# REAL Phenom-II Benches!



## wolf2009 (Dec 17, 2008)

Beats both Corei7 940 and Qx9770 in Crysis. looks legit, and exciting time for AMD

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/asro...overclocking/Phenom_II_crysis-benchmark-8.htm

I think you guys forgot to check other pages of this review. this is a complete review

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/asro...I-X4-940-overclocking/Phenom_II_X4-info-1.htm


----------



## Dark_Webster (Dec 17, 2008)

I don't say that the benchmarks are right or not, but this new Phenom has got some overclocking capabilities.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

I get this. AMD wants to prove the point that that you can`t see the difference in real life only on benching. But in the same context you can compare Q6600 and latest phenom II and the Q6600 would loose by 2 frames and the conclusion is that PII is not worthy of buying. The birds on the trees know that to bench a cpu in game you have to use lower res and faster GPU so you wont bottleneck the CPU so you can mesure how much fps can serve the CPU. And they use a 4850 they should get a x1300 pro and then they can compare athlon x 2 5200+ to i7 and they didn`t even need to invent Phenom and Phenom II.
I love AMD and I want AMD to survive but that is only duable by providing quality product and not by miss leading consumers.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 17, 2008)

I dont think they are misleading consumers at all with the Phenom II. It's not much slower than a i7 rig and its much faster than a Q6600 from what I can see. It will cost the same as the Quad Yorkfield's which is the area AMD is looking to compete in. It's not a i7 competitor, it is a Yorkfield competitor and it is an awesome one at that. All the AM2+ owners right now are stoked to see some numbers. A 3.8GHz Quad Core on *air*? 50-55C full load temps? What else do you want!? That is an awesome processor.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

And 4GHz it is not enough. At stock 3.0 GHz PII is matching 2.66 GHz LGA 775 QUAD but to match 4 GHz LGA 775 QUAD it Phenom II needs to hit 4.6 GHz because of efficiency compared MHz to MHz. And it is PHENOMENAL how little extra performance additional cache of PII gives.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 17, 2008)

It really depends what your using your computer for. If your a person who is serious about encoding and rendering stuff you would go all out with an Intel rig and slaughter the rendering jobs with ease. If your a enthusiast on a budget who games, AMD is looking really nice right now. Gaming benchmark wise, it looks to be very promising. I don't give a crap that a 2.66 Yorkfield is faster than a PII at 3.0 in certain areas. If it can overclock to 3.8-4.0GHz on air, that tickles my insides and I'm immediately interested. I will be getting a Phenom II. I'm not a fanboy of any brand, I'm all about performance per dollar. I'm a gamer/enthusiast, and this new product from AMD is tickling my insides so much I'm giddy all the time. I'm really excited to get this processor... good bye 9600BE.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 17, 2008)

r9 said:


> And 4GHz it is not enough. At stock 3.0 GHz PII is matching 2.66 GHz LGA 775 QUAD but to match 4 GHz LGA 775 QUAD it Phenom II needs to hit 4.6 GHz because of efficiency compared MHz to MHz. And it is PHENOMENAL how little extra performance additional cache of PII gives.



core i7 is @2.83ghz 133.33*21 and the phenom is @3ghz so its not this 4.6 to 4ghz shit not to mention that you have to bring in scaling its not a linear equation.

the reason the added cache isn't a huge difference is the significantly BETTER mem controller on the chips.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

batmang said:


> It really depends what your using your computer for. If your a person who is serious about encoding and rendering stuff you would go all out with an Intel rig and slaughter the rendering jobs with ease. If your a enthusiast on a budget who games, AMD is looking really nice right now. Gaming benchmark wise, it looks to be very promising. I don't give a crap that a 2.66 Yorkfield is faster than a PII at 3.0 in certain areas. If it can overclock to 3.8-4.0GHz on air, that tickles my insides and I'm immediately interested. I will be getting a Phenom II. I'm not a fanboy of any brand, I'm all about performance per dollar. I'm a gamer/enthusiast, and this new product from AMD is tickling my insides so much I'm giddy all the time. I'm really excited to get this processor... good bye 9600BE.



From yours point of view all above Q6600 it is pointless.
Yes I agree that PII is step forward but in the same benchmark if they put E8400 a bet that it will closely match the other CPUs and what should we conclude that From yours point of view all above Q6600 it is pointless. . The point is that this benchmark is POINTLESS it shows nothing. The picture that substitutes 1 000 words that don`t mean a thing.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

cdawall said:


> core i7 is @2.83ghz 133.33*21 and the phenom is @3ghz so its not this 4.6 to 4ghz shit not to mention that you have to bring in scaling its not a linear equation.
> 
> the reason the added cache isn't a huge difference is the significantly BETTER mem controller on the chips.



This GHz to GHz is very simple shit you just should pay attention. 
PII is way way of in efficency even AMD prove that with THEIR OWN SLIDES they PERSONALY proved that PII at 3GHz is at same level as Q9XXX at 2.6 so it is not my point. For person that uses CPU at stock clocks it is OK product but what about all people here that we use ours CPU 24/7 OCed for the same money you chose PII capable of 4GHz (yet to be proven that CPU was not selected not to mention that AMD were promising Phenoms I at 3 GHz at even they show benches of those real PHANTOMS)  and Q9XXX capable of 4GHz and if we take in consideration lower efficency of PII 3GHz to match 2.66 I don`t see salvation for AMD.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

And yes if you have AM2+ board it makes sense to upgrade to PII but if AMD delivered first time what they promised you did not have to upgrade in the first place.


----------



## suraswami (Dec 17, 2008)

finally!


----------



## Melvis (Dec 17, 2008)

I think this just shows how crap the i7 is for gaming, you wouldn't buy that CPU if you wanted to game alot that's for sure. I also think even if the Phenom 2 was clocked at the same clock speed as the others the score would almost be the same anyway, we all know that higher clock speed will give you a little bit more performance in games, but not alot at all, ive tested alot of different clocked speed CPU's with the same GPU and most of the time the results come out near the same, if not a little in favour of the higher clocked CPU, but nothing that is like OMG, just a few frames.

Looks to me that its game on again for AMD, this means competition, which means the price of intel's Quads will drop


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 17, 2008)

r9 said:


> This GHz to GHz is very simple shit you just should pay attention.
> PII is way way of in efficency even AMD prove that with THEIR OWN SLIDES they PERSONALY proved that PII at 3GHz is at same level as Q9XXX at 2.6 so it is not my point. For person that uses CPU at stock clocks it is OK product but what about all people here that we use ours CPU 24/7 OCed for the same money you chose PII capable of 4GHz (yet to be proven that CPU was not selected not to mention that AMD were promising Phenoms I at 3 GHz at even they show benches of those real PHANTOMS)  and Q9XXX capable of 4GHz and if we take in consideration lower efficency of PII 3GHz to match 2.66 I don`t see salvation for AMD.



GHz to GHz is not simple shit, its all about the IPC's, not the GHz. I do agree with you about AMD not providing products they promised. I built a rig off the Spider platform and really do regret it at times. At the time however, it was cheaper to build an AMD rig so I went with it. I was hoping my 9600BE would overclock but it just doesn't. So you can understand why I'm so excited about the Phenom II. I think you'd have to be in my shoes to appreciate the Phenom II for what it is, and for what it has come from.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

batmang said:


> GHz to GHz is not simple shit, its all about the IPC's, not the GHz. I do agree with you about AMD not providing products they promised. I built a rig off the Spider platform and really do regret it at times. At the time however, it was cheaper to build an AMD rig so I went with it. I was hoping my 9600BE would overclock but it just doesn't. So you can understand why I'm so excited about the Phenom II. I think you'd have to be in my shoes to appreciate the Phenom II for what it is, and for what it has come from.



Doesn`t piss you off that you have to upgrade because AMD failed to meet their promises and you have to pay AMD second time for the thing you should get the first time.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

And nobody else seems to want to mention how many variables are involved in these benches. Not only is the fps difference well within the margin of error, but how do we know the Intels systems are as clean as the AMD one.

I think people are throwing up skewed results to generate web traffic. I'll wait for the official stuff. My guess is that PII is ever so slightly behind Yorkfield, clock for clock.

Oh, and I also wanted to point out, that on apps that do most of their work on 2 cpu threads, Core i7's HT can actually cause the scores to be lower, because the app is only accessing one physical core, and one logical, not 2 true cores. Turn off HT and the results would be much different for 2 thread apps.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 17, 2008)

r9 said:


> Doesn`t piss you off that you have to upgrade because AMD failed to meet their promises and you have to pay AMD second time for the thing you should get the first time.



It does to an extent. I can only blame myself for not going the Intel route. I saw the 9600BE benchmarks and knew what I was getting into. Its ultimately my mistake. I don't hate AMD.


----------



## Polarman (Dec 17, 2008)

Can't wait for full sets of benchies.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 17, 2008)

Dang, check you out Polarman. You're all dragon'ed out, hah. I bet your REALLY excited to get a Phenom II.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

Don`t get me wrong I`m no Intel FAN I`m just trying to be objective i didn`t not buy Phenom I but I still fill disapointed form the last Phenom. Let me put it this way if AMD and INTEL CPU are even in price and performance I would go 10 out of 10 with AMD.


