# core i7 vs phenom II



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

what do you think?


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

Phenom II if u own a AM2+ board already. Well phenom II anyway because the i7 boards are ridiculously priced.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:

''The Phenom II performance speaks for itself. It loses to its old nemesis, the Core 2, which I think some folks will be surprised by. The Phenom II loses to the Core i7, which I think was to be expected. The Phenom II is a loser.

Does that mean it is without value? Absolutely not. But I think those that will find value in it will be few and far between and even fewer of those folks will be computer hardware enthusiasts.

If you are a gamer or a content creation professional, my suggestion to you is to save your pennies and get the Intel Core i7. Even if you have to wait an extra few months to save up for good DDR3. The Phenom II just does not have long legs, and I don’t think I will want to pay for DDR3 to dress one up next month either.''


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> 
> Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:
> 
> ...



I highly recommend u get Phen II for now. Elsewhere stick with the Core 2. Grab a good quad and mobo and it should do u for at least another year.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> 
> Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:
> 
> ...



Of course the i7 is better, but it's priced much higher too. Not to mention, I think most would agree that this particular article carries some bias. One thing he said is not necessarily true. It is fairly even with C2Q chips, which make them a viable option for people who would be otherwise planning on building a C2Q rig.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

So far PNM2 = 2....  core i7 = 2


----------



## Binge (Jan 10, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Of course the i7 is better, but it's priced much higher too. Not to mention, I think most would agree that this particular article carries some bias. One thing he said is not necessarily true. It is fairly even with C2Q chips, which make them a viable option for people who would be otherwise planning on building a C2Q rig.



I've proven in another thread that you can get a i7 for the cost of a high end P II rig.  "Cheapest" but not a bad build of a motherboard starts a $206


----------



## LittleLizard (Jan 10, 2009)

Binge said:


> I've proven in another thread that you can get a i7 for the cost of a high end P II rig.  "Cheapest" but not a bad build of a motherboard starts a $206



yeah, the gigabyte ud3r, if u dont look for a sli capable mobo, is a pretty good contender for the price


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Of course the i7 is better, but it's priced much higher too. Not to mention, I think most would agree that this particular article carries some bias. One thing he said is not necessarily true. It is fairly even with C2Q chips, which make them a viable option for people who would be otherwise planning on building a C2Q rig.



True, but Phenom II was supposed to compete( at least the AM3's are supposed to) against Core i7 and it fails to do so, Amd shouldn't be happy that they are just now able to get there game up to Intels level. Maybe its the DDR3 that Core i7 has, maybe when the AM3 CPU's come out it will be equal performance across all platforms. But i was really expected Phenom II to really give Intel a run for its money. Price wise the Phenoms II's are awesome and it makes it harder to pick Core 2 or Phenom II, But maybe when AM3 is out it ill make it harder to pick Phenom II or Core i7. As of now there is no reason to go Phenom II besides price and near Core 2 performance.


----------



## LittleLizard (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> True, but Phenom II was supposed to compete( at least the AM3's are supposed to) against Core i7 and it fails to do so, Amd shouldn't be happy that they are just now able to get there game up to Intels level. Maybe its the DDR3 that Core i7 has, maybe when the AM3 CPU's come out it will be equal performance across all platforms. But i was really expected Phenom II to really give Intel a run for its money. Price wise the Phenoms II's are awesome and it makes it harder to pick Core 2 or Phenom II, But maybe when AM3 is out it ill make it harder to pick Phenom II or Core i7. As of now there is no reason to go Phenom II besides price and near Core 2 performance.



and dont forget dirty cheap high end mobos


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

LittleLizard said:


> and dont forget dirty cheap high end mobos



lol, ya going Phenom II is cheaper overall.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 10, 2009)

The current price of Phenom II is not really THAT attractive.

I think most gamers won't spend that much for a processor, unless they do a major upgrade from their current system.

I don't think Phenom II is REAL value processor, price/performance ratio. If I have to build a gaming system with not really high budget, I will get the E8000 series, and spend more on VGA cards, which will result on better FPS than an expensive quad-core cpu.

But, If I want a high-end system, I would go with Core i7, which offer the newest and more advanced technologies (HyperThreading, Turbo, and Triple-channel DDR3).

I will only recommend Phenom II, when its price drop down to under $239 for the BE Edition.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

Binge said:


> I've proven in another thread that you can get a i7 for the cost of a high end P II rig.  "Cheapest" but not a bad build of a motherboard starts a $206



I do understand that. However, you can get a higher end AM2+ board for $100 less than the cheapest i7 board. We all know that the motherboard is a VERY important part of the puzzle when overclocking, so you'd never see me purchase the cheapest board on any platform. So, considering the level of hardware I would purchase, i7 would cost a lot more than the 945BE that I'm currently using.


----------



## Binge (Jan 10, 2009)

LittleLizard said:


> yeah, the gigabyte ud3r, if u dont look for a sli capable mobo, is a pretty good contender for the price



That's why I suggested it Paulie.  There's nothing wrong with that mobo.  In fact it's amazing if you aren't running SLI.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> The current price of Phenom II is not really THAT attractive.
> 
> I think most gamers won't spend that much for a processor, unless they do a major upgrade from their current system.
> 
> ...



Ya I agree. For the Phen II prices and mobos u can get a high end c2d/c2q and a good X48/P45 $150 mobo.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> True, but Phenom II was supposed to compete( at least the AM3's are supposed to) against Core i7 and it fails to do so, Amd shouldn't be happy that they are just now able to get there game up to Intels level. Maybe its the DDR3 that Core i7 has, maybe when the AM3 CPU's come out it will be equal performance across all platforms. But i was really expected Phenom II to really give Intel a run for its money. Price wise the Phenoms II's are awesome and it makes it harder to pick Core 2 or Phenom II, But maybe when AM3 is out it ill make it harder to pick Phenom II or Core i7. As of now there is no reason to go Phenom II besides price and near Core 2 performance.



