# AMD Phenom X4 Compared to Intel Core 2 Duo in Crysis



## zekrahminator (Oct 29, 2007)

There has been a lot of hype surrounding both the AMD Phenom X4 and the AMD RD790. Testers combined both, violated a couple NDAs, and pitted them against current offerings from Intel in one of the most stressing games of all time: Crysis. The chart, if true, speaks for itself...





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Ben Clarke (Oct 29, 2007)

Stupid AMD. This is why I'm going Intel on my next rig. AMD are just failing to produce something that can beat Intel


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 29, 2007)

Damn that made my heart sink. That kinda stinks that an UN-released product can't beat a product thats been out for 1/2 a generation. At least it's competitive...

That really does suck, more 'mediocre' news from AMD/ATI...


Maybe it's drivers or the game is 'optimized for NVidia'?


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 29, 2007)

ok where how and when did they get thier hands on these chips? i think its got to be some intel fans crushing AMD before they get a chance


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 29, 2007)

well if them benches are true(and theres no reason to think there is) its gonna be hard for amd to keep up.

I just read up on the link and that was on an amd 790 chipset for the amd and p35 for the intel.

EDIT-some better pics here-http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29/1193590532d6599.html


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (Oct 29, 2007)

I'll believe it when I see official reviews.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 29, 2007)

ARTT said:


> ok where how and when did they get thier hands on these chips? i think its got to be some intel fans crushing AMD before they get a chance



Check the 'source' link in the original post...

Not sure 'Nordic Hardware' is biased EITHER way...

It's bad news I know....but the first step of grieving is acceptance 


Whats the line on how much AMD/ATI looses next quarter? Above or below a quarter BILLION in the red (FOR 3 MONTHS!!)?? How long can they stay around this way


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 29, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> I'll believe it when I see official reviews.



Looks like an official review to me. 

Only one application was reviewed (crysis), but I don't know what would make it 'un-official' as compared to say a TPU! review...

Looks pretty 'official' to me....


Maybe you mean with official drivers and released boards? The wait is only a few weeks at this point...


Same deal when the 2900 came out....

WTF it doesn't beat the GTX?? 
Its the drivers, don't worry it will....

I'm still waiting for that


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 29, 2007)

wowzers ... and they had all the time to get it right ...


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (Oct 29, 2007)

Mediocre said:


> Looks like an official review to me.
> 
> Only one application was reviewed (crysis), but I don't know what would make it 'un-official' as compared to say a TPU! review...
> 
> ...




Reviews will be official when the NDA is up and X4s are on the street.  Nordic didn't do the acctual review, http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29/1193590532d6599.html .  When TPU, Anandtech, and  theTechReport have more comprehensive reviews comparing with various apps. I'll be satisfied.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 29, 2007)

I think theres gonna be a lot of crys of "oh its not an official review".If these benches are true then thats the way it is.

The original is review asian,i think.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 29, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> Reviews will be official when the NDA is up and X4s are on the street.  Nordic didn't do the acctual review, http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29/1193590532d6599.html .  When TPU, Anandtech, and  theTechReport have more comprehensive reviews comparing with various apps. I'll be satisfied.



I have the strange feeling it will be the same deal (unfortunately) 


That's what I figured, wait until the 'official' hardware release...not sure how much better they can make it in 2 weeks though...


----------



## Namslas90 (Oct 29, 2007)

For some reason I see promise.  If thats the results for the "old" technology then thats pretty good.  Waiting for benchies with updated drivers and X3000 series GPU's and the newer chipsets/motherboards.  Buss of 1600 vs 1333,  I doubt those results are from a production phenom.(200 X 15 - seems strange also).


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 29, 2007)

Well it's not far from it, if it is true.....I wonder how they OC>


This is only one test, so it will be nice to see other ones.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 29, 2007)

I noticed that the amd chip was using 1.5+vcore for the 3ghz,wereas the intels were using 1.35+vcore,volts makes heat.Also what vcore will the phenom need for 4ghz? if its even capable of been pushed that high.

I hope this is down to early board revisions or drivers,i really do.


----------



## MrW (Oct 29, 2007)

Is that chart stating results in frames per second or time to complete demo?


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 29, 2007)

well i look at it this way im an amd fanboi..however i want a penryn...but i think i will go phenom why? because a mad cheap processor that preforms worse by a whole 5fps is way better than spending the extra 300$$ as for amd and their futire i hope thay make it theirs no doubt that this is a really dark time for amd....my hopes is they pull an intel and instead of slapping more cores on or just spending as little money as possible to keep in the game with ht 3.0 and pci-e 2.0 they throw some mad money into R&D and as i said pull an intel and come out with an arch change ever gen. instead of using old arch to compete with new chips by adding more cores...if you think about it AM2 was the last arch change and theirs were no suggnificant changes other than the mem controller. that means that current amd chips are using the arch they made to stomp P4's in the ghz race...but were past that. they need something new. i mean look at penryn thats next gen coming out soon and want to know something intel claims thairs a bunch of changes more eficents and powerfull than the original conro's we all love....that my friends is improvement amd ought to take a page revamp their little nano wiore network and finally deliver kick ass product.

my 2cents.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 29, 2007)

MrW said:


> Is that chart stating results in frames per second or time to complete demo?



Crysis demo gives FPS in a little paragraph at the end of the benchmark run. More than likely its frames per second



Solaris17 said:


> well i look at it this way im an amd fanboi..however i want a penryn...but i think i will go phenom why? because a mad cheap processor that preforms worse by a whole 5fps is way better than spending the extra 300$$ as for amd and their futire i hope thay make it theirs no doubt that this is a really dark time for amd....my hopes is they pull an intel and instead of slapping more cores on or just spending as little money as possible to keep in the game with ht 3.0 and pci-e 2.0 they throw some mad money into R&D and as i said pull an intel and come out with an arch change ever gen. instead of using old arch to compete with new chips by adding more cores...if you think about it AM2 was the last arch change and theirs were no suggnificant changes other than the mem controller. that means that current amd chips are using the arch they made to stomp P4's in the ghz race...but were past that. they need something new. i mean look at penryn thats next gen coming out soon and want to know something intel claims thairs a bunch of changes more eficents and powerfull than the original conro's we all love....that my friends is improvement amd ought to take a page revamp their little nano wiore network and finally deliver kick ass product.
> 
> my 2cents.



I absolutely agree. The problem is that Intel is so much bigger than AMD...The nostalgia around the p4 'ghz races' maybe the last 'hurrah' for AMD. With the deficite they run every quarter, how could they even think about spending MORE $$ (they don't have) to pull ahead? They are spending more than they make just to 'catch up'....

completely agree with the bang for the buck part though. I've built 2 systems in the last 3 months. One does 50fps (intel), the other 40fps (amd)...price difference is $800 for 10 fps!!?


----------



## turtile (Oct 29, 2007)

Why is the bus speed at 200mhz?  I thought the Phenom x4s will be at 400mhz.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 29, 2007)

ARTT said:


> ok where how and when did they get thier hands on these chips? i think its got to be some intel fans crushing AMD before they get a chance



NDA violation says the text, must mean they got samples. It's quite normal for reviewers to have samples before launch.

Also, this won't do 4GHz, it is already overclocked. Considering Barcelona had scaling problems Phenom will have them too.


----------



## erocker (Oct 29, 2007)

Yeah, I'll just wait to see when things get released, however with little to no information actually coming from AMD it doesn't look good.  This sucks, I deffinitely prefer using AMD over Intel, but if Intel is faster and most importantly, inexpensive, I will have to go Intel.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
BTW, I would really love to see the other settings on the test systems mobo's.  The AMD chip seems unlocked, and they are only running it @ 200 fsb?!  This test is bullshit.  I could personally get that Phenom to beat out those Intel chips.  I'm sure Nordic Hardware could too, but I'm not sure why they didn't.  If you are breaking the NDA anyways, show us everything.


----------



## zekrahminator (Oct 29, 2007)

Mediocre said:


> Whats the line on how much AMD/ATI looses next quarter? Above or below a quarter BILLION in the red (FOR 3 MONTHS!!)?? How long can they stay around this way



Well, considering how long the A64 was king... .


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 29, 2007)

Considering the Phenom apparently scores within about 85-90% of the Intel chips, it would _definitely_ be worth it if the price is right, and knowing AMD, it probably should be.  I don't see what everyone's so bummed about.