----------



## Castiel (Dec 17, 2008)

That seems really sweet!


----------



## 3xploit (Dec 17, 2008)

wtf 18s pi 1m @ 3.8ghz? my 3.2ghz dual beats that lol


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 17, 2008)

Phenom I, at 3GHz, can score 10k in 3DMark vantage CPU test, Phenom II score the same at 3GHz, which mean there is no different clock vs clock.

Unfortunately, these benchmarks, didn't make me regret buying Core i7.

Same cores architectures, more cache, 45nm. Just like the name, Phenom II.

I expected it to be more effective than Phenom I, at least 10%, clock vs clock.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

Wile E said:


> And nobody else seems to want to mention how many variables are involved in these benches. Not only is the fps difference well within the margin of error, but how do we know the Intels systems are as clean as the AMD one.
> 
> I think people are throwing up skewed results to generate web traffic. I'll wait for the official stuff. My guess is that PII is ever so slightly behind Yorkfield, clock for clock.
> 
> Oh, and I also wanted to point out, that on apps that do most of their work on 2 cpu threads, Core i7's HT can actually cause the scores to be lower, because the app is only accessing one physical core, and one logical, not 2 true cores. Turn off HT and the results would be much different for 2 thread apps.


And to put this in further perspective, on my rig in Vantage, at 3.6GHz vs the PII's 3792, I score 14731 in the cpu portion, vs the PII's 11471. Slower clocks but still a higher score from my Yorkfield.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=602299


----------



## Darren (Dec 17, 2008)

r9 said:


> they PERSONALY proved that PII at 3GHz is at same level as Q9XXX at 2.6 so it is not my point.




NO!

They proved that the Phenom II performs equivalently to a processor for about £900 cheaper 


Phenom II 940: about £150-£200
Qx9770: £1,092.49

http://overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-217-IN



r9 said:


> Q9XXX capable of 4GHz and if we take in consideration lower efficiency of PII 3GHz to match 2.66 I don`t see salvation for AMD.



Qx9000 series are expensive, you need to be able to afford them before you could OC them to 4 GHz whether they made efficiency versions or not!


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

3xploit said:


> wtf 18s pi 1m @ 3.8ghz? my 3.2ghz dual beats that lol



That is my f***ing point.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

Darren said:


> NO!
> 
> They proved that the Phenom II performs equivalently to a processor for about £900 cheaper
> 
> ...


Q9400 is $270, which is the price range the PII's are reported to be launching in.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

AMD are trying to convince as that they chose to build cheap processors. No when the processor can`t deliver the goods it becomes a cheap ass CPU . That was not their strategy for sure, why back in the days with FX series don`t sold them cheep.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

Another point, it hits 3.8GHz on air. Most Yorkfields hit 4GHz+ on air.


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 17, 2008)

*People*, this is not the time to discuss what can beat what with what Ghz. 

This is the time to celebrate AMD's return to competitiveness in the processor market. If AMD can match the Core i7, Intel's latest technology with their 3 year old tried and tested K8 derivative (If I am not wrong, K10.5 is a derivative of K8) , Imagine what AMD will bring when they renew their architecture. 

This will certainly force Intel to stop the sandbagging and dictate terms to market, like they are doing with different sockets in the X58 and X55 mobo's. WTF, you HAVE to buy mobo that costs than $200 to pair it with a processor that costs more than $250 ? , why can't you make a technology to pair a $250 processor with a $70 G53 motherboard, like you could do with the G33 chipset and Quads


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> *People*, this is not the time to discuss what can beat what with what Ghz.
> 
> This is the time to celebrate AMD's return to competitiveness in the processor market. If AMD can match the Core i7, Intel's latest technology with their 3 year old tried and tested K8 derivative (If I am not wrong, K10.5 is a derivative of K8) , Imagine what AMD will bring when they renew their architecture.
> 
> This will certainly force Intel to stop the sandbagging and dictate terms to market, like they are doing with different sockets in the X58 and X55 mobo's. WTF, you have to buy mobo that costs than $200 to pair it with a processor that costs more than $250 ?



But that's just the point, these aren't competitive. They are still behind.


----------



## Castiel (Dec 17, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> *People*, this is not the time to discuss what can beat what with what Ghz.
> 
> This is the time to celebrate AMD's return to competitiveness in the processor market. If AMD can match the Core i7, Intel's latest technology with their 3 year old tried and tested K8 derivative (If I am not wrong, K10.5 is a derivative of K8) , Imagine what AMD will bring when they renew their architecture.
> 
> This will certainly force Intel to stop the sandbagging and dictate terms to market, like they are doing with different sockets in the X58 and X55 mobo's. WTF, you HAVE to buy mobo that costs than $200 to pair it with a processor that costs more than $250 ? , why can't you make a technology to pair a $250 processor with a $70 G53 motherboard, like you could do with the G33 chipset and Quads



I totally agree with yeah man. 
I'm and mostly glad that AMD has some products that will bring back and beat the competition.


----------



## r9 (Dec 17, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Q9400 is $270, which is the price range the PII's are reported to be launching in.



Price don`t mean a thing. In about 2 sec Intel can and will match the price. I read some where even 6 moths ago Intel can afford to sell Q6600 at below 100$ and make a profit. The only reason that C2D are that long on market because AMD cant deliver and Intel will have no problem of saleing quads on price of duals. Intel have a choice of killing AMD and be a bad guy or make a large profit and keeping AMD alive so they messure to AMD.
Never before Intel had design and manufacturing advance at the same time.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

r9 said:


> Price don`t mean a thing. In about 2 sec Intel can and will match the price. I read some where even 6 moths ago Intel can afford to sell Q6600 at below 100$ and make a profit. The only reason that C2D are that long on market because AMD cant deliver and Intel will have no problem of saleing quads on price of duals. Intel have a choice of killing AMD and be a bad guy or make a large profit and keeping AMD alive so they messure to AMD.
> Never before Intel had design and manufacturing advance at the same time.



Yeah, The point I was trying to make is that his argument is already obsolete, let alone if Intel decide to reduce prices further.


----------



## Evo85 (Dec 17, 2008)

The fanboism on both sides in this thread is STAGGERING!! 

Relax guys and gals. CPU's arent personal....... (Unless you have one physically attached to you. )


----------



## Damian^ (Dec 17, 2008)

Wile E said:


> But that's just the point, these aren't competitive. They are still behind.


Somehow I doubt people will even care since there is minimal (by that i mean anything that can meet the eye of visible increase or decrease in performance) , I think the Phenom II's are going to sell like crazy. 

Just my two cents.

EDIT: I agree with Evo, it seems like there always has to be fanoyism in the house. *Please can someone explain to me why people are fanboy's!* i want to know right now lol 
Anyways i also agree with wolf's post this is not meant to be a debate but more of a "Good to see AMD caught up"


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

Evo85 said:


> The fanboism on both sides in this thread is STAGGERING!!
> 
> Relax guys and gals. CPU's arent personal....... (Unless you have one physically attached to you. )



I own AMD as well. It's just that Intel is the more powerful cpu, and it looks as tho it will remain that way with the launch of PII.


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 17, 2008)

They are on par with i7's, why would anyone complain? They are cheaper too so I sure can't!


----------



## Darren (Dec 17, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Q9400 is $270, which is the price range the PII's are reported to be launching in.



Which is why the Phenoms IIs pricing is on track to the point where it can still be equivalent in performance with Intel's Q-series CPUs, yet still be moderately cheaper.

Q9400 is around £215.00 in the UK, a fair bit more than the quotes for the Phenom II 940. I would like to see some proper benchmarks, Crysis is not a proper benchmark, and I do not care what Super-PI says. I want encoding and video rendering!




Wile E said:


> But that's just the point, these aren't competitive. They are still behind.



The Phenom II are on par and *cheaper* than the competition, just the cheaper factor alone can be a definition of competition 

r9, I think you are coming off as a fan boy now. Everything you say is some form of AMD negativity


----------



## Wile E (Dec 17, 2008)

Darren said:


> Which is why the Phenoms IIs pricing is on track to the point where it can still be equivalent in performance with Intel's Q-series CPUs, yet still be moderately cheaper.
> 
> Q9400 is around £215.00 in the UK, a fair bit more than the quotes for the Phenom II 940. I would like to see some proper benchmarks, Crysis is not a proper benchmark, and I do not care what Super-PI says. I want encoding and video rendering!
> 
> ...


The cheaper argument means nothing. Intel can easily lower their prices when AMD comes to market with these, and Intel has the ability to lower the prices much further than AMD could ever do without incurring losses.

The price to performance of current Phenoms isn't up to standard, and I doubt PII will be either. The current Yorkfield quads are so expensive because nothing AMD makes can compete with them in performance. When you have no real competitors in a segment, you set the prices as you see fit. When the competition does come, prices will plummet, completely removing any perceived price to performance ratio AMD would have.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 17, 2008)

Darren said:


> Which is why the Phenoms IIs pricing is on track to the point where it can still be equivalent in performance with Intel's Q-series CPUs, yet still be moderately cheaper.
> 
> Q9400 is around £215.00 in the UK, a fair bit more than the quotes for the Phenom II 940. I would like to see some proper benchmarks, Crysis is not a proper benchmark, and I do not care what Super-PI says. I want encoding and video rendering!
> 
> ...