You can't say that yet though because AM3 boards aren't out yet. We really won't know what happens until we see how the chips react when using DDR3.
Given I don't think performance will even be close, but I think that there's a good chance with the new memory controller that the PII could take a C2Q, especially the mid-range C2Q chips that are priced the same.
We've seen the PII clock up to 5ghz so far, our own paulieg got his to 3.9 being unfamiliar with the AMD64 system. These chips can clock like monsters and I'm willing to bet that a PII at max clocks will edge out a C2Q at max clocks (outside of anything Futuremark does)


----------



## Tau (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> lol, ya going Phenom II is cheaper overall.



Sure phenom 2 is cheaper, its also 1/2 the power, there is a reason its cheaper.



spearman914 said:


> Ya I agree. For the Phen II prices and mobos u can get a high end c2d/c2q and a good X48/P45 $150 mobo.




Agreed, at the moment for someone looking to put a GOOD machine together for a decent price 775 quads are the way to go, but thats also because they have been available for 2+ years now and there are tons of options for motherboards.

If i7 had been around for the same amount of time their would be the same options.

If you want something that will last 4+ years grab an i7 rig, you can get a cpu, mobo, and ram for ~$1000, thats not all that much money compared to how much computers cost 3-5 years ago...

i7 is the better performer right now, and obviously it will cost more, this is like comparing a 7900GT to an 8800GTX, sure the GTX is more money, but its 10x the card th 7900GT is as well...


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 10, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> The current price of Phenom II is not really THAT attractive.
> 
> I think most gamers won't spend that much for a processor, unless they do a major upgrade from their current system.
> 
> ...



But unfortunately none of the breaking edge tech on the i7 really helps gaming at all, the C2D chips are still the best bet if the only thing you plan to do is gaming and benching.
However if you do other things like video editing or photoshop for example the PII or the i7 are going to be good choices considering the overclocking power and the multi-threaded support they have.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

Round 2: If You Could Have Either, What Would You Pick?


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> Round 2: If You Could Have Either, What Would You Pick?



Phenom............













*2* lol


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> You can't say that yet though because AM3 boards aren't out yet. We really won't know what happens until we see how the chips react when using DDR3.
> Given I don't think performance will even be close, but I think that there's a good chance with the new memory controller that the PII could take a C2Q, especially the mid-range C2Q chips that are priced the same.
> We've seen the PII clock up to 5ghz so far, our own paulieg got his to 3.9 being unfamiliar with the AMD64 system. These chips can clock like monsters and I'm willing to bet that a PII at max clocks will edge out a C2Q at max clocks (outside of anything Futuremark does)



I am still going to have to go with [H] on that one:

''Even if you have to wait an extra few months to save up for good DDR3. The Phenom II just does not have long legs, and I don’t think I will want to pay for DDR3 to dress one up next month either.''

I do agree that PII could definitely take on C2Q, even OCing wise.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> Round 2: If You Could Have Either, What Would You Pick?



I can have either, but I chose to spend less right now. So I chose PII. In another 6 months, I may change my mind. Actually, I'm still running Intel in my second rig.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> Round 2: If You Could Have Either, What Would You Pick?



If i was on a budget, Phenom II(first PC build was AMD also). But if i had the cash i would go Core i7, more expensive but will last.

I will see how AM3 is tho.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

ROUND 3: what mobo would you choose?


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> Round 2: If You Could Have Either, What Would You Pick?



If they halved the price of there boards, i'll pick i7. The dam board prices are gonna stay the same until like X68 comes out.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

TO BINGE: after reading your specs... and found a CORE i7 on the list... i bow to you....


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> ROUND 3: what mobo would you choose?



For Core i7, if i had no budget.

Either EVGA X58 or Asus Rampage X58, good OCing boards i hear and are meant for the high end.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

I7: Asus Rampage Extreme
PII: Biostar Tfroce ta790gx/sb750 AM2+ No ddr2 AM3's yet


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> For Core i7, if i had no budget.
> 
> Either EVGA X58 or Asus Maximus X58, good OCing boards i hear and are meant for the high end.




what do u think about the phnm2


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

ROUND 4: how far do u think the cor i7 can be OCed. WHAT GHZ AND VOLTAGE?
same with phenom.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

I don't think either budge past 4.2ghz on air. Tho the Phenom 940 would be FAR easier to OC since its multiplier is unlocked.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

i7:

4GHz air is probably max
4.4.4.6GHz water
LN2 probably 5.5GHz

Phenom II:

I saw 3.9GHz highest on air
IDk about water
LN2 6GHz due to the 6GHz oc AMD got


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> I am still going to have to go with [H] on that one:
> 
> ''Even if you have to wait an extra few months to save up for good DDR3. The Phenom II just does not have long legs, and I don’t think I will want to pay for DDR3 to dress one up next month either.''
> 
> I do agree that PII could definitely take on C2Q, even OCing wise.



I don't think that AMD is aiming to take on i7 though, I guess I should have said that in my earlier posts... but I've never seen where anybody from AMD has said anything about it competing with the i7, only fanboys throwing the thought around (and yes, I am also guilty for this)

Round 2: If I could pick one or the other for free I would most definately pick i7 though, not really for the performance of the CPU as much as I envy how much the x58 improved multi GPU scaling.
However if I had to pay out of my own pocket I would go PII all the way for budget reasons (I'm one poor son of a bitch)


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> ROUND 4: how far do u think the cor i7 can be OCed. WHAT GHZ AND VOLTAGE?
> same with phenom.



Sorry, I'm playing catch-up in this thread.

So far we've seen an i7 at 4.6 on our own forums (Not sure of the WR on cpuid) and I know off hand that the PII WR on cpuid is 5.4 ghz.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

ROUND 5: X58 OR x68 PROTOTYPE?


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

amd hit 6.3GHz. Just found it. http://theovalich.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/amd-hits-60-ghz-steals-intels-core-i7-thunder/


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> ROUND 5: X58 OR x68 PROTOTYPE?



X68 not out buddy.


----------



## human_error (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> ROUND 5: X58 OR x68 PROTOTYPE?



I'm joining this late but X58 for now as it is stable (on most boards) and other than the 130nm(?) process used to make the IOH there is little i would change (there isn't anything_ missing_ from the X58 chipset IMO).