----------



## a111087 (Oct 29, 2007)

even if this is true, how can you compare low L2 and L3 AMD cache to high Intel cache 

lets take slow intel cpu and oc it to 3ghz, then compare and you will see the difference


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 29, 2007)

a111087 said:


> even if this is true, how can you compare low L2 and L3 AMD cache to high Intel cache
> 
> lets take slow intel cpu and oc it to 3ghz, then compare and you will see the difference



Thats not a great case either.

Then you're taking AMD's BEST chip and putting it up against intel's AVERAGE chip


I think they were going for a BEST v. BEST...and unfortunately thats the best AMD can do  

But bang for the buck will always sell hardware...


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 29, 2007)

Whats the stock fsb/multi on the phenom? in one of the pics,you can see its a amd es chip.I guess it means they're running it at a differant setting to get the 3ghz.The mem on the phenom was at 375mhz cpu/8 ratio.


----------



## a111087 (Oct 29, 2007)

ok... this is useless... lets just wait for a bit more reliable reviews, Phenom isn't released yet, so what the hurry?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 29, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> Well, considering how long the A64 was king... .



What does having the fastest CPU have to do with the finances of the company?


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Oct 29, 2007)

tigger69 said:


> well if them benches are true(and theres no reason to think there is) its gonna be hard for amd to keep up.
> 
> I just read up on the link and that was on an amd 790 chipset for the amd and p35 for the intel.
> 
> EDIT-some better pics here-http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29/1193590532d6599.html




I see in that bottom pic that the amd had 1.53v on the core according to cpu-z.  It could well be wrong but that is a shit load.  Especially with a quad!!!!

Lets hope these things shine in other areas or there could be trouble. :shadedshu


----------



## Rob! (Oct 29, 2007)

Well wont this chip be a heck of a lot cheaper than those high-end Intel Quads?

AMD just seems to be releasing mid- and hi-end stuff, but fails to offer competition to Intel's Extreme editions.

Price to performance, I feel AMD is doing a great job.  Financially they're just doing awful because in the computer world, most will care about pure power more than overall value.  Now me, I'm a value kinda guy


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 29, 2007)

ghost101 said:


> Anyone not surprised by the similarity in scores between the yorkfield and kentsfield?



Must be a GPU bottleneck.


----------



## zekrahminator (Oct 29, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> What does having the fastest CPU have to do with the finances of the company?



Well, I figured that since the A64 series was the fastest processor out there for a while, and they were able to get away with charging $1200 for an FX-59, that they should have made quite a profit off of that . 


I could certainly be mistaken, I haven't really cared about the fiscal earnings of AMD until they started losing money. Funny how that works .


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 29, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> Well, I figured that since the A64 series was the fastest processor out there for a while, and they were able to get away with charging $1200 for an FX-59, that they should have made quite a profit off of that .
> 
> 
> I could certainly be mistaken, I haven't really cared about the fiscal earnings of AMD until they started losing money. Funny how that works .



They really never were rich. And charging $1200 for a CPU is nice, but how many people do you think buy these chips? The money mostly is in the lower segments of the market. AMD never made that much profit, Intel has dominated the market sales wise all this time, unfortunately that's what AMD fans keep forgetting. Intel never really lost money like AMD has and does.


----------



## rangerone766 (Oct 29, 2007)

i could be talking out my a$$ here but it seems like it would be hard to do r&d for so many products.

amd has cpu's,gpu's, and motherboards to develope and market. where intel only has cpu's and motherboards.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 29, 2007)

rangerone766 said:


> i could be talking out my a$$ here but it seems like it would be hard to do r&d for so many products.
> 
> amd has cpu's,gpu's, and motherboards to develope and market. where intel only has cpu's and motherboards.



What are you talking about, Intel has the biggest peace of GPUs on the market.


----------



## imperialreign (Oct 29, 2007)

AMD doesn't have to directly develop GPU's - that's what they bought ATi for . . .

although I'm not an AMD fan, I have to say I hope to see them do somewhat better simply because I don't want to see ATI get sucked down the drain with them . . .


I wonder how much R&D funding AMD is cutting from ATI at this point, becuase it's even seemed that ATI is slowly starting the descent now that AMD owns them . . .


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 29, 2007)

all the post here make a good point. why spend x amount on an intel CPU that can go a bit faster where u can can get an AMD CPU that does a high speed for alot less 

lets be honest can you REALLY tell the difference between 2.0GHz and 2.16GHz (for example)


----------



## von kain (Oct 29, 2007)

damn i have to many things to answer...

if no one notice this the stepping was a 2 meaning about a 5-6 months before...

again something else there was only 2 mb l3 ??? i though it must be 3??:shadedshu
...

amd you dont know the price or the model of the phenom .... it isn't a phenom fx to comparer it with the others nor the price/speed opponent ???

thats for amd defence 

for answers well amd r&d in 4-5 different things rv670/rd7xx/spider/phenom/bulldozer it haves money but the main problem of amd is the unhealth competion even if the phenom will come out it will be harder to find than a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq...


----------



## kwchang007 (Oct 29, 2007)

Interesting naming of the pic there.

Well this def doesn't look good for K10


----------



## rhythmeister (Oct 29, 2007)

DrunkenMafia said:


> I see in that bottom pic that the amd had 1.53v on the core according to cpu-z.  It could well be wrong but that is a shit load.  Especially with a quad!!!!
> 
> Lets hope these things shine in other areas or there could be trouble. :shadedshu



1.5V is a shitload these days then? That beast is running 4 cores at a fantastic speed; I have to use 1.65V on a 2500 XP-M @2.34GHz ffs and this Phenom has 4 cores with each running over 150% of the 462 chip. 

They've come a LONG way in the past couple of years and these chips are gonna be SERIOUS bang per buck. Who cares about playing crysis at 47 fps instead of 50 really?


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 29, 2007)

Who cares, they come pretty damn close to intels quads. Face it, Intel took a page from AMD and are doing damn well with it. What are we fanbois gonna say when intel does the integrated memory controller? We will be screwed royally. As someone said, 5fps less isnt a deal breaker. You dont have to have the absolute fastest. This things does pretty damn good and its a quadcore. Im sure a new stepping or revision will put it on par with Intel.


----------



## mandelore (Oct 30, 2007)

I kinda looked at it this way...

How pissed must intel be that all their money and investment yielded 5fps over the poorer AMD who is currently on a major catchup and bleeding money at an unpleasant rate 

(well... just taking 3ghz v 3ghz anyway)


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Oct 30, 2007)

Wait...  is this X4 the lower end one or higher end one...


----------



## peach1971 (Oct 30, 2007)

mandelore said:


> I kinda looked at it this way...
> 
> How pissed must intel be that all their money and investment yielded 5fps over the poorer AMD who is currently on a major catchup and bleeding money at an unpleasant rate
> 
> (well... just taking 3ghz v 3ghz anyway)



2nd that


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 30, 2007)

The problem is as well,when amd release phenom,whatever price its at,intel just need to drop their prices,which they can do been flush an all,to put amd in the doo doo again.


----------



## Ketxxx (Oct 30, 2007)

Look at those numbers properly people, Phenom is on a crap 200MHz FSB, vs 333 from intel. Crank that FSB up and Phenom could well do some serious stomping.


----------



## kwchang007 (Oct 30, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> Look at those numbers properly people, Phenom is on a crap 200MHz FSB, vs 333 from intel. Crank that FSB up and Phenom could well do some serious stomping.



?  Remember Amd uses HTT.  Their "rated fsb" at 1000 mhz is basically equal to Intel's at 2000 mhz.  Now I'm not doubting that raising the fsb would raise performance, but it's not going to be a huge jump or anything....probably not 5 fps.


----------



## Ketxxx (Oct 30, 2007)

HTT has little to do with performance, I've written a paper on it with all the details etc etc blablabla. Long story short high FSB will give massive performance gains, even if you just use settings that give you stock CPU and RAM speeds, but at a much higher FSB.


----------



## imperialreign (Oct 30, 2007)

> The problem is as well,when amd release phenom,whatever price its at,intel just need to drop their prices,which they can do been flush an all,to put amd in the doo doo again.



true, unless Intel goes and gets all snuggly and complacent in their lead over the competition like they did years ago . . . and lets not forget, the Nehalem isn't even out yet, either, and we've all got a good idea of what kind of a bitchslap that CPU family is going to deliver, followed quickly by the Westmere and Sandy Bridge CPU's.