Put in a Q6600 at 3GHz, and these benchmarks become.... bs

They all would perform the same.

Crysis is not optimized for multi-core/thread. And no one bought Core i7 for gaming, because a E8400 would do a nice job at lower price.

And, if there is a application that can use up to 8 threads, than I'm sure, there will be a different, even with the Yorkfield.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 17, 2008)

Why does Intel make it so the new processors have to have a new mobo and therefore add more $$ to the price of a system?? Andwer: Intel simply wants to make people spend more money so Intel can make more money. AMD is making new processors that are backward compatible with olde mobos and the whole CPU plus mobo system is much CHEAPER than the Intel choice and the new AMD CPU's perform well, as do the B3 core Phenoms and even the B2's to a lesser degree. Therefore, AMD should soon start making a profit and in the meantime is doing people a favor by making affordable CPU's that perform well and cost less and are backward compatible with older mobos. AMD is also doing well in the server CPU market. This is very good strategy and also a boon to consumers.

Same for video cards, NVIDI 8000 and up cards are not compatible with many older games where as ATI video cards are.

Another point, in gaming for instance, what difference does it make if an Intel system can do 150FPS or 80FPS and an AMD system do 120FPS or 60FPS respectively?? Answer is none whatsoever since the difference in FPS is not noticeable at all to the human eye.

Video rendering, CAD and number crunching on a professional basis is a different story and here is where speed is of greater importance but perhaps not always the deciding factor.

Chris


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 17, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Same for video cards, NVIDI 8000 and up cards are not compatible with many older games where as ATI video cards are.



wat


----------



## christof139 (Dec 17, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> wat



Absolutely true, particularily with Medieval Total War 1, which NVIDIA 8000 series and up cards cannot run but newer ATI cards can run. There are also some other examples of this.

Chris


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 17, 2008)

Isn't intel going to the 35nm process Q3-Q4 of 09??? If so then AMD's PII won't be competing for long.


----------



## Darren (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The cheaper argument means nothing. Intel can easily lower their prices when AMD comes to market with these, and Intel has the ability to lower the prices much further than AMD could ever do without incurring losses. .


Perhaps, but until Intel lower their prices we do not have to cross that road yet, as it stands today Phenoms are cheaper, Phenom II quotes are cheaper. When Intel lowers their prices, I will re-evaluate what I said.




Wile E said:


> The price to performance of current Phenoms isn't up to standard, and I doubt PII will be either. The current Yorkfield quads are so expensive because nothing AMD makes can compete with them in performance.


With the current Phenoms B3 price to performance is geographical. Here in the UK a Q6600 is £148 however the Phenom 9950 is £138, only a small amount but once you put on motherboard costs the AMD build is a lot cheaper.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/131950
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/150466



kid41212003 said:


> Put in a Q6600 at 3GHz, and these benchmarks become.... bs
> 
> They all would perform the same.
> 
> ...



I agree that is why I said I want to see encoding and video rendering 


christof139,

I agree I do not have money to be buying new sockets whenever Intel decides for little improvements in the applications I use most (games).

Edit:

Even in the high-mid range market:

E8200 2.66Ghz @ £140
E7200 2.53GHz @ £102
AMD Phenom X3 8750 @ £99

If it means having a cheaper processor without expensive motherboard costs I'm going X3 everytime. The cost argument is still valid.

Edit 2:



Wile E said:


> Another point, it hits 3.8GHz on air. Most Yorkfields hit 4GHz+ on air.



But you are paying a lot more for the pleasure of hitting 4 GHz with the Yokfields


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

Die shrinkage usually affects heat generation the most and there actually isn't too much difference between 65nm and 45nm and 35nm, they are all rather on the nano-smallish power efficiency and less heat generated side of things.

Problem is, as dies shrinks the intitial cost of the products using the shrunk dies is usually high.

I own both AMD and Intel systems and appreciate all the new designs and models and the competition because competitin can keep prices lower. Benchmarking fanaticism I could care less about except as an occasional fun thing to do that may give some good info., but real world tests are better for deriving info. on a CPU and/or system's performance.

Chris


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

"Originally Posted by kid41212003  
Put in a Q6600 at 3GHz, and these benchmarks become.... bs

They all would perform the same.

Crysis is not optimized for multi-core/thread. And no one bought Core i7 for gaming, because a E8400 would do a nice job at lower price.

And, if there is a application that can use up to 8 threads, than I'm sure, there will be a different, even with the Yorkfield."

Funny, I thought Crysis was made for multicore CPU threading, at least for dual cores but I also thought for quad cores????

Chris


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> "Originally Posted by kid41212003
> Put in a Q6600 at 3GHz, and these benchmarks become.... bs
> 
> They all would perform the same.
> ...



No Crysis is not multithreaded. I think Warhead is. I don't know why they didn't test that tho.. Its still only a 5 hour game. We need Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty 4, etc, you know, games people actually play.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 18, 2008)

What about this test makes it look legitimate? Who did the test? What were the MBs? Where are the pretty graphs? 1 FPS in Crysis somehow shows cpu competition? Sorry, but this is a mis-labeled thread.

It would be a fine day if PII competes w/ Core i7, but this says nothing.


----------



## HTC (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> *The cheaper argument means nothing.* Intel can easily lower their prices when AMD comes to market with these, and Intel has the ability to lower the prices much further than AMD could ever do without incurring losses.
> 
> The price to performance of current Phenoms isn't up to standard, and I doubt PII will be either. The current Yorkfield quads are so expensive because nothing AMD makes can compete with them in performance. *When you have no real competitors in a segment, you set the prices as you see fit. When the competition does come, prices will plummet, completely removing any perceived price to performance ratio AMD would have.*



Even if cheaper means nothing to Intel, it *does mean something to us buyers*, and that's *all that matters*.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

Im glad for AMD


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Dec 18, 2008)

r9 said:


> I get this. AMD wants to prove the point that that you can`t see the difference in real life only on benching. But in the same context you can compare Q6600 and latest phenom II and the Q6600 would loose by 2 frames and the conclusion is that PII is not worthy of buying. The birds on the trees know that to bench a cpu in game you have to use lower res and faster GPU so you wont bottleneck the CPU so you can mesure how much fps can serve the CPU. And they use a 4850 they should get a x1300 pro and then they can compare athlon x 2 5200+ to i7 and they didn`t even need to invent Phenom and Phenom II.
> I love AMD and I want AMD to survive but that is only duable by providing quality product and not by miss leading consumers.



AMD didn't run the test... And almost all CPU benches are done this way, that way might be better, but this is how they are done Intel or AMD. So really a two way street there. Assuming all proc's had that same vid card, same settings in game and close mem timings it should show a decent result either way.


----------



## J-Man (Dec 18, 2008)

Intel > AMD.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 18, 2008)

3xploit said:


> wtf 18s pi 1m @ 3.8ghz? my 3.2ghz dual beats that lol



My X3350 at 3.8GHz does better. It gets like 13s.


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 18, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> What about this test makes it look legitimate? Who did the test? What were the MBs? Where are the pretty graphs? 1 FPS in Crysis somehow shows cpu competition? Sorry, but this is a mis-labeled thread.
> 
> It would be a fine day if PII competes w/ Core i7, but this says nothing.



read the title in the browser or the first page . 

Pretty graphs do not make a review legit.

I think you guys forgot to check other pages of this review. this is a complete review

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/asro...I-X4-940-overclocking/Phenom_II_X4-info-1.htm


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Evo85 said:


> The fanboism on both sides in this thread is STAGGERING!!
> 
> Relax guys and gals. CPU's arent personal....... (Unless you have one physically attached to you. )



You Do, its called Your Brain, altho some lead us to think they don't have one because of their blind arguing.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 18, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> read the title in the browser or the first page .
> 
> Pretty graphs do not make a review legit.
> 
> ...



I didn't realize there was more there, silly me. I'm interested as to how these guys can release info like this when seemingly others can't even throw out a superpi score.  Other than a couple of game benches though they say: "Looks like the higher end Intel processors still outperform the new Phenom II X4 940 by almost 18% if we compare Phenom II X4 vs Core i7." Honestly, at their current projected prices, that's not very exciting, but interesting though and hey there is still time.....


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Absolutely true, particularily with Medieval Total War 1, which NVIDIA 8000 series and up cards cannot run but newer ATI cards can run. There are also some other examples of this.
> 
> Chris



Medieval Total War runs just fine on my 8800GT. I don't know what you are talking about.

As far as changing sockets, what about socket 939 on the AMD side? Both companies are guilty of making you change boards.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Medieval Total War runs just fine on my 8800GT. I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> As far as changing sockets, what about socket 939 on the AMD side? Both companies are guilty of making you change boards.



754, 939, AM2, 940, etc ...