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

round 6: if a new multi socket board came out (i7 and phnom 2) would u buy it.

both CFX and SLI support

i know it not possible buy lets pretend here


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> what do u think about the phnm2



It's ok if your not looking for a huge upgrade, its great on a budget and performce about and sometime more then the C2Q's but Core i7 beats it out.


----------



## human_error (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> round 6: if a new multi socket board came out (i7 and phnom 2) would u buy it.
> 
> both CFX and SLI support
> 
> i know it not possible buy lets pretend here



No as it would cost the earth.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

human_error said:


> No as it would cost the earth.




how bout for $600
i would buy 5


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> 
> Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:
> 
> ...



I would look at other reviews as well.  In this review their test bed uses 2Gigs DDR2-1111 (or something like that) for the PII and 4Gigs of DDR3-1600 for the C2Q.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> I don't think that AMD is aiming to take on i7 though, I guess I should have said that in my earlier posts... but I've never seen where anybody from AMD has said anything about it competing with the i7, only fanboys throwing the thought around (and yes, I am also guilty for this)
> 
> Round 2: If I could pick one or the other for free I would most definately pick i7 though, not really for the performance of the CPU as much as I envy how much the x58 improved multi GPU scaling.
> However if I had to pay out of my own pocket I would go PII all the way for budget reasons (I'm one poor son of a bitch)



I do like AMD(cheaper, first build was AMD, and i love there heatsink design), I do believe that the AM3, DDR3 support Phenom II's is there answer to Core i7. Which may or may not beat it.


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 10, 2009)

X58 already does both on most mobo's


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> how bout for $600
> i would buy 5



Even if it existed there's no point. Games won't support 8 or 16 threads until when I'm like age 30.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

if amd never exested do u think that VIA would make procs


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> if amd never exested do u think that VIA would make procs



They make processors now


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 10, 2009)

This is getting kinda ridiculous, I thought we were doing a realistic relative comparrison between the two architectures.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> if amd never exested do u think that VIA would make procs



They do make Procs, but on a smaller scale.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

so what do u guy think about via procs


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

They suck


----------



## v12dock (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> 
> Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:
> 
> ...



Intel fanboy maybe?


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 10, 2009)

v12dock said:


> Intel fanboy maybe?



He's not being very fanboy, he's being realistic. I'm an AMD fanboy and even I can admit that the PII (at least the AM2+ version) can't compete with i7.


----------



## insider (Jan 10, 2009)

The i7 platform is too pricey for most, 6GB of DDR3 performance ram costs a fortune, then there is the overpriced i7 boards.

I opted to stay with the current 775 platform instead of upgrading to i7 due to the huge cost difference, replacing my old board with a P45 and a Q6600 allows me to use my existing 8GB DDR2 modules.

Best bang for buck = C2D/PII quad DDR2 platform, IMO both 45nm quads are still overpriced, hopefully drop sub £200 later this year.

Sheer raw processing power = i7


There is little point in buying the slower speed DDR3 ram modules IMO (barely faster than DDR2) which is of course the cheapest ram option for i7, 6-8GB of fast DDR3 modules cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

insider said:


> The i7 platform is too pricey for most, 6GB of DDR3 performance ram costs a fortune, then there is the overpriced i7 boards.
> 
> I opted to stay with the current 775 platform instead of upgrading to i7 due to the huge cost difference, replacing my old board with a P45 and a Q6600 allows me to use my existing 8GB DDR2 modules.
> 
> ...



Completely agree here. Perfect summary to end all fanboy arguments.


----------



## Binge (Jan 10, 2009)

Made on an i7 with 3gb of ram and GTX280, there are over 15 million polygons just because I felt like taking the divider out that far.  It's fast as hell.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 10, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Completely agree here. Perfect summary to end all fanboy arguments.



Exactly, if you had an old out-dated machine that couldn't game anymore and you were looking to do a new build from scratch with a budget of $1,000 you would be FAR more likely to go PII over i7. PII you would have a considerable amount of money left over after buying a CPU and mobo.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

insider said:


> The i7 platform is too pricey for most, 6GB of DDR3 performance ram costs a fortune, then there is the overpriced i7 boards.
> 
> I opted to stay with the current 775 platform instead of upgrading to i7 due to the huge cost difference, replacing my old board with a P45 and a Q6600 allows me to use my existing 8GB DDR2 modules.
> 
> ...



I agree with this. I dont hate AMD, built my first system around the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ and i still have that system today. I am just telling you guys what i am seeing from AMD currently.

Great Price/Performancehenom II

Insane budget/Great performance: Core i7


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> *Ok* Price/Performancehenom II
> 
> _High-end_ budget/Great performance: Core i7



Fixed.

A system that cost under 1k for cpu+mobo+ram = not insane.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> Fixed.
> 
> A system that cost under 1k for cpu+mobo+ram = not insane.



When compared to Phenom II it is. You need a really strong budget to get some of the best parts for Core i7, for the RAM it self is up in the $100-$200's.

I do i agree that since its not over $1000 alot of the time(with only CPU/RAM/mobo) that it's a pretty good upgrade path if you have the rest of the parts.

If you want the best of the best from scratch it will cost well over $1000.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

Round 7: Gaming performance Phenom vs i7


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> Round 7: Gaming performance Phenom vs i7




They are both decent for gaming, but games still have yet to go fully multi-threaded, any Core 2 or Phenom should handle games nicely. Core i7 has 8 threads due to the HT, but no game is going to use them all(maybe Crysis), and Phenom II is about equal to the C2Q's so it should do well in gaming paired with a good GPU. When games get more multi-threaded then we will see a difference but as of now they are pretty much on par in terms of gaming when the more threaded games come out Core i7 may take the lead and the AM3 Phenom II's may not be far behind. But as of now, for gaming the Core 2's, Core i7 and Phenom II would all game about the same. So it depends, Core i7 is more future proof for gaming, but the AM3 CPU's may be really good and take the lead in gaming. Core 2 is a great platform and has proven itself in gaming but the architecture is fairly old so for future games i would say Core i7, but keep an eye out for the AM3 Phenom II's, they might have what it takes to be a great gaming CPU while being cheaper then the i7.