Now, if AMD gets to market with a multicore CPU/GPU desktop processor (like their planned "Fusion" mobile CPU) before Intel, though (which I think highly possible with their ownership of ATI), they'll have a definite hands up on Intel.


----------



## ex_reven (Oct 30, 2007)

Mediocre said:


> Whats the line on how much AMD/ATI looses next quarter? Above or below a quarter BILLION in the red (FOR 3 MONTHS!!)?? How long can they stay around this way



The same way America does 
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


----------



## kwchang007 (Oct 30, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> HTT has little to do with performance, I've written a paper on it with all the details etc etc blablabla. Long story short high FSB will give massive performance gains, even if you just use settings that give you stock CPU and RAM speeds, but at a much higher FSB.



Hmmm....interesting.  Never knew that.  Well we'll be able to do our own tests once people start getting phenoms.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 30, 2007)

well thats 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back, lol nda not lifted, done by a non reputable reviewer. and yet same old story I've been seeing on these forums since the conroe launch. oh well. 

bottom line is that this is not an official review, niether are the ones on peryn. so we can only wait and see how each will perform in the real world. lol I will say that kinpin smashed the 3d06 record with a peryn at 5.6GHZ (it was up for 48 hours for comparison they he took it down until official launch). any discussion on these cpu's prior to official launch is a waste of breath at this point.


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 30, 2007)

Could this have anything to do with Crysis being sponsored by Intel?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 30, 2007)

Ravenas said:


> Could this have anything to do with Crysis being sponsored by Intel?




crying conspiracy?


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 30, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> crying conspiracy?



Nope just seems kinda obvious, sorta like Intel expected this.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 30, 2007)

ok


----------



## Casheti (Oct 30, 2007)

Intel pwns


----------



## laszlo (Oct 30, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> Look at those numbers properly people, Phenom is on a crap 200MHz FSB, vs 333 from intel. Crank that FSB up and Phenom could well do some serious stomping.



agree 100% with you;also with HT;btw i knew that it will be 2000 Mhz and on CPUZ picture only 1600 ?;i think this cpu with 333 Mhz bus it will be on the same level with intel or better.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 30, 2007)

Yes but its only on 200x15 now and it needs lots of vcore,1.53 compared to 1.35ish on the intel.So how much vcore will it need to sustain a 333 fsb?


----------



## newconroer (Oct 30, 2007)

Doesn't this become a bit of a moot point if the new GPUs have a decent focus on offloading processor stress?


----------



## von kain (Oct 30, 2007)

lets face it must be fake (which i believe) or is true and the intel-fans start giving 400$ for 5 fps


----------



## niko084 (Oct 30, 2007)

This is kinda disturbing, I really want to see ATI and AMD both take a few steps up again, they don't need to dominate the world in Cpus and Gpus but seriously having more than 1 solid competitor in each category would be good.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 30, 2007)

von kain said:


> lets face it must be fake (which i believe) or is true and the intel-fans start giving 400$ for 5 fps



Take a look again a e6850 is beating out the AMD quad core...
Thats a $280 dual core to a $*** quad..


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2007)

While I think this particular review is a fake, I think the performance gap will be similar between the 2. I don't expect K10 to match Core2. I think it will be a better match, but I'm pretty sure it will still be behind.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 30, 2007)

Wile E said:


> While I think this particular review is a fake, I think the performance gap will be similar between the 2. I don't expect K10 to match Core2. I think it will be a better match, but I'm pretty sure it will still be behind.



Very possible its a fake or still working on un-tweaked equipment...
We will see on full release... I can't imagine AMD letting Intel run the game either...

PS- AMD doesn't need the Cpu market to stay in business, they are into a whole world more than cpu's...


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 30, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> crying conspiracy?



There are no conspiracies in the world of business, only profits to be made.

If a business _can_ make a profit by doing something, they _will_, no questions asked -- it's their sole purpose for existing.  Working with the designers of a game you're sponsoring so that it will work better with your processors wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

...but that's just my opinion as a non-connected outsider.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 30, 2007)

niko084 said:


> PS- AMD doesn't need the Cpu market to stay in business, they are into a whole world more than cpu's...



Their finances surely support what you're saying, they can easily stay in business with all the money they're making.


----------



## XGas (Nov 1, 2007)

What about the power usage? Do I have to leave it on idle downclocked to get it to eat as much power as a Core 2 Overclock running on max? I care about my electricity bills, it would be more expensive in the long run if the power usage is too high.


----------



## WheresYerbrain (Nov 10, 2007)

*wow, the masses ARE stupid*



Ben Clarke said:


> Stupid AMD. This is why I'm going Intel on my next rig. AMD are just failing to produce something that can beat Intel



Comments like this, what are you guys retarded? 

Right now the Qx6850 runs about 1000 dollars and the pre Phenoms dont even go over 400 dollars. 

If youre going to be paying double the price make sure it does double the performances you dopes. 

my god, phenom lost by 5 frames, theyre going to go under now! who will think of the children!?


----------



## Grings (Nov 10, 2007)

dont join a forum solely to troll a comment you didnt like

oh and a qx6850 is hardly the mainstream chip, im not even aware of ANY member of this forum with one,  why not make a comparison to a q6600?


----------



## WheresYerbrain (Nov 10, 2007)

*The masses ARE stupid pt 2*



Grings said:


> dont join a forum solely to troll a comment you didnt like
> 
> oh and a qx6850 is hardly the mainstream chip, im not even aware of ANY member of this forum with one,  why not make a comparison to a q6600?




wow, yer just as bad !  Did you even check the front page?

Hey im lookin at lesse.....  a E6850, a QX6850 and a Qx9650... wow, how wrong i was to bring it up the price differences to the processors you guys built a thread upon... shame on me.  

"Dont join a forum to mention my opinion" and then you the gall to say you dont like it either? flame all you want, i brought up a reality point that was not your liking.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 10, 2007)

i posted this days ago...






some lite oc'ing brings the chips very close together it appears that AMDs new chips use the HT a lot more than the old ones because i doubt a ram oc made a 7FPS jump in crysis though even with the extra 50mhz it still falls behind the intel cores about 10fps so maybe a 3.2ghz amd will be even with a 3ghz intel


----------



## hat (Nov 10, 2007)

Grings said:


> oh and a qx6850 is hardly the mainstream chip, im not even aware of ANY member of this forum with one,  why not make a comparison to a q6600?


ccleronia has one I believe.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Nov 10, 2007)

I would rather use intel, but AMD's cheaper.

plus intel generally bench's higher.

Thats just me, and what i think, and i dont want to argue about it.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Nov 10, 2007)

Grings said:


> dont join a forum solely to troll a comment you didnt like


+1


----------



## zekrahminator (Nov 10, 2007)




----------



## Grings (Nov 10, 2007)

WheresYerbrain said:


> wow, yer just as bad !  Did you even check the front page?
> 
> Hey im lookin at lesse.....  a E6850, a QX6850 and a Qx9650... wow, how wrong i was to bring it up the price differences to the processors you guys built a thread upon... shame on me.
> 
> "Dont join a forum to mention my opinion" and then you the gall to say you dont like it either? flame all you want, i brought up a reality point that was not your liking.



lol, no, i didnt read the original post, so ignore the *second* part of my post


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 17, 2007)

*interesting*



Grings said:


> lol, no, i didnt read the original post, so ignore the *second* part of my post



Well it was rude how he came off,  I read the entire thread and felt the need to come up wit this.

This is what I personally consider nowadays when building computers. Importance first is Price, Performance, Powerconsumption last. Because if its too much of a power hog id have to change from my current 500w supply. If any one else would like to add in good productive information please do! 
-------------------------
Intel Rig 
q6600 2.4gz $278
TDP 105watts
-
Asus P5E Motherboard X38 $229
Chipset TDP around 50w
-------------------------

-------------------------
AMD rig 
Phenom 9600 2.3ghz $278 (estimated presale tray price)
TDP 95w
-
MSI K9A2 Platinum 790FX
Chipset TDP around 10w $179
-------------------------

These are the current relevant prices.

Decisions decisions. Not like it can mean anything but both rigs are Crossfire ready.. Except the 790fx counterpart can do a 4x gpu set up.