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> Perhaps, but until Intel lower their prices we do not have to cross that road yet, as it stands today Phenoms are cheaper, Phenom II quotes are cheaper. When Intel lowers their prices, I will re-evaluate what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can get a board for Intel just as cheap as AMD. That point is completely moot. For any mid to high AMD build you come up with, I can build an Intel rig for the same price, and likely more performance, especially if you factor in OCing.



HTC said:


> Even if cheaper means nothing to Intel, it *does mean something to us buyers*, and that's *all that matters*.



But it *isn't* cheaper to go AMD in the mid to high range.


----------



## BrooksyX (Dec 18, 2008)

This is great news for everyone! If AMD starts to compete well with intel again the prices should greatly drop and that sounds good to me.


----------



## r9 (Dec 18, 2008)

The thing is that AMD is not delivering at all.
Delivering is what ATI did in 1/2 of silicon compared to NVidia they managed to  be competitive. That is delivering even if still GTX 280 is the fastest single GPU. And that L3 is waste of silicone if AMD were not lazy they could add new instructions not just add extra cache and waste valuable core space compared to intel intel`s large cache works combined with integrated memory controler.
For comparation 48XX was build with intention of not being the fastest but price performance winner. That is expected when you decide to build 3 times smaller core. Phenom II has nothing to do with that it is build to be the best that AMD can offer. And what AMD can offer is 2 years old techology.


----------



## r9 (Dec 18, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> 754, 939, AM2, 940, etc ...



Intel had 478 LGA 775 the new socket don`t even count compared to AMD is like future technology.
And AMD for athlons had Socket A 754 939 AM2 AM2+ and if you want to take in to account latest intel socket than we add AM3. That is 6:3. Count it how you like that is a fact.


----------



## r9 (Dec 18, 2008)

And all of you that are chearing yey yey we don`t have to change mobo if you went intel you did not have to chanege the CPU in the first place.
And can say free that all of phenom owners are AMD fans ( or miss informed at the time or in general )only hard core AMD fans can chose product that lost in all categories that half of them were invented by AMD when they were in front.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 18, 2008)

r9 said:


> Intel had 478 LGA 775 the new socket don`t even count compared to AMD is like future technology.
> And AMD for athlons had Socket A 754 939 AM2 AM2+ and if you want to take in to account latest intel socket than we add AM3. That is 6:3. Count it how you like that is a fact.



Umm i think intel has had a few more then just 3? they have had Skt 7, 370, 423, 478, 479, 437, 775, and 1366 as far as i can count, that means they have had more then AMD.


----------



## Darren (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You can get a board for Intel just as cheap as AMD. That point is completely moot. For any mid to high AMD build you come up with, I can build an Intel rig for the same price, and likely more performance, especially if you factor in OCing.



I have already said that its geographical, in the UK it's cheaper to build an AMD rig. If you are lucky you can find a Intel motherboard for as cheap as an AMD motherboard if there is a promotion, but under normal conditions we can buy a decent AMD motherboard for as little as £30-45, Intel motherboards of the same specification tend to be £40-80.

Just because you can put a build together in the US doesn't mean the prices correlate to UK prices, in the US everything is dirt cheap.

Edit:



r9 said:


> only hard core AMD fans can chose product that lost in all categories that half of them were invented by AMD when they were in front.



No, Phenom I/II users win in the price category.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Medieval Total War runs just fine on my 8800GT. I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> As far as changing sockets, what about socket 939 on the AMD side? Both companies are guilty of making you change boards.



Try Medieval Total-Viking Invasion ONE, not TWO. METW-VI ONE WILL NOT run on NVIDIA 8000 series and above processors. This is a well known fact at the Total War forums and people there have tried everything to get 8000's to run, and I tried five 8000 models and it is a real mess. 

METW TWO will run on NVIDIA 8000 and above cards but METW-VI ONE will not. (VI = Viking Invasion, the expansion to METW1.)

The new Intel processors will not run on the old 775 sockets and mobos but the new AMD Socket AM3 processors will run on the old AM2+ sockets (and maybe AM2 sockets) I do believe, but at a reduced HT frequency and with only DDR2 memory, just as the present Phenoms made for AM2+ sockets will run on the previous AM2 sockets at a reduced HT freqency. To use DDR3 you will need an AM3 mobo, but there isn't much difference between high end DDR2 and DDR3, just as there isn't much difference between DDR2 800MHz vs. DDR2 1066MHZ and 1333MHz.  That is what I mean.

Chris


----------



## Melvis (Dec 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> I have already said that its geographical, in the UK it's cheaper to build an AMD rig. If you are lucky you can find a Intel motherboard for as cheap as an AMD motherboard if there is a promotion, but under normal conditions we can buy a decent AMD motherboard for as little as £30-45, Intel motherboards of the same specification tend to be £40-80.
> 
> Just because you can put a build together in the US doesn't mean the prices correlate to UK prices, in the US everything is dirt cheap.




I agree there, over here in Australia the parts for a Intel machine are alot more expensive to build. Like AMD's most powerful Dual core CPU is about the same amount as the slowest C2D, and Mobo's are always more expensive as well, like 50-100 dollars more , and that's making sure that the mobo is a GOOD mobo with lots of extras on it.

There just lucky everything over there is cheaper, if it was the same here, then yea id build more intel machines, but its just not the case .


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> I have already said that its geographical, in the UK it's cheaper to build an AMD rig. If you are lucky you can find a Intel motherboard for as cheap as an AMD motherboard if there is a promotion, but under normal conditions we can buy a decent AMD motherboard for as little as £30-45, Intel motherboards of the same specification tend to be £40-80.
> 
> Just because you can put a build together in the US doesn't mean the prices correlate to UK prices, in the US everything is dirt cheap.
> 
> ...


Ahh, I missed the geographical bit. Yeah, you guys get screwed over there. But over here, both AMD and Intel cost roughly the same, but you get more performance out of Intel, especially when OCing. Stock vs stock, it all remains relatively equal.

The problem with PII is, if it does not compare to the similarly priced Intel when OCed, the enthusiast community will raise hell, and hurt AMD's sales yet again, ala PI.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Umm i think intel has had a few more then just 3? they have had Skt 7, 370, 423, 478, 479, 437, 775, and 1366 as far as i can count, that means they have had more then AMD.



We are talking for the same period of time .. so that the comparison makes sense .. and not be some one sided rant.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 18, 2008)

I like my X58 board, Intel Raid Matrix Storage is superb. Triple Channel DDR3 is awesome.
And Support for both SLI and Crossfire. What else can I ask for? I'm in love with this mainboard.

The fact that AMD cpu architecture isn't change much since socket 939, which is understandable why they kept supporting old mobo.

P4 -> Core 2 -> Core i7, major architecture change. Beside, I got an old mobo + Phenom 9750, it's not that great to use a new CPU with a old mobo.

It's better just to get a new mobo with new chipset, which fully support the new CPU.

It's strange that it couldn't run that game, because I played FF6 and FF7 with my 8800GT, and it's just fine, lolz.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Try Medieval Total-Viking Invasion ONE, not TWO. METW-VI ONE WILL NOT run on NVIDIA 8000 series and above processors. This is a well known fact at the Total War forums and people there have tried everything to get 8000's to run, and I tried five 8000 models and it is a real mess.
> 
> METW TWO will run on NVIDIA 8000 and above cards but METW-VI ONE will not. (VI = Viking Invasion, the expansion to METW1.)
> 
> ...


I did have Medievil Total War 1 on my AMD rig.

As far as the upgrade path, even some of the AM2 board do not support the current Phenoms due to vendor support. It happens. Any Intel chipset from 975X and on can take current cpus, vendor dependent. 680i is the only relatively recent intel chipset that cannot take current cpus, and that's nVidia's fault, not Intel's.

AMD pulled the same socket switch that Intel is now with the 939 days. Top end on 939, bottom end on 754. Then when AM2 released, they abruptly dumped them.

AMD is no better than Intel in this respect. And while they may be focusing on retaining backwards compatibility now, don't you think that may have a bit to do with their cpus not being up to snuff with Intel? Seems like a wasted resource to me when you are this far behind. That development money would be better spent elsewhere. I know I'm sure willing to upgrade a board if there are perceivable benefits to doing so.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

r9 said:


> The thing is that AMD is not delivering at all.
> Delivering is what ATI did in 1/2 of silicon compared to NVidia they managed to  be competitive. That is delivering even if still GTX 280 is the fastest single GPU. And that L3 is waste of silicone if AMD were not lazy they could add new instructions not just add extra cache and waste valuable core space compared to intel intel`s large cache works combined with integrated memory controler.
> For comparation 48XX was build with intention of not being the fastest but price performance winner. That is expected when you decide to build 3 times smaller core. Phenom II has nothing to do with that it is build to be the best that AMD can offer. And what AMD can offer is 2 years old techology.