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 10, 2009)

Round 8: what do you think about the absence of the northbridge in core i7


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

From what I am seeing there is little That AMD has brought to the table once again 2 steps behind Intel . 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4_7.html#sect0
From this even a Q9400 is giving them a run for the money . 
If you want to get some thing in the middle then go with the Q9400 and OC the hell out of it LOL it would be a guarantied winner !


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

Pretty sure a 940 would be a lot easier to OC


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Pretty sure a 940 would be a lot easier to OC



What do you mean ? I know Intel is easy to OC and the proof is all over out there . What kind of clocks are the PII's getting ? I mean for all this talk about how easy it is to OC the NEW PII's were are they ? I see i7's at 5.5GHz and Q9550 at 4.0GHz and on and on , Not sure how easy the PII is going to be to OC as well I am not getting one and then there is the lack of them showing up . as far as I can tell they are as good as the Q9400 and not as good as a Q9550 . for get about putting them up against the i7 that is a wash out !


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

The Phenom II 940 is unlocked


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> The Phenom II 940 is unlocked



So they had to give you some incentive to buy them 
When a Q9400 beats them they had to give you some kind of bone .


----------



## Darren (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> From what I am seeing there is little That AMD has brought to the table once again 2 steps behind Intel .
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4_7.html#sect0
> From this even a Q9400 is giving them a run for the money .
> If you want to get some thing in the middle then go with the Q9400 and OC the hell out of it LOL it would be a guarantied winner !



Although I don't disagree with your statement

But you have to remember that is just one set of gaming benchmark collected from one website (xbitlabs) so using one website as a decision maker isn't objective. Gaming and quad core shouldn't even be said in the same sentence.

Edit:

You could of easily of posted this link, but you didnt

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4_8.html


Edit 2:



trickson said:


> Yeah well you can also look through the many other benchmarks X-bit labs did not just the gaming ones . Now I trust X-bit labs and well I am sure I can put up more than just one link is this what you want ? just seems a bit of a waste of my time is all .
> Q9400 FTW



I trust Xbitlabs, dont get me wrong, I think they are well respected. My point is gaming isn't a multi-threaded application so using that particular link as a basis of an argument isn't valid. 

I've seen benchmarks of the Q9400 beating the i7 920 in gaming on other wbsites, does it mean the Q-series are better than the i7. NO!

Edit 3:



trickson said:


> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-20.html
> Here some more tests saying the same thing .





I would take this link more seriously than the gaming one previously sent, bear in mind this is one set of benchmarks from one website. You will have to read every page (from various sources) and analyse the information as a whole outweighing the advantages/disadvantages/cost/relative performance/availability of components etc.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> 
> Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:
> 
> ...



yea this is very bias'd....an they don't even stick to the same mobo all the way through. not to mention they couldn't do something simple like get there 1111 ram to run @1066 on the phenom. hell i'm doing that with a 2x2GB kit and athlon 64.

this review is crap you get some numbers and an i7 ad thats about it...they could have made it fair buy using mobo's in the same price range. Asus crosshair II formula for AMD, EVGA 780i FTW for C2Q and whatever they wanted for the i7 cause it wasn't going to be fair anyway lol. but they used a midrange 790GX board and then a midrange MSI K9N2 mobo and still managed 3.8ghz out of it BTW.




Binge said:


> I've proven in another thread that you can get a i7 for the cost of a high end P II rig.  "Cheapest" but not a bad build of a motherboard starts a $206



and a cheap but not bad mobo for P2 starts @$79.99 so how is i7 cheaper again?


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> Although I don't disagree with your statement
> 
> But you have to remember that is just one set of gaming benchmark collected from one website (xbitlabs) so using one website as a decision maker isn't objective. Gaming and quad core shouldn't even be said in the same sentence.



Yeah well you can also look through the many other benchmarks X-bit labs did not just the gaming ones . Now I trust X-bit labs and well I am sure I can put up more than just one link is this what you want ? just seems a bit of a waste of my time is all . 
Q9400 FTW


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-20.html
Here some more tests saying the same thing .


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

and just to prove my point

AMD XFIRE P2 rig
P2 940BE $275
Biostar 790GX $125
gskill pi $50
2x HIS 4830 $135ea $270 total
corsair 850w $140->$120AMIR
WD caviar black 640GB $80

*AMD total $940->$920AMIR
*
i love ow i just built a P2 940 rig for $940 hehe

Intel I7 XFIRE Rig
Core i7 920 $295
Biostar X58 $270
OCZ plat 3x1GB DDR3 1600 $135->$105AMIR
2x HIS 4830 $135ea $270 total
corsair 850w $140->$120AMIR
WD caviar black 640GB $80

*intel total $1190->$1150AMIR*


$200 is a good chunk of difference IMO


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

Well not much of a price difference to me and you get so much more with the Intel setup so really in this example you get what you pay for and with Intel being what 210 bucks more you get tons more performance .
Hell even my Q6600 will give the PII a run for it's money LOL !


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

Tons more performance? What lol And what are these amazing features you get so much more of?


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Tons more performance? What lol And what are these amazing features you get so much more of?



Well even with out going i7 and say going with the Q9550 you will get more OC head room and hence more speed . with the i7 you get the latest and greatest for 210 bucks more why would any one not want to go that way ? DDR3 ram and some rocking speed . 
Look I am being a bit of a fan boy I know I would have to say that till all the votes are in even my Q6600 is giving the NEW latest and greatest from AMD a run for the money I get 3.6GHz out of mine what can they get out of the PII ? HMMM still have yet to see this .


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Tons more performance? What lol And what are these amazing features you get so much more of?



Basically, any Core 2 CPU can keep up with the Phenom II and in some games and what not it pulls ahead of PII, i wouldn't say its a lot of a performance difference.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> 
> Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:
> 
> ...



I can't stand HardOCP reviews. They are stupid. The Phenom II is a decently priced processor with overclocking potential. Its an AMD, not an Intel. Its not even close to a i7 in price (total build), nor is it in certain benchmarks. Reviewing sites need to clearly understand something. ANYONE who purposely buys a Phenom II understands the pro's and con's when compared to a i7. Initially its price, actual use of the processor comes second. For how much an AM2+ rig cost to build compared to how much the cheapest i7 rig cost to build, its a god damn no brainer. Unless you have a lot of money to blow, get the fricking Phenom II! 