Im on the fence for either quad, but prices will ultimately be my decision maker.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Nov 17, 2007)

Im not sure if this is all true, but either way, I think AMD has had its day as 'the only way to go for gaming' 

Its Intels market now


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 17, 2007)

*you totally missed the point*



HookeyStreet said:


> Im not sure if this is all true, but either way, I think AMD has had its day as 'the only way to go for gaming'
> 
> Its Intels market now



feel free to do a pricegrabber check up.  and google the TDP's of the Chipsets from intel and AMD.    

The point of my rant was not who is better.... its about the price/performance value and power use.  

If winning by 10fps in a game is justified for a 1000 bone price tag.... then you must be rich, and so then break me off some! 

If any one else has something relevant to the price tags regarding the issue, please speak up, im in the market for a quad rig for RENDERING ANIMATION purposes... as you can see from the benchies Dual Core counterparts still perform better in games than quad cores.  I dont not care about computer games so much, i have my PS3 already and my girlfriend has the Wii.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 17, 2007)

Phenom X4 is not the ultimate processor from AMD, Phenom FX is. Besides, the true adventage Phenom would have over Intel QC processors would be in multi-tasking, content creation and scientific applications. Games are not the only things that evaluate a processor. A lot of other pieces of hardware like the video-card(s) are responsible for game benchmarks. They must use scientific apps like Folding @ Home or SETI @ Home to benchmark processors as these are truly multi-threaded apps that totally depend only on the CPU. Oh, did you know that the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ beats the Core 2 Duo E6850 in SPEC view pref, memory bandwidth and Folding @ Home made at Stanford University?




VILLAIN_xx said:


> If winning by 10fps in a game is justified for a 1000 bone price tag.... then you must be rich, and so then break me off some!



I soo agree with you.

The Phenom X4 that's used in this benchmark costs $ 320 by PriceGrabber. Almost 1/3 the price of a QX6850. Only certified jerks would spend an extra $600 for a 10 fps increment.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 17, 2007)

*Yahp yahp  *



btarunr said:


> Phenom X4 is not the ultimate processor from AMD, Phenom FX is. Besides, the true adventage Phenom would have over Intel QC processors would be in multi-tasking, content creation and scientific applications. Games are not the only things that evaluate a processor. A lot of other pieces of hardware like the video-card(s) are responsible for game benchmarks. They must use scientific apps like Folding @ Home or SETI @ Home to benchmark processors as these are truly multi-threaded apps that totally depend only on the CPU. Oh, did you know that the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ beats the Core 2 Duo E6850 in SPEC view pref, memory bandwidth and Folding @ Home made at Stanford University?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





If i could give you 100+ thanks btarnr i would!



Yes the PhenomFX will be the best against Intels best.  I tried to at least compare a Q6600 vs PHenom 9600 for an entry Quad rig, a few posts back, but gamers will disregard any reasoning and revert back to a Crysis Benchmark. People forget that video cards are a major component in the power horse to measure fps.  We all know prices will vary on Video cards. Just because the Crysis benchmark reveals the grand total Fps from its Testbed,  in the end can you afford that _*exact*_ testbed?  


I am leanin toward the Phenom now with its multitasking & rendering improvement compared to the last Gen Core 2's and X2's. Not only that, i can perhaps keep my 500watt psu if i do decide to go with AMD. New GPUs from ATI are supposedly less power thirsty too!  A good sign if i need to upgrade in the future. For now my softmodded X1800xt is more than excellent for Softimage XSI and Adobe products.

Still i am a patient wise shopper to see how the blue and green team respond this holiday season.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 17, 2007)

VILLAIN_xx said:


> If i could give you 100+ thanks btarnr i would!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's the funny part:

Right now, the only enthusiast-level platform for the Phenom series is the AMD 790 FX. And anyone wanting to use a multi-GPU setup on this would use 2 or 4 ATI cards in CrossFire. As you know, most games (include Crysis) work better on a NVidia GPU. And, there's no enthusiast-level chipset from NVidia as yet that supports the Phenom + SLI. So Phenom + NVidia SLI chipset + NVidia card(s) would give you the right benchmarks for Crysis. Then it would be an fair CPU to CPU comparision.


----------



## DaMulta (Nov 17, 2007)

You can use a Phenom with any AM2 motherboard. So if you already have the SLi setup or CF just buy the CPU and your good to go.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 17, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> You can use a Phenom with any AM2 motherboard. So if you already have the SLi setup or CF just buy the CPU and your good to go.



Sure you CAN use Phenom on any AM2 board with a simple BIOS update, BUT Phenom is a AM2+ processor. While it is backwards compatible with AM2, the processor implements the Hyper-Transport 3.0 bus that AM2+ gives, 4000 MT/s as opposed to 2000 MT/s from Hyper-Transport 2.0 from the AM2. So any Phenom WILL UNDERPERFORM if used with AM2 and not AM2+. And thus cannot be used to make a fair benchmark. NVidia doesn't have a AM2+ supportive SLI chipset. A certain motherboard from Biostar that runs the NForce 560 Ultra does have AM2+ but no SLI.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 17, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> You can use a Phenom with any AM2 motherboard. So if you already have the SLi setup or CF just buy the CPU and your good to go.



Thats very very true.  The only thing missing will be the HT3.0 and dual power plane feature(i think the importance of the dual is to be able to overclock a single native core) Other than that, a current AM2 can support phenom with a simple bios flash.  

I still own socket 939 lol. Im glad i waited till PciE2 for my upcoming upgrade. I build pc's as a side job/hobby, so parting out my computer is cake. 

I dont know how much of a difference HT2 and HT3 will be... Probably not that big of an improvement just like Intels FSB from 1066 to 1333.  So ill be lookin forward to many benches when Phenom comes out nov 20.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 17, 2007)

dang, Btarnr beat me!!! lmao

But the Biostar youre thinking of might be the TF560 A2+  . I emailed them directly to double check before i considered as an option to buy in the past and the tech support confirmed that, It doesnt support HT 3.0 or Dual power planes... 

Its AM2+ ready with out a bios flash is all, bu it overclocks very very well.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 17, 2007)

VILLAIN_xx said:


> dang, Btarnr beat me!!! lmao
> 
> But the Biostar youre thinking of might be the TF560 A2+  . I emailed them directly to double check before i considered as an option to buy in the past and the tech support confirmed that, It doesnt support HT 3.0 or Dual power planes...
> 
> Its AM2+ ready with out a bios flash is all, bu it overclocks very very well.



AM2+ and no HT 3.0? Beats me man! So what's so AM2"*+*" about it? Just Phenom support? This is deceptive marketing.



VILLAIN_xx said:


> I dont know how much of a difference HT2 and HT3 will be... Probably not that big of an improvement just like Intels FSB from 1066 to 1333.



Dude, 2 cores on 2000 MT/s ; 4 cores on 4000 MT/s. Get it? If there's not enough bandwidth, the raw processing power of a quad-core processor would be a waste. You remember what a disaster it was for Intel with the Pentium D where they simply tossed two P4 cores onto a die and stripped them across a measly 800 MHz bus, while the Athlon64 X2 chips feasted on a 2000 MT/s HT 2.0?

Sorta like making two people sleep on a bed meant for one. Uncomfortable, right? Ofcourse the issue would be different if the two are of opposite genders.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 17, 2007)

btarunr said:


> AM2+ and no HT 3.0? Beats me man! So what's so AM2"*+*" about it? Just Phenom support? This is deceptive marketing.


Yep, marketing. They are AM2+ *ready*. Not AM2+



btarunr said:


> Dude, 2 cores on 2000 MT/s ; 4 cores on 4000 MT/s. Get it? If there's not enough bandwidth, the raw processing power of a quad-core processor would be a waste. You remember what a disaster it was for Intel with the Pentium D where they simply tossed two P4 cores onto a die and stripped them across a measly 800 MHz bus, while the Athlon64 X2 chips feasted on a 2000 MT/s HT 2.0?
> 
> Sorta like making two people sleep on a bed meant for one. Uncomfortable, right? Ofcourse the issue would be different if the two are of opposite genders.


The problem with the logic here is, even the current 2000MT/s aren't close to being utilized. 