Not completely true. Benches and real world performance show that AMD processors perform well but do not overclock as well as Intel but most people could care less about OCing and are interested in price, good solid performance, power savings (and here we know that this is different from CPU to CPU and Intel has a lead here for the main). IOTW, if you can buy an AMD 5400+ lack Edition and simply change the multiplier to 15.5 or 16 on stock volts with a stock AMD cooler and get the same performance as an Intel E8400 stock, why spend the extra $50 to $100 bucks (or whatever) to buy an E8400 when the 5400+ BE costs from $66 to $80??? So, you can OC a E8400 much more but it is not as simple as with the 5400+ BE and most people won't bother OCing either the AMD or Intel, and at stock speed of 2.8GHz the 5400+ BE runs just fine. With the money saved a person can get a better mobo and/or a better video card.

The technology of AMD is about the same technology that Intel has just released in their new CPU's and is actually more advanced than the Intel Core 2 line. What is giving AMD problems is the fact that they have not yet began to use hafnium or simialr metal gateways in their silicon as Intel has done for 2-years now, and this micro architechture is what actually made the Intel Core 2 line so good and effective and not Intel's Core 2 macro architecture whixh was more primitive than AMD's macro architechture used in the Athalon X2 and the Phenom I series.

AMD has hinted that they hope to have a metal in their silicon by 2010, but in the meantime they make good solid processors that perform well and are cheaper and more backwards compatible than Intel processors.

I own both brands of CPUs and like them both, and wish that these new AMD CPU's will be good and it seems they will be and this competition will drive the prices of all the CPU's down a bit, making them a bit more CHEAP and available to more people. 

Chris


----------



## Melvis (Dec 18, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> We are talking for the same period of time .. so that the comparison makes sense .. and not be some one sided rant.



Ahhh ok my bad, understood 

Move on


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Not completely true. Benches and real world performance show that AMD processors perform well but do not overclock as well as Intel but most people could care less about OCing and are interested in price, good solid performance, power savings (and here we know that this is different from CPU to CPU and Intel has a lead here for the main). IOTW, if you can buy an AMD 5400+ lack Edition and simply change the multiplier to 15.5 or 16 on stock volts with a stock AMD cooler and get the same performance as an Intel E8400 stock, why spend the extra $50 to $100 bucks (or whatever) to buy an E8400 when the 5400+ BE costs from $66 to $80??? So, you can OC a E8400 much more but it is not as simple as with the 5400+ BE and most people won't bother OCing either the AMD or Intel, and at stock speed of 2.8GHz the 5400+ BE runs just fine. With the money saved a person can get a better mobo and/or a better video card.
> 
> The technology of AMD is about the same technology that Intel has just released in their new CPU's and is actually more advanced than the Intel Core 2 line. What is giving AMD problems is the fact that they have not yet began to use hafnium or simialr metal gateways in their silicon as Intel has done for 2-years now, and this micro architechture is what actually made the Intel Core 2 line so good and effective and not Intel's Core 2 macro architecture whixh was more primitive than AMD's macro architechture used in the Athalon X2 and the Phenom I series.
> 
> ...


The metal technologies in the Intel cpus do not account for their IPC advantage. It accounts for their OCing and power profiles.

The pipeline design of the chip is what dictates it's IPC advantage. Along with branch prediction, cache routines, etc. Quite simply, Intel is still ahead there.

And if AMD keep just rehashing the old K8 design until 2010, they are digging their own grave. it is outdated.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I did have Medievil Total War 1 on my AMD rig.
> 
> As far as the upgrade path, even some of the AM2 board do not support the current Phenoms due to vendor support. It happens. Any Intel chipset from 975X and on can take current cpus, vendor dependent. 680i is the only relatively recent intel chipset that cannot take current cpus, and that's nVidia's fault, not Intel's.
> 
> ...



METWVI ONE will not run on NVIDIA 8000 series cards. I can if I want to give you the links to prove this to you. It is complete BS that METWVI ONE will run on any NVIDIA 8000 series and above video card. The troops move opposite to where you order them to go, the screen is all screwed-up, and with tweaks at best you can use the little overview screen to try and control your toops but that is a complete flop. There is a ton of info. available about this at the two well known METW and RTW mod sites.

Yes, some of the AM2 boards will not support the present Phenom CPU's but many do. I know what you mean about the jump from 754 to 939 and 940, but Intel made many more socket changes than AMD and many people have complained about this.

AMD is not that far behind Intel by any means, and the Opterons still are faster in the server market than the Intel Xeons. Fastest computers in the world are Opterons.

Many people and businesses are satisfied with the present line of AMD CPU's just as many are satisfied with Intel CPU's, just as in the past many people were satisfied with the slower Intel Prescotts and many people were not and liked the AMD Athlons better, same for the slow Intel PD's compared to the better Athlon X2's.

The more the merrier seems also to make for the better and CHEAPER. 

Chris


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

r9 said:


> This GHz to GHz is very simple shit you just should pay attention.
> PII is way way of in efficency even AMD prove that with THEIR OWN SLIDES they PERSONALY proved that PII at 3GHz is at same level as Q9XXX at 2.6 so it is not my point. For person that uses CPU at stock clocks it is OK product but what about all people here that we use ours CPU 24/7 OCed for the same money you chose PII capable of 4GHz (yet to be proven that CPU was not selected not to mention that AMD were promising Phenoms I at 3 GHz at even they show benches of those real PHANTOMS)  and Q9XXX capable of 4GHz and if we take in consideration lower efficency of PII 3GHz to match 2.66 I don`t see salvation for AMD.



i should pay attention check my previous rigs i have run both AMD and intel do you think maybe just maybe i have scaling figured out? you cant compare ghz to ghz the way you are.


and why do you think i got thanks for my post? maybne because its wrong lol. click my HWBOT if you dont believe me


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The metal technologies in the Intel cpus do not account for their IPC advantage. It accounts for their OCing and power profiles.
> 
> The pipeline design of the chip is what dictates it's IPC advantage. Along with branch prediction, cache routines, etc. Quite simply, Intel is still ahead there.
> 
> And if AMD keep just rehashing the old K8 design until 2010, they are digging their own grave. it is outdated.



Yeah, and the metal gateways have a lot to do with the speed of info. transfer. I bet there is not that much difference at all except for the metal in the silicon, and if there was than the AMD chips would be very poor performers and they are not.  AMD has also made other as of now unknown changes and tweaks to the arcitecture and probably coding, but they have not realeased any info. other than stating they did this and tests are showing this to be true. If someone wants to spend over $1,000 for a CPU that only performs 10% - maybe 20% faster and sometimes the same % as a sub $300 or $200 chip then that is their perogative, as I and most people would rather do something else more worthwhile with my money.

Chris


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> METWVI ONE will not run on NVIDIA 8000 series cards. I can if I want to give you the links to prove this to you. It is complete BS that METWVI ONE will run on any NVIDIA 8000 series and above video card. The troops move opposite to where you order them to go, the screen is all screwed-up, and with tweaks at best you can use the little overview screen to try and control your toops but that is a complete flop. There is a ton of info. available about this at the two well known METW and RTW mod sites.
> 
> Yes, some of the AM2 boards will not support the present Phenom CPU's but many do. I know what you mean about the jump from 754 to 939 and 940, but Intel made many more socket changes than AMD and many people have complained about this.
> 
> ...


My brother played completely thru METW1 on my AMD rig, which has a Palit 8800GT 1GB in it. Now, I don't play RTS games, so I don't know if that's Viking Invasion or what, but it is METW1. I just went down and checked the case. So that said, if we are even talking about the same game (which I'm not too sure we are), that situation is not a 100% repeatable one.

And as far as this AMD vs Intel thing, AMD's market share has been steadily declining since the release of Core 2. This is because of the enthusiast community. We may not account for the majority of sales, but we are the most vocal, and normal people see this, and it sways their decisions. AMD cannot afford to lose much more market share, so if PII is not able to clock as high, or cannot achieve the same price to performance as Intel, it's going to hurt them, even tho it wouldn't matter to normal users, the enthusiasts would bring the sales of PII down.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

> The technology of AMD is about the same technology that Intel has just released in their new CPU's and is actually more advanced than the Intel Core 2 line. What is giving AMD problems is the fact that they have not yet began to use hafnium or simialr metal gateways in their silicon as Intel has done for 2-years now, and this micro architechture is what actually made the Intel Core 2 line so good and effective and not Intel's Core 2 macro architecture whixh was more primitive than AMD's macro architechture used in the Athalon X2 and the Phenom I series.



christ, care to go deeper into this?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Yeah, and the metal gateways have a lot to do with the speed of info. transfer. I bet there is not that much difference at all except for the metal in the silicon, and if there was than the AMD chips would be very poor performers and they are not.  AMD has also made other as of now unknown changes and tweaks to the arcitecture and probably coding, but they have not realeased any info. other than stating they did this and tests are showing this to be true. If someone wants to spend over $1,000 for a CPU that only performs 10% - maybe 20% faster and sometimes the same % as a sub $300 or $200 chip then that is their perogative, as I and most people would rather do something else more worthwhile with my money.
> 
> Chris


Metal gateways have everything to do with achievable frequencies (thus the OCing comment) and the amount of power used. It has nothing to do with the fact that Intel does 4 IPC and AMD only does 3. That has everything to do with pipeline structure.

