gamble if you get that one chip that overclocks perfect or not, and we all know not all of the processor Intel or AMD ship are perfect for overclocking.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that you seam to be hating on a more bang for the buck crowd.  You tell me what requires the CPU power we have and can tax any of the processors with the right amount of ram and a good video card.  I can build a AMD Based system for less then a comparible Intel System.



intel Q6600's are a safe bet, every last one will do 3GHz on stock volts on stock cooling.
Air clocks, i'm shocked if i see one that cant reach 3.6GHz with a decent cooler, and water can do 4GHz. AMD is the one with the guesswork here, intel have been quite reliable. I'm talking from experience, while you're going on general information with no specifics.

Some generations (conroe/kentsfield) OC great, others fail (allendale) but they're all reliable to reach around the same area. None of what you're saying is 'wrong' but it is inaccurate.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 4, 2008)

all of you guys are turning this into a flamewar, who cares whos e-penis is bigger, knock this crap off.


----------



## hat (Apr 4, 2008)

Somewhat off-topic question here... what the hell does "diffused" mean (on the IHS of that CPU)?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 4, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> all of you guys are turning this into a flamewar, who cares whos e-penis is bigger, knock this crap off.



i dont think it has reached that far but aint no harm in nipping it in the bud.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 4, 2008)

Cant wait to go Spider when these come out...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 4, 2008)

they should be pretty good since B3 stepping will probably be in retail


----------



## Mussels (Apr 4, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> all of you guys are turning this into a flamewar, who cares whos e-penis is bigger, knock this crap off.



i'd say it was at 'heated discussion' and not even at arguing yet


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 4, 2008)

certainly was on the thin red line guys


----------



## Oden (Apr 9, 2008)

I thought it was a good discussion. Not a argument at all.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 9, 2008)

Oden said:


> Hey the Intel is clocked higher & has masive cache "Q6600, 65 nm, 8MB L2, 2.40 GHz" That is the only reason it wins the benches.  disable cache on each processor and see what happens, I think you might be supprised and clock them both the same. AMD cpu's have always been overclockable.  Then you might have something to talk about.
> 
> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2ghz (Clocked at 2.53ghz stock cooler *31 degees*) 4gb PC6400 DDR2800, MSI K9A2 790X MB, ATI X1800XT (60FPS in WoW all day long) adding second Crossfire X1800 this week.  I know graphic cards are aging but they work great.



you do understand that C2Q hae a massive cache because they would take a massive performance hit if they had to send more and more data across the already clogged FSB to the ram so intel keeps jacking more cache on the chips to counteract this, however AMD uses HT and an onboard mem controller so it doesn't have to send data packets across the bus to talk to the ram it links directly thus AMD chips can have a much smaller cache and not suffer a performance hit


----------



## candle_86 (Apr 9, 2008)

quite frankly who cares, the X3 should be priced around 100 dollars for the base models and top out around 160 for the top model. Making it a better buy than any dual core simply because of the shift to multi-threading.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> quite frankly who cares, the X3 should be priced around 100 dollars for the base models and top out around 160 for the top model. Making it a better buy than any dual core simply because of the shift to multi-threading.



you can get some pretty amasing performance from an OC'd dual core for that price too. it really depends what apps you're running - a gamer on current games would be better with a 5000BE or an E6750 OC'd/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 10, 2008)

cdawall said:


> you do understand that C2Q hae a massive cache because they would take a massive performance hit if they had to send more and more data across the already clogged FSB to the ram so intel keeps jacking more cache on the chips to counteract this, however AMD uses HT and an onboard mem controller so it doesn't have to send data packets across the bus to talk to the ram it links directly thus AMD chips can have a much smaller cache and not suffer a performance hit



L2 Cache is a big Data Dump, all it allows is for the CPU to be off the FSB much longer, id be surprised if AMD dropped on Bigger L2 and see what it does even with the HT bus- see how much difference it makes- if any at all.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 10, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> L2 Cache is a big Data Dump, all it allows is for the CPU to be off the FSB much longer, id be surprised if AMD dropped on Bigger L2 and see what it does even with the HT bus- see how much difference it makes- if any at all.



we'll see soon enough, since nehalem (intels next gen/socket) has a massive L3 cache and an integrated memory controller.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 10, 2008)

ya both companies are goin L3, but TBH, L3 Cache on the P4s didnt do much, im sure if the FSB was Pumped on the Gallatin (NorthwoodL3) Core, despite having the L3 cache the gallatin was faster than the Prescott- technically clock for clock the northwood ran much cooler and was alot faster, Hopefully AMD gets things right aswell, as it seems this line of CPus are their first with L3.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 10, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> ya both companies are goin L3, but TBH, L3 Cache on the P4s didnt do much, im sure if the FSB was Pumped on the Gallatin (NorthwoodL3) Core, despite having the L3 cache the gallatin was faster than the Prescott- technically clock for clock the northwood ran much cooler and was alot faster, Hopefully AMD gets things right aswell, as it seems this line of CPus are their first with L3.



well if intel can beat AMD clock for clock atm without an integrated controller, they have some room for teething troubles with L3 cache on nehalem - at worst, it'll just even the ground.

That said, i'm not saying AMD cant catch up i just doubt it.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 10, 2008)

Mussels said:


> well if intel can beat AMD clock for clock atm without an integrated controller, they have some room for teething troubles with L3 cache on nehalem - at worst, it'll just even the ground.
> 
> That said, i'm not saying AMD cant catch up i just doubt it.



glance thru this at the end they test @ 3.2ghz and it runs dead even with a 9650 @3.2ghz....


----------



## candle_86 (Apr 10, 2008)

Well from what AMD has been up to latly on both fronts, they have no interest in being on top, and considering any X2 beats the Celeron and the Pentium Duo line both at stock id say for now AMD is sitting pretty.


----------