With a good bit of cross-core communication happening on-chip with Phenom, I doubt HT3 will show any real benefits on a single socket desktop. HT3 will show it's worth in the multiple socket server market. Just my opinions at this time. I may be proven wrong.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 17, 2007)

Wile E said:


> The problem with the logic here is, even the current 2000MT/s aren't close to being utilized



Naw mate, HT2 with 2000 MT/s is something that's begging to be replaced. I'm sure you know about the NForce 680a based dual-socket board made by Asus for the Athlon64 FX 74. Here, the two sockets were made to share a single 2000 MT/s system bus. And ofcourse, you could see that a Athlon64 FX 74 wasn't 2x as fast as a single Athlon64 X2 6000+. So, two dual-core chips (four cores total) need twice the amount of bandwidth from the system bus. So, 1 quad-core chip needs 4000 MT/s. Ofcourse, back in the FX 74, you also had HUGE latency issues.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 17, 2007)

btarunr said:


> Naw mate, HT2 with 2000 MT/s is something that's begging to be replaced. I'm sure you know about the NForce 680a based dual-socket board made by Asus for the Athlon64 FX 74. Here, the two sockets were made to share a single 2000 MT/s system bus. And ofcourse, you could see that a Athlon64 FX 74 wasn't 2x as fast as a single Athlon64 X2 6000+. So, two dual-core chips (four cores total) need twice the amount of bandwidth from the system bus. So, 1 quad-core chip needs 4000 MT/s. Ofcourse, back in the FX 74, you also had HUGE latency issues.


Most of those bandwidth issues stemmed from the cpus communicating across the HT bus. It's a multi-socket setup, which can use the extra bandwidth. I touched on that by mentioning multi-socket servers could use HT3, same basic setup. With Phenom, not all of the communication needs to move across the bus, thus it won't be nearly as saturated.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 17, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Most of those bandwidth issues stemmed from the cpus communicating across the HT bus. It's a multi-socket setup, which can use the extra bandwidth. I touched on that by mentioning multi-socket servers could use HT3, same basic setup. With Phenom, not all of the communication needs to move across the bus, thus it won't be nearly as saturated.



What I'm trying to say is that the bandwidth provided by HT 3.0 would suffice to a single quad-core CPU in regards to inter-component communication (CPU -> NB -> SB). But 4000 MT/s is just about enough for a single QC chip's intra-component communication, where different components inside the CPU communicate. Mind you, the AMD K10 arch. is such that every component starting from the request crossbar to the mem controller(s) to the core to the caches all rely on the internal network based on HT 3.0. Sorta like the roads in Manhattan, where you can get from 1 point to another by following a single road.  So for a single QC CPU, 4000 MT/s is vital, 2000 MT/s wouldn't suffice.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 17, 2007)

btarunr said:


> What I'm trying to say is that the bandwidth provided by HT 3.0 would suffice to a single quad-core CPU in regards to inter-component communication (CPU -> NB -> SB). But 4000 MT/s is just about enough for a single QC chip's intra-component communication, where different components inside the CPU communicate. Mind you, the AMD K10 arch. is such that every component starting from the request crossbar to the mem controller(s) to the core to the caches all rely on the internal network based on HT 3.0. Sorta like the roads in Manhattan, where you can get from 1 point to another by following a single road.  So for a single QC CPU, 4000 MT/s is vital, 2000 MT/s wouldn't suffice.


Well, as I said, it was speculation on my part. I'll still wait for back to back comparos, to be sure.


----------



## largon (Nov 17, 2007)

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/gigabyte/GA-MA790FX-DQ6/b1.htm

Another Phenom X4 review, too bad they used CF'ed HD2600XTs for 3D benches thus making the whole review useless.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 20, 2007)

*Ouch Ouch Ouch*

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=9

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=1

::sigh::: 


the thing that Phenom hurt MY feelings about was the rendering of 3Dsmax and power use.The Phenomx4 vx Q6600 both faired good with games (but dual cores will be better, so keep that in mind gamers!!!!) each traded off lead.

  Even with that new low power AMD790FX, the new phenom is still a bit more power hungry.   I think barcelonas faired better on a clock to clock scenario against Xeon. I dont know where to start what could have possibly gone wrong. Maybe the mother board's 2006 version southbridge chipset? 

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13628

I know that the south bridge was the only thing they couldnt refine yet to make the launch... but still, how much can AMD push back dates for any of their products? :shadedshu


----------



## wiak (Nov 20, 2007)

the techreport review was kinda out of focus
SB600 should preformace upto the same as other boards with it
must be BIOS on the mb that is the issue


----------



## Chewy (Nov 20, 2007)

btarunr said:


> The Phenom X4 that's used in this benchmark costs $ 320 by PriceGrabber. Almost 1/3 the price of a QX6850. Only certified jerks would spend an extra $600 for a 10 fps increment.





Good point on the folding thing, you taught me something thanks . Issent the q6600 faster than the Phenom X4 in gaming? thats what I had read earlier, that the 9700 Phenom is slower in games than intels weakest/lowest quad core.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 20, 2007)

wiak said:


> the techreport review was kinda out of focus
> SB600 should preformace upto the same as other boards with it
> must be BIOS on the mb that is the issue



I wonder if it is..  TR is using a Bios revision on the Motherboard thats not listed on the Gigabyte-USA website.

I left a Rant on their thread about GIGABYTE GAMA790FXDQ6.  I want to see if their moderators will acknowledge me.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 20, 2007)

Chewy said:


> Issent the q6600 faster than the Phenom X4 in gaming? thats what I had read earlier, that the 9700 Phenom is slower in games than intels weakest/lowest quad core.



They both contend head to head "well" in games.  Each game seems to like one more than the other it seems. Why? i have no idea, but all benchies are proving that.

Gamers would be much more delighted in Dual Core counterparts if gaming is all they are interested in. Theyre are known to have higher Frames per second in ALL reviews you can find.  Crysis was supposed to run all cores, but dual cores still get better frame rates for some reason.

Quad is way better for people who run scientific apps, Content creation rendering and ripping.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 20, 2007)

Well I got response from the testers..

"Gigabyte's been sending us regular BIOS updates for the board, and F2K is the latest from them, which is why we used it for testing. "

thats a damn shame. lol maybe its gigabytes fault?


----------



## niko084 (Nov 20, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> I'll believe it when I see official reviews.



Have seen a bunch showing the Phenom lacking behind.... Almost every single one....
I have talked to people that have tested them personally, "AMD" fans at that... They claim the same....

It's sad really, I love AMD, I have been running AMD's since the K5 days, until recently...

Hopefully they have something up their sleeves we don't know about again that they will just shoot out there.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 20, 2007)

niko084 said:


> Have seen a bunch showing the Phenom lacking behind.... Almost every single one....
> I have talked to people that have tested them personally, "AMD" fans at that... They claim the same....
> 
> It's sad really, I love AMD, I have been running AMD's since the K5 days, until recently...
> ...



I feel ya on that! Who doesnt want an underdog to beat the top dog.  Oh well, if prices are right id still get one.. but the price has be very tempting. Im still concerned if the mobo makers have something to do with the performance were seeing. Not saying the mobos are intentially doing this, but i think a revision might help out alot from their part. 

Im more on a look out for a decent mother board from AMD (probably start looking at X38 now with what ive seen lately).  The mother board is a part thats just as equally important as the CPU.  Something that can update flawlessly later, big overclock abilities and has pcie 2nd gen is what i care about.  If i find a great mobo under the 200 hundred mark i could live with a cheap ol entry dual core and over clock it like mad until quad core become dirt cheap.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 20, 2007)

the new chips seem kinda slow....maybe its the mobos lack of a WORKING BIOS!!!


----------



## niko084 (Nov 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> the new chips seem kinda slow....maybe its the mobos lack of a WORKING BIOS!!!



Doubtful... They have been in testing for a LONG time... They should have that solid by now, especially being AMD/ATI merger...


----------



## btarunr (Nov 21, 2007)

I kinda didn't like the AMD + ATI merger. Both were industry-dominant companies before. AMD was flying high with the success of the Athlon 64, ATI's Radeon X1900 quietly slipped in and gave a sound-thrashing to the Geforce 7800. Look at them now.


----------



## erocker (Nov 21, 2007)

btarunr said:


> I kinda didn't like the AMD + ATI merger. Both were industry-dominant companies before. AMD was flying high with the success of the Athlon 64, ATI's Radeon X1900 quietly slipped in and gave a sound-thrashing to the Geforce 7800. Look at them now.