And compared to Intel, AMD is poor performing. Most people just don't need the extra processing power for mundane everyday tasks, so they'd never notice. People that do use their cpus to the extent of their abilities notice the difference very quickly. My old E6600 at 3.2GHz completely embarrassed my 6000+ at 3.5GHz. At the time, they both cost within $15 of each other.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

This seems to be a 1 Sided Topic which Intel Users are Speaking so i say the thread should be locked down, anyone agree?:shadedshu

Im going to say this right now I'm getting tired of the filibustering Intel users are doing, I mean ya Intel is in the lead, who cares anymore? Intel users seem to be Trolling every AMD Related topic anymore, if you can't stay out of topics that doesn't relate to the products you want then you have a serious ego problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 18, 2008)

There is no reason for it to be locked down, there is no rule violation.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> This seems to be a 1 Sided Topic which Intel Users are Speaking so i say the thread should be locked down, anyone agree?:shadedshu



Hey, I am only speaking in fact. I have no preference to brand. I just want what performs the best.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Do you have a job I mean seriously look at the post count you have.  There is no need for the pointless arguing that is going on here, that's the reason I said that. Some time ago this Site used to be cool, but if all the fanboys are bitching, it seems this site has dropped to a level of a Site I used to go to that will remain nameless and thus pushed me to move here and it seems I'm going to have to go find another Site to give people advice to.banghead:


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Hey, I am only speaking in fact. I have no preference to brand. I just want what performs the best.



Another Point is, Intel is this Intel is that, we already know that, stop talking about them, Iswear people would follow them if they had a religion, seems people are pushing this stuff into Fanaticism.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Do you have a job I mean seriously look at the post count you have.  There is no need for the pointless arguing that is going on here, that's the reason I said that. Some time ago this Site used to be cool, but if all the fanboys are bitching, it seems this site has dropped to a level of a Site I used to go to that will remain nameless and thus pushed me to move here and it seems I'm going to have to go find another Site to give people advice to.banghead:



, and you were the person who asked the thread to be locked? You just attacked another member.


----------



## BrooksyX (Dec 18, 2008)

So how about them Phenom II benches...

(trying to change the subject to back on topic  )


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 18, 2008)

BrooksyX said:


> So how about them Phenom II benches...
> 
> (trying to change the subject to back on topic  )



look in the OP


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

yeah, them benches


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Do you have a job I mean seriously look at the post count you have.  There is no need for the pointless arguing that is going on here, that's the reason I said that. Some time ago this Site used to be cool, but if all the fanboys are bitching, it seems this site has dropped to a level of a Site I used to go to that will remain nameless and thus pushed me to move here and it seems I'm going to have to go find another Site to give people advice to.banghead:



Yeah, I work 40hrs. It's called insomnia. There is no arguing or fanboyism going on from me. It is all debating and facts. Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean you need to attack me, or that the thread needs locked. Seems a bit immature to me.



eidairaman1 said:


> Another Point is, Intel is this Intel is that, we already know that, stop talking about them, Iswear people would follow them if they had a religion, seems people are pushing this stuff into Fanaticism.


It's not fanaticism. Intel is better for OCers, power users, and enthusiasts like us, plain and simple. For normal people, it doesn't matter, and I have already stated that, but this forum is not populated with normal people.

Btw, I also own an AMD rig.


----------



## BrooksyX (Dec 18, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> look in the OP



I saw it, I was asking what you guys think.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

BrooksyX said:


> So how about them Phenom II benches...
> 
> (trying to change the subject to back on topic  )



Yeah, they look interesting and just fine.

There are also benches out for the Kuma Athlon X2 7750 and 7550 and they perform well and in most games near as well, as well, or better than some AMD and Intel quad cores at higher resolutions. Quite amazing.

Now, I don't know wheter to get the present X3 8750, or a X2 7750, or wait unitl the Phenom II X3's and X4's come out. By the end of next year there will be a lot of them floating around.

Chris

PS: Did any of you see the staements floating about that AND has apparently change some of their microarchitecture??  Seems they have from what I have read here and there.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Yeah, they look interesting and just fine.
> 
> There are also benches out for the Kuma Athlon X2 7750 and 7550 and they perform well and in most games near as well, as well, or better than some AMD and Intel quad cores at higher resolutions. Quite amazing.
> 
> ...



I'd say wait for Phenom II.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Yeah, they look interesting and just fine.
> 
> There are also benches out for the Kuma Athlon X2 7750 and 7550 and they perform well and in most games near as well, as well, or better than some AMD and Intel quad cores at higher resolutions. Quite amazing.
> 
> Chris




At higher res cpu is being relied on less. also .. they're at a nice price point and nice cpu power but the energy usage sucks


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, I work 40hrs. It's called insomnia. There is no arguing or fanboyism going on from me. It is all debating and facts. Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean you need to attack me, or that the thread needs locked. Seems a bit immature to me.
> 
> It's not fanaticism. Intel is better for OCers, power users, and enthusiasts like us, plain and simple. For normal people, it doesn't matter, and I have already stated that, but this forum is not populated with normal people.
> 
> Btw, I also own an AMD rig.



Sorry you got flustered but this was to the Reply of Kid, but got to admit i loved how you called me an asshole and then changed the wording so quick as so you wouldn't get in trouble with the mods.

Just because 1 company is doing better than the other doesn't mean it needs to push it on them that's like oppression. Also I'm looking at it from this standpoint, if Company B is doing better than Company A and Company A falls thru, Company B will most likely not release anything better aka like Microsoft, and then Jack up the Pricing and then they will most likely fall thru because they cant maintain their business. People are more educated about Computers now then they were In the early 2000s/ Late 90s, but they still have yet to learn business practices of Monopolizing Corps.Look at During the Early 90s Late 80s, IBM Released the "First" PC, well They were Over Freaking 5000 Dollars, Then Came along IBM Compatible Machines that Seriously forced them to lower Prices to a Decent level, Along with Apple.


----------



## Binge (Dec 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> NO!
> 
> They proved that the Phenom II performs equivalently to a processor for about £900 cheaper
> 
> ...



A QX9770 is not the greatest proc intel made... it just has an unlocked multi.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> At higher res cpu is being relied on less. also .. they're at a nice price point but the power usage sucks



Yeah, I saw that the power usage was high, but I could live with that as they performed well on all tests.  Similar to the Prescotts in a way concerning the heat and power usage. Thy're just stop gaps anyway until the new X2's come out in June. Just about every review I read has given them good ratings per the tests.

For ~$80 it would be OK and interesting for awhile until the newer Phenom II X3's and X4's come out.

I still have an E4700 system to put together, and a new PD 940 to either sell or replace my P4 571 Pres. in a BTX system. The 571 is nice stock.

Chris


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 18, 2008)

No one's talking about business here, we're talking about Phenom II.

People buy HD4000 series, because of its performance and price, if AMD cpu can do the same, everyone would buy it. It's simple.

It's not our fault that AMD can't put out a CPU to compete with Intel, it's their business.
They need to put out an CPU that perform better, at a reasonable price.

We don't talk about Dragon platform, we're talking about a single CPU, and how it competes with the current Intel cpu.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Sorry you got flustered but this was to the Reply of Kid, but got to admit i loved how you called me an asshole and then changed the wording so quick as so you wouldn't get in trouble with the mods.
> 
> Just because 1 company is doing better than the other doesn't mean it needs to push it on them that's like oppression. Also I'm looking at it from this standpoint, if Company B is doing better than Company A and Company A falls thru, Company B will most likely not release anything better aka like Microsoft, and then Jack up the Pricing and then they will most likely fall thru because they cant maintain their business. People are more educated about Computers now then they were In the early 2000s/ Late 90s, but they still have yet to learn business practices of Monopolizing Corps.


I called you an asshole, then realized that I don't really think you are one. It was just an asshole-ish comment, coming from someone I really don't have a problem with, so I reworded it. Trust me, if I really thought you were an asshole, I would've left it.

As far as the topic, I started off just pointing out flaws in the benches, and then making the obvious clock to clock comparisons between PII and Yorkfield. I still just think that AMD needs to do better. I really want them to release a product that's competitive in terms of performance per clock and OCability. Even if they adjust their prices to make a good price to performance comparison to Intel, Intel can just do the same, and if they are still behind on the performance per clock area, and can't OC far enough to compensate, the majority of the enthusiast community is going to continue to hammer them. That's bad publicity, and it's gonna hurt AMD even more.

They need something bigger than what these preliminary PII benches are showing us.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Sorry you got flustered but this was to the Reply of Kid, but got to admit i loved how you called me an asshole and then changed the wording so quick as so you wouldn't get in trouble with the mods.
> 
> Just because 1 company is doing better than the other doesn't mean it needs to push it on them that's like oppression. Also I'm looking at it from this standpoint, if Company B is doing better than Company A and Company A falls thru, Company B will most likely not release anything better aka like Microsoft, and then Jack up the Pricing and then they will most likely fall thru because they cant maintain their business. People are more educated about Computers now then they were In the early 2000s/ Late 90s, but they still have yet to learn business practices of Monopolizing Corps.Look at During the Early 90s Late 80s, IBM Released the "First" PC, well They were Over Freaking 5000 Dollars, Then Came along IBM Compatible Machines that Seriously forced them to lower Prices to a Decent level, Along with Apple.