And to the Q6600 lovers, shutup already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> Basically, any Core 2 CPU can keep up with the i7 and in some games too



As of now yes that is true. But as i said before, when multithreaded games are out Core i7 will pull ahead.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> Basically, any Core 2 CPU can keep up with the i7 and in some games too



but when you have a Q6600 and even a Q9400 being inline with the PII then it is a no brainer to me if I were to have to choose between them it would be Intel as I know with some minor OC I can get what I want .


----------



## Darren (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> As of now yes that is true. But as i said before, when multithreaded games are out Core i7 will pull ahead.



When muti-threaded games are out, we will be on the next generation of CPU and socket 

...we cant wait for game developers forever and base our gaming needs on the aspiration that their lazyness changes.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Well even with out going i7 and say going with the Q9550 you will get more OC head room and hence more speed . with the i7 you get the latest and greatest for 210 bucks more why would any one not want to go that way ? DDR3 ram and some rocking speed .
> Look I am being a bit of a fan boy I know I would have to say that till all the votes are in even my Q6600 is giving the NEW latest and greatest from AMD a run for the money I get 3.6GHz out of mine what can they get out of the PII ? HMMM still have yet to see this .



umm the Q9550 doesn't give loads more oc'ing room....max wprime 1024 stable is 4.5ghz...max oc 4.8ghz with LN2 IIRC phenom 2 has beaten all of those.


----------



## KBD (Jan 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> When muti-threaded games are out, we will be on the next generation of CPU and socket



very true, these days hardware advances outpace software development. By the time there will be tons of multithreaded games AMD (and Intel) will have new CPU architectures.



trickson said:


> my Q6600 is giving the NEW latest and greatest from AMD a run for the money I get 3.6GHz out of mine what can they get out of the PII ? .



where do you get your info? Phenom 2 beats the q6600 in most tests. And regardging its overclockability, only the early q6600s were great overclockers, with the recent stepping they stop around 3.0-3.2Ghz on air. Phenom 2 can do better. Granted, not all chips are the same and some Phenoms dont overclock as well but i would think that after AMD applies some more tweaks to it in later steppings it will do better.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

batmang said:


> I can't stand HardOCP reviews. They are stupid. The Phenom II is a decently priced processor with overclocking potential. Its an AMD, not an Intel. Its not even close to a i7 in price (total build), nor is it in certain benchmarks. Reviewing sites need to clearly understand something. ANYONE who purposely buys a Phenom II understands the pro's and con's when compared to a i7. Initially its price, actual use of the processor comes second. For how much an AM2+ rig cost to build compared to how much the cheapest i7 rig cost to build, its a god damn no brainer. Unless you have a lot of money to blow, get the fricking Phenom II!
> 
> 
> And to the Q6600 lovers, shutup already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



How does actual use of the CPU come second? and price first. You are saying PII is on top soley on price, sure it maybe cheaper but the performace and actually use of the CPU which matter most is where the Core i7 shines.

People with a Q6600 have a right to gloat, PII really isn't much of a threat to the Q6600 and a OCed Q6600 could easily pull ahead of PII in most apps.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> umm the Q9550 doesn't give loads more oc'ing room....max wprime 1024 stable is 4.5ghz...max oc 4.8ghz with LN2 IIRC phenom 2 has beaten all of those.



News to me still have yet to see any one who has one clocking them to 4.5GHz I could be wrong but even so a Q9550 is a monster CPU and in many of the benchmarks is giving the PII a run for the money . Just some thing that I have noticed I could be wrong . But once you have a NEW line of CPU's coming out is it not some thing to strive for more than a 10% jump in performance ? The PII is what 10% better than the Phenoms ?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

With the extra 200$ you save from a Dragon platform you can upgrade a GTX 260 to a GTX 280 or HD 4850 to 4870 1gb/Crossfire 4850. That's all that really matters


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> When muti-threaded games are out, we will be on the next generation of CPU and socket
> 
> ...we cant wait for game developers forever and base our gaming needs on the aspiration that their lazyness changes.



Good point, but i7 and PII could still keep up. As long as there nicely clocked and the cores are there i don't see a problem(unless the min specs are a i7 940, then we gots a problem)


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> People with a Q6600 have a right to gloat, PII really isn't much of a threat to the Q6600 and a OCed Q6600 could easily pull ahead of PII in most apps.




YEAH AMD people still  about ther 10% gain


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> With the extra 200$ you save from a Dragon platform you can upgrade a GTX 260 to a GTX 280 or HD 4850 to 4870 1gb/Crossfire 4850. That's all that really matters



my build included dual 4830's so that extra $200 could give you dual 4870's which will make a hell of a lot more difference in rendering, benchmarks, and games


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> my build included dual 4830's so that extra $200 could give you dual 4870's which will make a hell of a lot more difference in rendering, benchmarks, and games



Or you could take the 200 buck and put it were it is really needed for instance the i7 plat and get better speed for ripping your DVD's and music 
The extra video card would only be good for gaming and that is it .


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

I guess 4830's are better than 4870's!  What a joke


----------



## Darren (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Well not much of a price difference to me and you get so much more with the Intel setup so really in this example you get what you pay for and with Intel being what 210 bucks more you get tons more performance .



Keep in mind the Phenom has only been released officially for a few days, it will take a few weeks for shops to stock them at vast levels, and hence reducing the price further. 

Expensive on release = e-penises don't mind paying for it to show off.

That is relative to where you live. 200 bucks difference where you live can translate to £400 in the UK or even more elsewhere.  




trickson said:


> Hell even my Q6600 will give the PII a run for it's money LOL !



not sure about that, on Tech Report the Phenom II 920 beats the Q6600 by a near landslide

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147



CDdude55 said:


> People with a Q6600 have a right to gloat, PII really isn't much of a threat to the Q6600 and a OCed Q6600 could easily pull ahead of PII in most apps.