They had runs but were never dominant.  What about the millions of suckers who bought P4's over the better AMD?  ATi has been around a while, sure but nVidia has been the dominant video card manufacturer the past fifteen years.  I completely disagree with what you said, regardless of what thrashings ATi's cards have done to Nvidia's, Nvidia has always sold more, just like Intel.


----------



## hat (Nov 21, 2007)

One of my uncles is like that... seriously... he's a diehard Intel fanboy... He bought a PD 3.4GHz


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 21, 2007)

btarunr said:


> I kinda didn't like the AMD + ATI merger. Both were industry-dominant companies before. AMD was flying high with the success of the Athlon 64, ATI's Radeon X1900 quietly slipped in and gave a sound-thrashing to the Geforce 7800. Look at them now.



Well no one likes it now because it seems to be hurting them. I know i do too!   Honestly though, i dont think AMD or ATI will dissappear if anyone is speculating that.  I think AMd will choose to focus on making GPUs only before dissappearing from the map. They sold more GPUs than CPUs since they merged. Also Do not forget they recieved a huge check for 8% shares from the small government Abu Dahbi.    

But the biggest sales are always the cheapest entry levels of any product. Which is where AMD has been lookin at for the last year and half. I think there will be an even cheaper Phenom coming out next year just like how they whipped out the BE-2100 series and 3600X2 before that.

Anyways check out that Abu Dahbi news i told ya about. Its all over the net but this one was a bit more detailed than most.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21840227/

Last time i heard Mubadala Investor Company gave alot of money to computer tech engineer schools.  Could this mean something?


----------



## btarunr (Nov 21, 2007)

erocker said:


> They had runs but were never dominant.  What about the millions of suckers who bought P4's over the better AMD?  ATi has been around a while, sure but nVidia has been the dominant video card manufacturer the past fifteen years.  I completely disagree with what you said, regardless of what thrashings ATi's cards have done to Nvidia's, Nvidia has always sold more, just like Intel.



Nvidia and Intel have sold more even during times when they didn't make the best products in the market. This was solely because they had better product-distribution channels and marketing teams. People bought their product mostly because 1. They weren't informed about the presence of better alternatives 2. The alternative products never really reached their markets. Did you forget about the lawsuit AMD filed against Intel (which it won) where Intel was playing foul in not letting stocks/containers of AMD products reach south-east Asia? So sales figures are really not indicative of the quality of products made by these companies. The entire GeForce FX line of products were outsold (and outperformed) by the Radeon 9000 series. The Fastest single-GPU DirectX 9 card in today is the Radeon X1950 XTX. By the time things moved into the DX 10 arena, and most tech-forums showing rumored prototypes of a certain DX 10 card from ATi, ATi was merged with AMD. 

ATI was founded in 1985, 8 years before NVidia, they were one of those tho started the GPU industry.

PS. You and I have the same video-cards (check system specs)



VILLAIN_xx said:


> Well no one likes it now because it seems to be hurting them. I know i do too! Honestly though, i dont think AMD or ATI will dissappear if anyone is speculating that. I think AMD will choose to focus on making GPUs only before dissappearing from the map. They sold more GPUs than CPUs since they merged. Also Do not forget they recieved a huge check for 8% shares from the small government Abu Dahbi.



Well, end of the day AMD is able to sell to its potential and manufacturing capacity. 

Here in India, most government offices and banks use Athlon XP based systems. The police station closest to me has a "rig" running an Athlon XP 3200+. Late night, when idle, one of the officers and I play Counter Strike: Source online. On August 15th this year (Indian Independence day) I donated my old Radeon 9800 Pro card to them.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

btarunr said:


> Nvidia and Intel have sold more even during times when they didn't make the best products in the market. This was solely because they had better product-distribution channels and marketing teams. People bought their product mostly because 1. They weren't informed about the presence of better alternatives 2. The alternative products never really reached their markets. Did you forget about the lawsuit AMD filed against Intel (which it won) where Intel was playing foul in not letting stocks/containers of AMD products reach south-east Asia? So sales figures are really not indicative of the quality of products made by these companies. The entire GeForce FX line of products were outsold (and outperformed) by the Radeon 9000 series. The Fastest single-GPU DirectX 9 card in today is the Radeon X1950 XTX. By the time things moved into the DX 10 arena, and most tech-forums showing rumored prototypes of a certain DX 10 card from ATi, ATi was merged with AMD.




ok 1 the X1950XTX is not the fastest card on the market it trades blows with the 7900GTX
http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do?type=gpu&id=741_1&id=1034_1&id=1036_1
and 2 the FX line of cards KILLED the 9xx0 series cards in non DX9 tests IE openGL was laughabe on ATis cards and as you can see from HWBOT only the DX9 and 9c tests did the 9800s win
http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do?type=gpu&id=337_1&id=120_1&id=585_1&id=223_1&id=338_1&id=100_1

also NV is still the king of AGP try and beat an ATi card thats beats the 7950GT  or 7900GTX for that matter (gainward bliss 7800GS 512mb is a rebadged 7900GTX)


----------



## btarunr (Nov 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> ok 1 the X1950XTX is not the fastest card on the market it trades blows with the 7900GTX
> http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do?type=gpu&id=741_1&id=1034_1&id=1036_1
> and 2 the FX line of cards KILLED the 9xx0 series cards in non DX9 tests IE openGL was laughabe on ATis cards and as you can see from HWBOT only the DX9 and 9c tests did the 9800s win
> http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do?type=gpu&id=337_1&id=120_1&id=585_1&id=223_1&id=338_1&id=100_1
> ...



If your math serves you right, On an avg, the X1950 XTX is ahead of the 7900 GTX (3 out of 5) in real-world tests, in AquaMark the difference is a nibble. 

Over-clocking? You see, over-clocking capabilities is an unfair parameter to judge hardware on.

Geforce FX fared better only in some OpenGL tests compared to Radeon 9xxx. DX9 is the API that propels the industry.

Want to know which is the fastest AGP card in existence? Click here


----------



## AsRock (Nov 21, 2007)

Am i reading this right ?.. 1-5FPS slower for AMD  on there new gear which could easily get better ?.

If i am right OMG 5 FPS differance OOOOOOO  O please lol.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 21, 2007)

*question!*



AsRock said:


> Am i reading this right ?.. 1-5FPS slower for AMD  on there new gear which could easily get better ?.
> 
> If i am right OMG 5 FPS differance OOOOOOO  O please lol.



Totally lol. 

I notice the hardest critics are the hard core gamers...

But

Did i witness a stock Phenom 9900 2.6ghz compete almost neck in neck with a Intel 3.0ghz on Bioshock?

the 9600 2.3ghz trailed by a measely .6 frames against the goliath Qx9770 on Supreme commander.

Wow.

Um isnt this what Core 2 people were bragging about when E6600 2.4ghz defeated an AMD FX at 2.6ghz on games? 
see it for your self  http://techreport.com/articles.x/13633/6


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 21, 2007)

btarunr said:


> Want to know which is the fastest AGP card in existence? Click here



You sure about that? [GeCube X1950 XT AGP]

It's still an ATI, though.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 21, 2007)

AsRock said:


> Am i reading this right ?.. 1-5FPS slower for AMD  on there new gear which could easily get better ?.
> 
> If i am right OMG 5 FPS differance OOOOOOO  O please lol.



Count in percentages and add the fact that C2D is already being replaced with the next generation as well. Even though the difference isn't huge in it still shows AMD is still far behind.

Besides, a C2D costs less than those Phenoms and can be clocked far higher.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 21, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Count in percentages and add the fact that C2D is already being replaced with the next generation as well. Even though the difference isn't huge in it still shows AMD is still far behind.
> 
> Besides, a C2D costs less than those Phenoms and can be clocked far higher.



that is the whole picture, teh phenoms cant compete with outgoing tech and they are more expensive to boot ...


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

btarunr said:


> If your math serves you right, On an avg, the X1950 XTX is ahead of the 7900 GTX (3 out of 5) in real-world tests, in AquaMark the difference is a nibble.
> 
> Over-clocking? You see, over-clocking capabilities is an unfair parameter to judge hardware on.
> 
> ...



ROFL are you kidding me an X1950*PRO is NO WERE NEAR a 7950GT or 7900GTX...wtf are you smoking?