I don't think anybody disagrees w/ the want for competition. Even the most diehard of intel fanboys (although I don't think there are that many) want competition. Which is why you see people scoffing sometimes at numbers when they don't seem like they will really do much for competition. The arguments here have arisen b/c many of us want to see AMD do better than it's seeming these might, we want them to beat i7 at a cheaper price and thus force intel to lower their prices, not simply release things in a way that doesn't really challenge newer procs, but instead challenges year old procs that would be lower by now anyway if there was competition.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I called you an asshole, then realized that I don't really think you are one. It was just an asshole-ish comment, coming from someone I really don't have a problem with, so I reworded it. Trust me, if I really thought you were an asshole, I would've left it.
> 
> As far as the topic, I started off just pointing out flaws in the benches, and then making the obvious clock to clock comparisons between PII and Yorkfield. I still just think that AMD needs to do better. I really want them to release a product that's competitive in terms of performance per clock and OCability. Even if they adjust their prices to make a good price to performance comparison to Intel, Intel can just do the same, and if they are still behind on the performance per clock area, and can't OC far enough to compensate, the majority of the enthusiast community is going to continue to hammer them. That's bad publicity, and it's gonna hurt AMD even more.
> 
> They need something bigger than what these preliminary PII benches are showing us.



Well Wile-E im goin to say this about AMD, ya they may be down currently but they are not out, after 2 Gens of CPus that They Released, Aka Brisbane and Phenom 1, i say the Kuma, Next Athlon X2, Athlon X4, Phenom 2 are a step in the right direction.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

Phenom II Series is not a single CPU, so what are you talking about. AMD is competing with Intel and many people are quite satisfied with AMD CPU's and the Opterons still outperform Xeons.

Phenom II's look like they will compete well with the lesser priced 17's and older Core 2 CPU's, at least that is what the tests are indicating. Plus, the Phenom II's will cost less. Hoepefully the days of $1,000 plus home sysytem CPU's will end, but Intel still seems to make those CPU's that actually aren't that much better performers than many less expensive Intel and AMD CPU's.

Yeah, good analogy to the HD 4000 series, and that is why Phenom 1 xx50 series CPU's are selling fairly well and why people are anxious to get the Phenom II Series CPU's since the benches on the Phenom II's show good and competive results.

Yeah, it's not your fault that AMD fell behind a bit just as Intel fell behind AMD a bit in the past. That's the way competition works.

Chris


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Well Wile-E im goin to say this about AMD, ya they may be down currently but they are not out, after 2 Gens of CPus that They Released, Aka Brisbane and Phenom 1, i say the Kuma, Next Athlon X2, Athlon X4, Phenom 2 are a step in the right direction.



Yes, a step in the right direction, I agree. But I fear it is not a step that is big enough. I really hope 09 is the year AMD turns it around. Their graphics division is finally on the ball, so I hope the cpu division follows suit. It can only help us.

I hope PII prove me wrong. I wouldn't mind switching to it.


----------



## Damian^ (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Hey, I am only speaking in fact. I have no preference to brand. I just want what performs the best.


Really? then why are you talking as if the Phenom II is already a fail if we have not even seen legit benchmarks?


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Phenom II Series is not a single CPU, so what are you talking about. AMD is competing with Intel and many people are quite satisfied with AMD CPU's and the Opterons still outperform Xeons.
> 
> Phenom II's look like they will compete well with the lesser priced 17's and older Core 2 CPU's, at least that is what the tests are indicating. Plus, the Phenom II's will cost less. Hoepefully the days of $1,000 plus home sysytem CPU's will end, but Intel still seems to make those CPU's that actually aren't that much better performers than many less expensive Intel and AMD CPU's.
> 
> ...



The ATI 4000 series is exactly what I'm talking about, they came in and beat or at least matched Nvidia's performance for far less price, which helped the market drastically. It's still too early to tell for sure, but it's looking like PII may just lower C2Q prices, which have been around for a bit now, and won't even go down that much. Of course, CPU "real-world" performance is subjective, and many users couldn't tell the difference b/t a low end x2 and a q9650 in every-day use, but the difference is there and depending on use there isn't enough competition.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Phenom II Series is not a single CPU, so what are you talking about. AMD is competing with Intel and many people are quite satisfied with AMD CPU's and the Opterons still outperform Xeons.
> 
> Phenom II's look like they will compete well with the lesser priced 17's and older Core 2 CPU's, at least that is what the tests are indicating. Plus, the Phenom II's will cost less. Hoepefully the days of $1,000 plus home sysytem CPU's will end, but Intel still seems to make those CPU's that actually aren't that much better performers than many less expensive Intel and AMD CPU's.
> 
> ...


You are completely missing the point that AMD is not cheaper per performance anymore. And AMD's market share has been falling since Core 2. They ARE NOT doing well.

The reason the top Intel chips are so expensive is because AMD can't even make anything that competes with them. If they could, the prices wouldn't be this high. It's what happens when there is no competition. AMD has completely lost the high end. Which in turn hurts them even more because high end buyers are pretty vocal most of the time.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Yes, a step in the right direction, I agree. But I fear it is not a step that is big enough. I really hope 09 is the year AMD turns it around. Their graphics division is finally on the ball, so I hope the cpu division follows suit. It can only help us.
> 
> I hope PII prove me wrong. I wouldn't mind switching to it.



I say this is the beginning because Despite the 3800 Being not up to Snuff it did pave the way for the 4800 series.


----------



## a_ump (Dec 18, 2008)

DAM!!!! haha what an intense thread, hmmm well i definetly think the Phenom 2's are improved mhz to mhz compared to phenom 1's, but yea if they start to sell good, intel will lower price and the phenom sale will either slow down or do just as poor as phenom's did. Yea new architecture is needed for sure. Though the fact that they don't have the best finances may be hurting that, new architecture= big monies to get there. I hope Phenom  II sells but i'm kinda dissapointed but i am sure intel will bring prices down if not then Phenom II's will for sure sell. i myself had planned on going Phenom II had they performed better than my q6600 enough to justify it but it's simply not there, poor AMD, how long will they have to live off their graphical department to survive?


Also that problem with MTW with the 8xxx series and above idk about that haha, but MTW II did have some issues when i had my 8800GT that you mentioned happened in MTW I, like troops walking the opposite direction though it only happened when i told them to attack an enemy and only sometimes.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

Damian^ said:


> Really? then why are you talking as if the Phenom II is already a fail if we have not even seen legit benchmarks?



I said judging by preliminary benches. I said IF these are to be believed, PII is already a fail. AKA: educated guess based on preliminary numbers, and knowing that PII is still just K8 rehashed.

So you got me, it's not pure fact. It's facts used to form an opinion.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 18, 2008)

In that website, there is a 3dmark vantage cpu test for the Phenom II 3GHz, it scored ~10k, and Phenom 9950 at 3GHz scored the same.
There will be different, but I don't expect anything higher than 5%.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> I say this is the beginning because Despite the 3800 Being not up to Snuff it did pave the way for the 4800 series.



That is a very good point. Let us hope that's the case here. But even if that is the case, I don't think PII will be that impressive. Lets see what PIII brings. lol.


----------



## a_ump (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That is a very good point. Let us hope that's the case here. But even if that is the case, I don't think PII will be that impressive. Lets see what PIII brings. lol.



haha, already looking to the next gen . makes sense though, that would be banging if AMD is working on a new architecture or has been and just release phenom II to put a lil more performance out there than phenom I and iron out the bugs. but we can only hope. And what about the fusion CPU/GPU or w/e when is that supposed to release?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

a_ump said:


> haha, already looking to the next gen . makes sense though, that would be banging if AMD is working on a new architecture or has been and just release phenom II to put a lil more performance out there than phenom I and iron out the bugs. but we can only hope. And what about the fusion CPU/GPU or w/e when is that supposed to release?



I thought that was slated for 2010 or 11. And it's only targeted at the integrated gfx/notebook market, iirc.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You are completely missing the point that AMD is not cheaper per performance anymore. And AMD's market share has been falling since Core 2. They ARE NOT doing well.
> 
> The reason the top Intel chips are so expensive is because AMD can't even make anything that competes with them. If they could, the prices wouldn't be this high. It's what happens when there is no competition. AMD has completely lost the high end. Which in turn hurts them even more because high end buyers are pretty vocal most of the time.



Almost every review I have read states and shows calculations that most AMD CPU's are a good bang for the buck and some are stated a giving the best bang for the buck.

Yeah, Intel is getting away with it, but I have seen benchmarks where the expensive top end Intels were nearly, matched, matched or even beaten at certain tasks by lower priced Intel and AMD dualies and what nots. None of these top end expensive Intels are giving a good bang for the buck as the less expensive Intels and AMD's are doing.

To be competitive AMD or any other corp. in any other industry does not have to be competive in the extreme high end and small market niche. AMD is aiming for the low and mid range market and are starting to make good headway.