True, but with that mentality, you can buy a cheaper Phenom 9950 BE and overclock it on par to the Q6600s OC performance.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

and the C2Q build is more than AMD anyway

Q9550 $320
DFI lanparty X48 $270
gskill pi $50
2x HIS 4830 $135ea $270 total
corsair 850w $140->$120AMIR
WD caviar black 640GB $80

*intel C2Q total $1130->$1110AMIR*


now to explain why i chose X48 i picked 790GX which is dual PCI-e 16x slots and X58 which is 16x-16x-4x so P45 isn't fair as far as that goes with 8x-8x X48 is the closest i can get with similar features


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 10, 2009)

whats the point in getting phenom 2 if 2 year old hardware competes with it

im extremely disappointed in the new amd cpus, really it should at least be beating the top core 2s and at least NEAR the i7

i7 isnt that great either over the core 2 well thats what i feel

amd needs to just scrap any ideas of remaking the old architecture it needs to make a brand new one

man i feel myself going core 2 this year becasue everything else is craptacular, its not a good ide to get core 2 but its the best price/ performance ratio
it will have little upgrade and future ability because i7 will last you longer

maybe ill wait for i5


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Or you could take the 200 buck and put it were it is really needed for instance the i7 plat and get better speed for ripping your DVD's and music
> The extra video card would only be good for gaming and that is it .



or you could take the extra $200 and get the 4870's like i said and a recent rendering program that offloads the work off to the gpu's which smoke the i7 like a cigar in rendering performance.

oh wait i forgot CAD, F@H and all other rendering programs only use the cpu and graphics cards are only for games man what was i thinking


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

I don't see a land slide and well they compaire the OC'd PII to a stock Q6600 why not OC the Q6600 to 3.6GHz and give it a run ? Seems a bit biased if you are going to run one over clocked then benchmark it you need to do them all like that as well . And there they could only get 3.5GHz and that was it ! I can push mine to 3.8GHz !


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> Keep in mind the Phenom has only been released officially for a few days, it will take a few weeks for shops to stock them at vast levels, and hence reducing the price further.
> 
> Expensive on release = e-penises don't mind paying for it to show off.
> 
> ...



Well, thats what most people do anyways. Just depends of what you prefer/


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> whats the point in getting phenom 2 if 2 year old hardware competes with it
> 
> im extremely disappointed in the new amd cpus, really it should at least be beating the top core 2s and at least NEAR the i7
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## KBD (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> smoke the i7 like a cigar in rendering performance.




i like that, may i quote you on that?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

KBD said:


> i like that, may i quote you on that?



yes you can rofl


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> or you could take the extra $200 and get the 4870's like i said and a recent rendering program that offloads the work off to the gpu's which smoke the i7 like a cigar in rendering performance.
> 
> oh wait i forgot CAD, F@H and all other rendering programs only use the cpu and graphics cards are only for games man what was i thinking



DUDE how do you figure this ? even 2 year old tech is SMOKING the Phenom II Like a cigar ! 
2 year old Intel CPU's are still out performing and out matching the NEW LINE of AMD tech . 
And if you had 2 of the same cards in a i7 build and or 3 of the same cards in a Q9550 it would make the PII look like a Celeron ! So your analogy is nothing more than well dumb .


----------



## Darren (Jan 10, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> whats the point in getting phenom 2 if 2 year old hardware competes with it



I think your slightly miss-informed 


The Q9xxx series still costs more than the Phenom II in some countries, and a lot of people with AM2 motherboards want an upgrade path without spending more money for Intel's alternatives for little improvement in the applications in which they might use.



MilkyWay said:


> im extremely disappointed in the new amd cpus, really it should at least be beating the top core 2s and at least NEAR the i7



Most reviews are showing there to be a little performance gap between the i7 and Phenom II, we've seen the Phenom II come close and even beat the i7 on particular benchmarks. 

Also the Phenom II 920 is faster than Intel's high end dual core (E8xxx) I can send links if you request.



MilkyWay said:


> i7 isnt that great either over the core 2 well thats what i feel



I can agree with you here, anyone that goes from a Q9xxx/E8xxx to an i7 is crazy, the performance gain is tiny.

Edit:

cdawalls analogy makes perfect sense.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

Darren said:


> I think your slightly miss-informed
> 
> 
> The Q9xxx series still costs more than the Phenom II in some countries, and a lot of people with AM2 motherboards want an upgrade path without spending more money for Intels alternatives for little improvement in the applications in which they might use.
> ...


First off I have yet to see a phenom II beating the i7 so you are not correct . 
agreed most that have AM2+ mobo's will want one . Intel users will see little point in going with AMD right now . 
I do not agree with what you are saying about Intel CPU's VS the new AMD every thing I have seen has been the other way around . AMD is struggling to keep up with the Q9400's let alone the Q9550 and as far as I see it even the extra cash cost of Intel is far worth it once you get to over clocking them they walk all over the PII hands down the better choice IS STILL INTEL !
And when 2 year old tech is keeping up with just released new line tech that in it's self speaks volumes to me ..


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> DUDE how do you figure this ? even 2 year old tech is SMOKING the Phenom II Like a cigar !
> 2 year old Intel CPU's are still out performing and out matching the NEW LINE of AMD tech .
> And if you had 2 of the same cards in a i7 build and or 3 of the same cards in a Q9550 it would make the PII look like a Celeron ! So your analogy is nothing more than well dumb .



and if you dropped $3000 on a NV quadro card you could have a really nice true rendering card 

the point was at the same price you could get *better* performance out of AMD. right now you have a bunch of BS articles that are way biased saying that the AMD is beaten by a Q6600 and w/i 2% of a 9950 hmmm thats funny i have seen people _HERE _get way better results than that with lower end parts.....wonder if they are just full of it or the website with no real proof is?


and were the hell are you seeing the Q9550 beating the 940? go look on hwbot and every other database even on LN2 the Q9550 hasn't broken 5ghz AMD has hit 6.3ghz on water we are starting to see 4.5ghz runs and if you look at real benchmarks and true performance tests deneb is very close to clock to clock performance of C2Q's.