FASTEST AGP CARD click me

i would love to see a X1950PRO even touch a 7900GTX 512mb

overclocking is a fair judge for me and most who surf this forum...I dont care if its only a percent in the RW that do it i do and thats what matters to me. again FX5950 beat out the 9800PRo in the VAST MAJORITY of opengl tests and games and DX9 is falling away to DX10 just as DX8 did to DX8.1 and DX9*


----------



## 3991vhtes (Nov 21, 2007)

hat said:


> One of my uncles is like that... seriously... he's a diehard Intel fanboy... He bought a PD 3.4GHz



Why  about that?

Intel > AMD

They're both great, don't get me wrong, but Intel's generally benchmark higher, and are more stable.


----------



## theonetruewill (Nov 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> ROFL are you kidding me an X1950*PRO is NO WERE NEAR a 7950GT or 7900GTX...wtf are you smoking?
> 
> FASTEST AGP CARD click me
> 
> ...


*



cdawall said:



			also NV is still the king of AGP try and beat an ATi card thats beats the 7950GT  or 7900GTX for that matter (gainward bliss 7800GS 512mb is a rebadged 7900GTX)
		
Click to expand...

Umm.... Are you sure you don't mean the Gainward 7800GS is a rebadged  7800GT.... It only has 20 pipelines, not 24 like the 7800GTX or 7900GTX.
And the X1950XT AGP clearly defeats a rebadged 7800GT card... Sorry, but Nvidia is not the king of AGP, currently ATi is. Your argument about the X1950Pro not being anywhere near a 7900GTX is true, but slightly begins to lose merit when it's actually an X1950Pro vs 7800GT argument.*


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> well i look at it this way im an amd fanboi..however i want a penryn...but i think i will go phenom why? because a mad cheap processor that preforms worse by a whole 5fps is way better than spending the extra 300$$ as for amd and their futire i hope thay make it theirs no doubt that this is a really dark time for amd....my hopes is they pull an intel and instead of slapping more cores on or just spending as little money as possible to keep in the game with ht 3.0 and pci-e 2.0 they throw some mad money into R&D and as i said pull an intel and come out with an arch change ever gen. instead of using old arch to compete with new chips by adding more cores...if you think about it AM2 was the last arch change and theirs were no suggnificant changes other than the mem controller. that means that current amd chips are using the arch they made to stomp P4's in the ghz race...but were past that. they need something new. i mean look at penryn thats next gen coming out soon and want to know something intel claims thairs a bunch of changes more eficents and powerfull than the original conro's we all love....that my friends is improvement amd ought to take a page revamp their little nano wiore network and finally deliver kick ass product.
> 
> my 2cents.




But the entry level Yorkfield 45nm quads are actually expected to be LOWER in price!  So your very good argument (and it is good) is not applicable really


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 21, 2007)

VILLAIN_xx said:


> Totally lol.
> 
> I notice the hardest critics are the hard core gamers...
> 
> ...



Alot of those tests seemed VERY limited by the gpu.  q6600 and qx6800 scoring withing 2 fps....doesn't seem cpu bound by me.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> Umm.... Are you sure you don't mean the Gainward 7800GS is a rebadged  7800GT.... It only has 20 pipelines, not 24 like the 7800GTX or 7900GTX.
> And the X1950XT AGP clearly defeats a rebadged 7800GT card... Sorry, but Nvidia is not the king of AGP, currently ATi is. Your argument about the X1950Pro not being anywhere near a 7900GTX is true, but slightly begins to lose merit when it's actually an X1950Pro vs 7800GT argument.



i take it you didnt read the link




			
				mvktech.net said:
			
		

> This was followed quite fast with some more impressive version, namely a Gainward BLISS 7800 GS GLH AGP clocked at 450/1300MHz. Really not much difference with the normal version except being overclocked and still using the G70 core just like on the GeForce 7800 GT video card. And now it becomes even more interesting, NVIDIA did a design refresh on their G70 core by optimizing and going for a 90nm manufacturing process. This gave us the introduction of the GeForce 7900 series based around the optimized G71 core with *24 pipelines and 8 vertex shaders* for both the GTX and GT version. Guess what, yeah indeed the G71 core is powering the Gainward BLISS 7800 GS+ AGP graphics card.



that would meant the 7800GS*+* 512mb is a 7900GTX not the older 7800GS 256mb edition which is based of the 7800GT as you said


----------



## zekrahminator (Nov 21, 2007)

...Why are you having a battle over video cards that are ancient news?


----------



## theonetruewill (Nov 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> i take it you didnt read the link
> that would meant the 7800GS*+* 512mb is a 7900GTX not the older 7800GS 256mb edition which is based of the 7800GT as you said



I think they're wrong, the Gainward Bliss 7800GS 512MB has only got 20 pipelines. Ahh I've just seen the one you're talking about I didn't think they'd got it right but I've read other articles; they released a second 512MB (yes the first one was also available with 512MB GDDR3 as well) 7900GT (it's not anywhere near GTX speeds) core based 7800GS. Firstly these cards were extremely rare, but secondly- do you really believe the 7900GT can destroy an X1950XT? I don't.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> Umm.... Are you sure you don't mean the Gainward 7800GS is a rebadged  7800GT.... It only has 20 pipelines, not 24 like the 7800GTX or 7900GTX.
> And the X1950XT AGP clearly defeats a rebadged 7800GT card... Sorry, but Nvidia is not the king of AGP, currently ATi is. Your argument about the X1950Pro not being anywhere near a 7900GTX is true, but slightly begins to lose merit when it's actually an X1950Pro vs 7800GT argument.



There is a 7950GT AGP card, it is supposed to be faster than the 1950Pro..................... although personally I cant confirm that or otherwise, the few bits I have read suggests it is

http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product...ce&trade;+7900&productConfigurationId=1006137


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 21, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Alot of those tests seemed VERY limited by the gpu.  q6600 and qx6800 scoring withing 2 fps....doesn't seem cpu bound by me.



I totally 1000% agree with you. I've had this discussion with Btarnr already. We can all agree to that. From 95% of the threads ive seen, the pubbers who are harshest on phenom stomp about "who gets better Fps in games".   

CPU, GPU, MOBO are the 3 main power horses for hard core gaming.

These benchies are done with an "iffy mobo, an "inferior" CPU, and a staple GPU used on all the tests for the phenom.


I really hope the next line of mobos can make a difference on the phenom overall. Im still convinced the mobo makers havent worked long enough with the phenomx4 since it was almost a completely remade,rehash  of their first quad project....


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> I think they're wrong, the Gainward Bliss 7800GS 512MB has only got 20 pipelines. Ahh I've just seen the one you're talking about I didn't think they'd got it right but I've read other articles; they released a second 512MB (yes the first one was also available with 512MB GDDR3 as well) 7900GT core based 7800GS. Firstly these cards were extremely rare, but secondly- do you really believe the 7900GT can destroy an X1950XT? I don't.



it hits 560mhz on stock core so its a full GTX 

and no i dont think a 7900GT can beat a X1950Xt but i was trying to prove btarunr wrong about the X1950PRO he posted which is killed by the 7900GT. they do have it right cause someone on this forum has the 24PP card and i saw the riva tuner pick showing 24pp enabled  if nibitor would have read his BIOS in and saved it i might even have been able to flash mine to that seeing how its also a G71 core and they have the simliar PCBs


----------



## theonetruewill (Nov 21, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> There is a 7950GT AGP card, it is supposed to be faster than the 1950Pro..................... although personally I cant confirm that or otherwise, the few bits I have read suggests it is
> 
> http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product...ce&trade;+7900&productConfigurationId=1006137



tatty, I wasn't saying that the X1950Pro was king, sorry I had a lot of structural problems with that post (i did about 5 edits, it wouldn't quote properly at all') I was merely at that point arguing that the X1950Pro beats a 7800GT. however this argument is largely redundant now. More importantly I myself believe the X1950XT to be a tad faster than the 7950GT but I agree that this could be somewhat hotly debated. However can you see the reasoning that a 7900GT core 7800GS does not make nVidia king of AGP?


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> tatty, I wasn't saying that the X1950Pro was king, sorry I had a lot of structural problems with that post (i did about 5 edits, it wouldn't quote properly at all') I was merely at that point arguing that the X1950Pro beats a 7800GT. however this argument is largely redundant now. More importantly I myself believe the X1950XT to be a tad faster than the 7950GT but I agree that this could be somewhat hotly debated. However can you see the reasoning that a 7900GT core 7800GS does not make nVidia king of AGP?