Chris


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

I think Fusion is the Cheap lowpower solution for the mobile market, instead of having 2 additional chips to power whynot have 1 is what they are goin for i think.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 18, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Almost every review I have read states and shows calculations that most AMD CPU's are a good bang for the buck and some are stated a giving the best bang for the buck.
> 
> Yeah, Intel is getting away with it, but I have seen benchmarks where the expensive top end Intels were nearly, matched, matched or even beaten at certain tasks by lower priced Intel and AMD dualies and what nots. None of these top end expensive Intels are giving a good bang for the buck as the less expensive Intels and AMD's are doing.
> 
> ...



Top end products never offer good bang for your buck, that's not what top end is for. 4870x2, intel extreme's, they don't offer good per/dollar, they simply offer the best. If they are uncontested they will remain at ridiculous prices. Intel recently has consistently charged very high for their top end of each category too, be it the top dual (8600) or top quad (q9650 before i7) they aren't priced competitively, b/c well, they have no competition. 

The only time you will see a lower end dual match up w/ a high end quad in a bench is where multi-thread doesn't come into play, such as games.

And there is certainly something to be said for mainstream, as I said the average person won't know the difference b/t x2 and a c2q. However, the average person isn't building a rig either. And as such, the enthusiast market is where individual sales comes in big. Then the average joe who doesn't know anything about it hears intel is better, and won't buy a laptop w/ amd. And the laptop costs the same either way, as the chips really cost the same. As wile e said, enthusiast is important.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 18, 2008)

I'm just waiting to see what happens on release, and I get my hands on PII.  I've learned to never trust preliminary benchmarks. We all know that sometimes they are just complete BS, or they are based on one or two particularly good or bad chips. 

I've decided to gamble on AMD for the first time in a couple of years. I'm really hoping the switch is worth it.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

would everyone calm down holy shit this thread is hostile


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

where?


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 18, 2008)

Whoa easy mr. capital letters.  The hostility was in the previous page and is done with now, and was really quite brief and not a big deal to begin with. No reason to bring it back or make things worse..


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Whoa easy mr. capital letters.  The hostility was in the previous page and is done with now. No reason to bring it back.



i had no caps at all?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i had no caps at all?



OK, how about "mr. really big red letters"?


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i had no caps at all?



 Indeed, you win this round.......


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> OK, how about "mr. really big red letters"?



thats much better 

can we get back on track though all i want to see is some real phenom numbers.

oh and i talked to an intel guy he sells the dual server i7 mobo's to oil/gas companies  phenom II is in some deep shit if it doesn't get its ass released now


his current PC is dual i7 ES chips (8 cores 16 threads@3.2ghz) and a FX series card


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> thats much better
> 
> can we get back on track though all i want to see is some real phenom numbers.
> 
> oh and i talked to an intel guy he sells the dual server i7 mobo's to oil/gas companies  phenom II is in some deep shit if it doesn't get its ass released now



Yeah, we haven't even touched on that aspect. Now that Intel has gone with their version of HT (QPI), AMD is going to lose their advantage in the multi-socket server segment.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> thats much better
> 
> can we get back on track though all i want to see is some real phenom numbers.
> 
> ...



plays good solitaire?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, we haven't even touched on that aspect. Now that Intel has gone with their version of HT (QPI), AMD is going to lose their advantage in the multi-socket server segment.




Hypertransport right?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> Hypertransport right?



Yeah. I forgot the i7's also have Hyper Threading, or else I would've spelled it out. lol.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Yeah. I forgot the i7's also have Hyper Threading, or else I would've spelled it out. lol.



cause i was like "when did AMD make Hyper Threading?"


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 18, 2008)

ya the Iteration of HyThr, this round you have to have it enabled to get the most out of the CPU, which brings up the point, why did they leave option to enable or disable it?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> ya the Iteration of HyThr, this round you have to have it enabled to get the most out of the CPU, which brings up the point, why did they leave option to enable or disable it?



Because in some cases it actually hurts performance. Like in those apps that can't use more than 4 threads. Take a pure dual threaded app, for instance. It would use one physical core and one logical core instead of 2 physical cores, because of the way Windows allocates the cores.


----------



## Binge (Dec 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Because in some cases it actually hurts performance. Like in those apps that can't use more than 4 threads. Take a pure dual threaded app, for instance. It would use one physical core and one logical core instead of 2 physical cores, because of the way Windows allocates the cores.



+1 applications like games favor HT off.


----------



## r9 (Dec 18, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Umm i think intel has had a few more then just 3? they have had Skt 7, 370, 423, 478, 479, 437, 775, and 1366 as far as i can count, that means they have had more then AMD.


 I`m talking for P4  + vs Athlon + not from begining of time.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 18, 2008)

So why are the new Shanghai Opterons performing better than the i7 type Xeons?? Could it be that Hyper Transport is more efficient than Intel's rehashed netburst and Hyper Threading??

Chris


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 18, 2008)

Hrm... this go so off track! Phenom II's fellas, Phenom II's!


----------



## francis511 (Dec 18, 2008)

When are they actually released ? I want to see some reviews I can trust !


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 18, 2008)

Some more overclocking results:
http://oktabit.foracamp.gr/content/first-look-phenom-ii-x4-940-english-version?page=5#comment-11477












Some vids:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=211389


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

wat type of cooling?

edit: LN2


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 18, 2008)

Here are some air cooling results:
http://oktabit.foracamp.gr/content/first-look-phenom-ii-x4-940-english-version















(this was done using the 9950 stock cooler, awesome.)


----------



## EviLZeD (Dec 18, 2008)

I was just about to post a link to the vids phenom 2 looks good i might consider it for my next rig soon


----------



## Wile E (Dec 19, 2008)

christof139 said:


> So why are the new Shanghai Opterons performing better than the i7 type Xeons?? Could it be that Hyper Transport is more efficient than Intel's rehashed netburst and Hyper Threading??
> 
> Chris



There are no Xeon i7 as of yet. Just the 920, 940 and 965 that we see floating around currently, and only single socket boards so far. A single socket Shanghai is not out running a single socket i7.

And why in the hell are they blocking the core voltage readings in those screens above?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2008)

Wile E said:


> There are no Xeon i7 as of yet. Just the 920, 940 and 965 that we see floating around currently, and only single socket boards so far. A single socket Shanghai is not out running a single socket i7.
> 
> And why in the hell are they blocking the core voltage readings in those screens above?



yes there are i have seen them in person they are ES chips however


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 19, 2008)

Wile E said:


> And why in the hell are they blocking the core voltage readings in those screens above?




I was just wondering the same thing.
Forgot it's G14 classified


----------



## christof139 (Dec 19, 2008)

Wile E said:


> There are no Xeon i7 as of yet. Just the 920, 940 and 965 that we see floating around currently, and only single socket boards so far. A single socket Shanghai is not out running a single socket i7.
> 
> And why in the hell are they blocking the core voltage readings in those screens above?



Yeah, I see they aren't yet released yet due to past problems Intel has been having with them and Nehalem in general, but the server units are available.

http://www.acmemicro.com/estore/merchant.ihtml?pid=6758&lastcatid=16&step=4

http://www.acmemicro.com/estore/custserv_content.ihtml?pid=6740&lastcatid=16&step=4

I thought I saw tests on the inet of i7 Xeons vs. Shanghais and the Shanghais were better??

Chris


----------



## christof139 (Dec 19, 2008)

batmang said:


> Some more overclocking results:
> 
> Some vids:
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=211389



You got one of the Denebs or Kuma 7750's fer me fer Xmas ole buddy and longtime friend!???! 

Tell Santee Claus and Christmas Carol and all those demented Elves to hurry up and don't ferget me please!!! 

Merry Xmas,  Chris


----------



## stanhemi (Dec 19, 2008)

Phenom 9950BE / Phenom2 940BE / Phenom2 940 3800oc Benchs by GameWare Labs  ???


http://www.gameware.ir/phenom2/benchmarks/


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2008)

stanhemi said:


> Phenom 9950BE / Phenom2 940BE / Phenom2 940 3800oc Benchs by GameWare Labs  ???
> 
> 
> http://www.gameware.ir/phenom2/benchmarks/



the difference is to linear its fake


----------



## Wile E (Dec 19, 2008)

christof139 said:


> Yeah, I see they aren't yet released yet due to past problems Intel has been having with them and Nehalem in general, but the server units are available.
> 
> http://www.acmemicro.com/estore/merchant.ihtml?pid=6758&lastcatid=16&step=4
> 
> ...



Those are single socket. All of the i7 server boards are currently single socket. A phenom does not beat an i7, so it stands to reason that a single Shanghai wouldn't either.


----------



## christof139 (Dec 19, 2008)

stanhemi said:


> Phenom 9950BE / Phenom2 940BE / Phenom2 940 3800oc Benchs by GameWare Labs  ???
> 
> 
> http://www.gameware.ir/phenom2/benchmarks/



Hi, No, that is not the tests I saw. The tests etc. compared the Shanghais to i's and/or Xeon i7's (ES's I guess, don't remember or know).

Chris


----------