not to mention i could get  *4* 4870s on the AMD platform and yet again i would be better in games, rendering and benchmarks.



trickson said:


> First off I have yet to see a phenom II beating the i7 so you are not correct .
> agreed most that have AM2+ mobo's will want one . Intel users will see little point in going with AMD right now .
> I do not agree with what you are saying about Intel CPU's VS the new AMD every thing I have seen has been the other way around . AMD is struggling to keep up with the Q9400's let alone the Q9550 and as far as I see it even the extra cash cost of Intel is far worth it once you get to over clocking them they walk all over the PII hands down the better choice IS STILL INTEL !
> And when 2 year old tech is keeping up with just released new line tech that in it's self speaks volumes to me ..



again the intel rigs are much more expensive and the gain is nothing to tiny. again Q9550 is not faster than 940...but is much more expensive so i guess you do have that. you have accomplished spending more on less wahoo for intel


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> and if you dropped $3000 on a NV quadro card you could have a really nice true rendering card
> 
> the point was at the same price you could get *better* performance out of AMD. right now you have a bunch of BS articles that are way biased saying that the AMD is beaten by a Q6600 and w/i 2% of a 9950 hmmm thats funny i have seen people _HERE _get way better results than that with lower end parts.....wonder if they are just full of it or the website with no real proof is?
> 
> ...



Believe what you want I know the score ! Intel FTW !!!


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Belive what you want I know the score ! Intel FTW !!!



wow if you wrote fanboy as your title it wouldn't be any more obvious


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> wow if you wrote fanboy as your title it wouldn't be any more obvious



Yeah, and honestly it's starting to annoy me.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> and if you dropped $3000 on a NV quadro card you could have a really nice true rendering card
> 
> the point was at the same price you could get *better* performance out of AMD. right now you have a bunch of BS articles that are way biased saying that the AMD is beaten by a Q6600 and w/i 2% of a 9950 hmmm thats funny i have seen people _HERE _get way better results than that with lower end parts.....wonder if they are just full of it or the website with no real proof is?
> 
> ...


I see no proof to your claims  and well sounds like some one really likes AMD sorry if I do not agree with your AMD is king claims I just don't see it maybe a good mid range CPU nothing more .


----------



## KBD (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Believe what you want I know the score ! Intel FTW !!!



dude, i hope you realize that your comment is fanboyish beyond belief. Without AMD youd be paying $500 and up for Intel CPUs.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> wow if you wrote fanboy as your title it wouldn't be any more obvious



That was sarcasm .


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

KBD said:


> dude, i hope you realize that your comment is fanboyish beyond belief. Without AMD youd be paying $500 and up for Intel CPUs.



I was being foolish and sarcastic .


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> I see no proof to your claims  and well sounds like some one really likes AMD sorry if I do not agree with your AMD is king claims I just don't see it maybe a good mid range CPU nothing more .



Dude it has nothing to do with liking AMD more. Its about Price Performance Ratio. If you would actually read our posts you would understand why we think a PII is a better choice for the money. I want you to answer me this, what would you rather have? i7 920 and a HD 4670 or a Phenom II and a 4870 1gb? Wait never mind, don't.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> and if you dropped $3000 on a NV quadro card you could have a really nice true rendering card
> 
> the point was at the same price you could get *better* performance out of AMD. right now you have a bunch of BS articles that are way biased saying that the AMD is beaten by a Q6600 and w/i 2% of a 9950 hmmm thats funny i have seen people _HERE _get way better results than that with lower end parts.....wonder if they are just full of it or the website with no real proof is?
> 
> ...




At the same price with same performance, An OCed Q6600 will stay on _par_ with a PII.

Intel is more expensive but the performance gain is worth it. 

AMD's Game forums(there opinion on Q6600 and PII):http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=259&threadid=106233&enterthread=y


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

look trickson i have no issue with you but if you can read one shitty review and have your ideals set that is fine but stop posting that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, because your not correct not even remotely. 



oh and if you want to continue to compare intel's two year old tech to AMD's "new" tech that is fine but remember that a phenom 2 is really just a revamped Athlon 64 chip which has been around since september of 2003. so continue to compare to AMD's latest and greatest. woot for you you can beat something that has been here for 5 years


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> At the same price with same performance, An OCed Q6600 will stay on _par_ with a PII.
> 
> Intel is more expensive but the performance gain is worth it.
> 
> AMD's Game forums(there opinion on Q6600 and PII):http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=259&threadid=106233&enterthread=y



they are comparing clock for clock. 2% isn't huge considering that is prerelease babble.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Dude it has nothing to do with liking AMD more. Its about Price Performance Ratio. If you would actually read our posts you would understand why we think a PII is a better choice for the money. I want you to answer me this, what would you rather have? i7 920 and a HD 4670 or a Phenom II and a 4870 1gb? Wait never mind, don't.



Phenom II is a better pick on a budget, it games up there near the Core 2's while still being overclockable.

Also if i have enough cash for a i7 rig wouldn't i have enough for a better card?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Phenom II is a better pick on a budget, it games up there near the Core 2's while still being overclockable.
> 
> Also if i have enough cash for a i7 rig wouldn't i have more for a better card?



it depends if i said i have a $700 budget you could get a phenom 2 and a 4830 or i7 and a 4450.


now which will game better, which will encode video better, which will benchmarks better, and which will render better? AMD wins 3 out of 4 of those.