No worries, I was not suggesting U were, just posted for info 

I understand your point yes, there are tho 24pp 7800's albeit limited editions, mainstream you are prob right.


----------



## theonetruewill (Nov 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> it hits 560mhz on stock core so its a full GTX
> 
> and no i dont think a 7900GT can beat a X1950Xt but i was trying to prove btarunr wrong about the X1950PRO he posted which is killed by the 7900GT. they do have it right cause someone on this forum has the 24PP card and i saw the riva tuner pick showing 24pp enabled  if nibitor would have read his BIOS in and saved it i might even have been able to flash mine to that seeing how its also a G71 core and they have the simliar PCBs



The 7900GTX has a 650MHz core and 1.6GHz effective memory.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> tatty, I wasn't saying that the X1950Pro was king, sorry I had a lot of structural problems with that post (i did about 5 edits, it wouldn't quote properly at all') I was merely at that point arguing that the X1950Pro beats a 7800GT. however this argument is largely redundant now. More importantly I myself believe the X1950XT to be a tad faster than the 7950GT but I agree that this could be somewhat hotly debated. However can you see the reasoning that a 7900GT core 7800GS does not make nVidia king of AGP?



your correct i didnt see the post with the X1950XT i was pointing out that it was faster than the X1950PRO which it is in every way


----------



## theonetruewill (Nov 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> your correct i didnt see the post with the X1950XT i was pointing out that it was faster than the X1950PRO which it is in every way



I think we've reached a compromise - I misunderstood the second redesign of the Gainward 7800GS. Now so we don't both get infractions - I see the powerful spongy mitten of Zek snooping around - let's get this thread back on topic! I think it's supposed to be about Phenom's!


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

i like that idea and here is my view on that YEAH PHENOM...you better oc like a bat outta hell or AMD is going to flop


----------



## btarunr (Nov 22, 2007)

cdawall said:


> it hits 560mhz on stock core so its a full GTX
> 
> and no i dont think a 7900GT can beat a X1950Xt but i was trying to prove btarunr wrong about the X1950PRO he posted which is killed by the 7900GT. they do have it right cause someone on this forum has the 24PP card and i saw the riva tuner pick showing 24pp enabled  if nibitor would have read his BIOS in and saved it i might even have been able to flash mine to that seeing how its also a G71 core and they have the simliar PCBs



Are you sure you have a G71? I heard that some bathces of G71 has a laser-cut "quad". So the last quad of pixel-shaders are physically removed. If this works out with you, lemme know.

BTW does anyone know about when Phenom releases in the US markets?


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 23, 2007)

why isnt there a Roadmap from AMD?  

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_608,00.html

is it MY computer, or can anyone else see it?


----------



## btarunr (Nov 23, 2007)

VILLAIN_xx said:


> why isnt there a Roadmap from AMD?
> 
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_608,00.html
> 
> is it MY computer, or can anyone else see it?



Mine can't see it either. That's why I asked. I only see a "%REGION_1%". I tried both IE7 and FF2, no luck.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 23, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Count in percentages and add the fact that C2D is already being replaced with the next generation as well. Even though the difference isn't huge in it still shows AMD is still far behind.
> 
> Besides, a C2D costs less than those Phenoms and can be clocked far higher.




At this time yes they only just come out...  As a lot of us know AMD are playing catch up and as i have said in another post before it's like the R600 wait till the R700 i think this is the same with the new AMD Mobos but hey bug fixes and so forth might make them much better..

Kinda of subject i keep hearing that the 680i mobos will not support INTELS 45nm.  Is this true ?.  There fore you will have to buy a x48 mobo.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 23, 2007)

btarunr said:


> Are you sure you have a G71? I heard that some bathces of G71 has a laser-cut "quad". So the last quad of pixel-shaders are physically removed. If this works out with you, lemme know.
> 
> BTW does anyone know about when Phenom releases in the US markets?



yea about as sure as i can be without taking off the cooler 







it shouldnt be lazer cut its supposed to be a G71 GS core with the extra quad/rop shut off i just cant find a 7900GS agp BIOS or gainward bliss G71 bios either...


----------



## btarunr (Nov 23, 2007)

Thanks. You know? I have these two AGP cards made by Galaxy that are absolutely identical, (GeForce 6800 XT, 128M DDR 400). Only thing is they belong to two different manufacturing batches. One is a NV40, the other one is a NV42. I could easily un-mask the NV-40's 8 PP and 2 VP but I just couldn't do it with the NV42. A cousin said "NV42 has laser-cut two quads" Read this Wikipedia article and the 6800 chipset table and the laser-cutting foul play NVIDIA is upto


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 23, 2007)

I see the AMD roadmap link was posted earlier, here is Intels just for a comparison, it's not complete as there are a couple of chips due out next year that people are unsure of their designations, this one has prices too, for info for the guy above, ATM P35 and X38 boards support 45nm, P35's just upto 1333FSB....x38's upto 1600FSB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Yorkfield.22_.2845_nm.29


----------



## btarunr (Nov 24, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I see the AMD roadmap link was posted earlier, here is Intels just for a comparison, it's not complete as there are a couple of chips due out next year that people are unsure of their designations, this one has prices too, for info for the guy above, ATM P35 and X38 boards support 45nm, P35's just upto 1333FSB....x38's upto 1600FSB.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Yorkfield.22_.2845_nm.29



Thanks. I've got my eyes on the Core 2 Quad Q9300 already. But would I need to flash my BIOS before I could use that?

Check sys specs. Also is it really worth the upgrade from my current C2Q Q6600?

The Wolfdale E8400 looks a neat deal. And I was contemplating on buying a E6850 soon.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 24, 2007)

btarunr said:


> Thanks. I've got my eyes on the Core 2 Quad Q9300 already. But would I need to flash my BIOS before I could use that?
> 
> Check sys specs. Also is it really worth the upgrade from my current C2Q Q6600?
> 
> The Wolfdale E8400 looks a neat deal. And I was contemplating on buying a E6850 soon.



Your board supports 45nm CPU's so no worries there, all boards will need an update as they manufacturers have to add new chip designations to thier board support but the P35's are 45nm ready.  Why would you consider going from a Q6600 to a 6850?  You will get benefits from the 45nm Yorkfield Quads over the Wolfdale's, they should overclock better (should) but will do so on less power and therefore heat, and of course they have a higher FSB.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 24, 2007)

Yes, if you already have quad core, id just stick with it. How much are you considering paying more just for a 10-15% increase?  

Ive actualy been waiting for a decently priced mobo with all the bells and whistles from either Intel or AMD so i can upgrade to the Quad path when the prices arent too ugly for penryn or phenom (second revisions)...

 The X38 Asus P53 (i think thats what its model name, too lazy to double check) has big over clock potential and stability.  As for the AMD mobos, i might as well wait for a last time till January for the AMD790FX with the SB700.   If that SB700 doesnt pull through well, i might flop back over to the blue team if their price is within a 50 dollar spread of cost difference.

Ha, once the mobo is bought ill be fine with an entry dual core and over clock it till the Quad cores get dirt cheap when the Octo cores are introduced.


----------



## VILLAIN_xx (Nov 25, 2007)

btarunr said:


> Thanks. I've got my eyes on the Core 2 Quad Q9300 already. But would I need to flash my BIOS before I could use that?
> 
> Check sys specs. Also is it really worth the upgrade from my current C2Q Q6600?
> 
> The Wolfdale E8400 looks a neat deal. And I was contemplating on buying a E6850 soon.



oooo nice system specs.    that 700w 4x 12 rails is purdy too.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 25, 2007)

VILLAIN_xx said:


> oooo nice system specs.    that 700w 4x 12 rails is purdy too.



THANKS

But my system-case is an ugly-duckling, a 2004 CM Centurion. I've maintained the same case this long because it's proved to be lucky with my lan-parties. Changed three sets of hardware into this case. In the middle I'd chosen a CM Ammo, that year I was eliminated out of IGL (Indian Gamers' League) in round 1. Reverted back to the old case, PGL (Premier Gamers' League) Rank 1 (2006), PGL 2007 due next month. Every other LAN-party hosted by friends over the weekend, I get requests not to participate and be a server-admin (monitoring foul-play) instead....they're tired of monopoly by me .


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 25, 2007)

Am installing my new Gigabyte X38 DQ6 today


----------