----------



## KBD (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> oh and if you want to continue to compare intel's two year old tech to AMD's "new" tech that is fine but remember that a phenom 2 is really just a revamped Athlon 64 chip which has been around since september of 2003. so continue to compare to AMD's latest and greatest. woot for you you can beat something that has been here for 5 years



very good point, cdwall. This is my major gripe with AMD, this company is far from perfect and made many mistakes and deserves critism. Architecture is they key, Intel learned this the hard way with Netburt and now AMD is learning it the same way with K8 (which is what K10b is). They need to do what Intel did with Core 2, they were working on architectures in parallel and then dropped Netburst when it became obvious that Core2 was the winner. Thats what AMD needs: continue tweaking the phenom and work on something else at the same time. It is a matter of survival for them.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> look trickson i have no issue with you but if you can read one shitty review and have your ideals set that is fine but stop posting that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, because your not correct not even remotely.
> 
> 
> 
> oh and if you want to continue to compare intel's two year old tech to AMD's "new" tech that is fine but remember that a phenom 2 is really just a revamped Athlon 64 chip which has been around since september of 2003. so continue to compare to AMD's latest and greatest. woot for you you can beat something that has been here for 5 years



Look I am not pissing on your leg so don't on mine . 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4_15.html#sect0
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-24.html
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

I based my thinking on things like this . 
If that is wrong then SO be it . I wanted to build a new setup soon and well what am I to do now go with AMD PII ? or with i7 ? you do the math ! And if I have the cash then what does it matter ?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Look I am not pissing on your leg so don't on mine .
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4_15.html#sect0
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-24.html
> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> ...



i already made a comment about [H]'s bullshit review.

toms recommends the phenom II and xbit has somehow managed to compare it to the Q8x00 series that it beat in about every test wile keeping up to the Q9400/9550 which oddly enough it is priced with...funny wonder why amd priced its chip like the one it performs with


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> it depends if i said i have a $700 budget you could get a phenom 2 and a 4830 or i7 and a 4450.
> 
> 
> now which will game better, which will encode video better, which will benchmarks better, and which will render better? AMD wins 3 out of 4 of those.



Yes with a $700 budget Phenom II is on top, i never said that it couldn't perform on a low budget. But if you have money for a Core i7 mobo, CPU, RAM and what not i would assume you would be getting at least GTX 260 in which PII could definitely not keep up.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> How does actual use of the CPU come second? and price first. You are saying PII is on top soley on price, sure it maybe cheaper but the performace and actually use of the CPU which matter most is where the Core i7 shines.
> 
> People with a Q6600 have a right to gloat, PII really isn't much of a threat to the Q6600 and a OCed Q6600 could easily pull ahead of PII in most apps.



Oh, no no. I'm referring to total build cost. I do agree with kid when he said the Phenom II should be cheaper. But.. for what it is and what its capable of OC wise, its worth the money. AMD has to make money somehow.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Yes with a $700 budget Phenom II is on top, i never said that it couldn't perform on a low budget. But if you have money for a Core i7 mobo, CPU, RAM and what not i would assume you would be getting at least GTX 260 in which PII could definitely not keep up.



on that same budget you could get dual cards 4850s with the AMD build giving you better gaming


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 10, 2009)

Man it just keeps going round. Ultimately, the PII is a great choice for anyone w/ a AM2 board or anyone wanting to stick w/ AMD. For anyone w/ a core 2 board it doesn't offer a very compelling reason to switch over. For those building new systems it is a great platform to consider in price/performance (depending on use, if benchies and encoding are of importance) so long as one doesn't need the best (i7). Yes it's competing w/ old tech and that's a tad disappointing, but hey at least it's competing. 

Lots of people over-exaggerating it's flaws and it's successes. It is a c2d q9400/q9300 at the exact same price point essentially. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Man it just keeps going round. Ultimately, the PII is a great choice for anyone w/ a AM2 board or anyone wanting to stick w/ AMD. For anyone w/ a core 2 board it doesn't offer a very compelling reason to switch over. For those building new systems it is a great platform to consider in price/performance (depending on use, if benchies and encoding are of importance) so long as one doesn't need the best (i7). Yes it's competing w/ old tech and that's a tad disappointing, but hey at least it's competing.
> 
> Lots of people over-exaggerating it's flaws and it's successes. It is a c2d q9400/q9300 at the exact same price point essentially. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Darren (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> I don't see a land slide and well they compaire the OC'd PII to a stock Q6600 why not OC the Q6600 to 3.6GHz and give it a run ? Seems a bit biased if you are going to run one over clocked then benchmark



Did you not read the review. Neither the Q6600 or Phenom 920 was overclocked, and the Phenom 920 won by a near landslide. Try again
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147/1



trickson said:


> First off I have yet to see a phenom II beating the i7 so you are not correct .



So you are saying that in this particular benchmark the Phenom II didn't beat out the i7?







I actually said "seen the Phenom II come close and even beat the i7 on particular benchmarks"

and here is the proof:



http://i.neoseeker.com/a/amd_phenom_ii/rmmemory_latency.png






trickson said:


> Believe what you want I know the score ! Intel FTW !!!



You are the most mature person I've encountered



Paulieg said:


> Yeah, and honestly it's starting to annoy me.



Indeed, Trickson is a fanboy, we have a discussion with him, he listens he agrees with parts, disagrees with other parts. Then later down the post he reverts back to his old ways and discredits stuff that we've already proven. For example we've already proven the Phenom build is cheaper, yet he reverts back to "Intel for FTW" as a counter argument.



trickson said:


> That was sarcasm .



OMG, why do we let kids on TPU.

I feel like a babysitter


----------



## erocker (Jan 10, 2009)

But wait!!! One is better than the other!


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> i already made a comment about [H]'s bullshit review.
> 
> toms recommends the phenom II and xbit has somehow managed to compare it to the Q8x00 series that it beat in about every test wile keeping up to the Q9400/9550 which oddly enough it is priced with...funny wonder why amd priced its chip like the one it performs with



Well ones man review is another mans Gospel . No matter how you look at things some one is bound to see it differently . I agree it is a great CPU for people that have the AM2+ mobo and AM3 mobo but from a stand point of this . 
I want to build a new computer to replace my Q6600 I have a mobo ram and all the fixens to go 45nm Intel has a Q9550 that I can just pop right in for roughly $319.99 this is the cheaper way to go FOR ME . 
Looking at AMD I will have to get .
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103472 $235.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131343 $179.99 ( don't even know how good this will be to OC ) . 
So for me would the price of that  $414.99 + Shipping be worth it to me ? And what kind of gain will I really see ? why not just spend the 319.99 + shipping and save the rest for say a video card ? See where I am coming from now ?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Well ones man review is another mans Gospel . No matter how you look at things some one is bound to see it differently . I agree it is a great CPU for people that have the AM2+ mobo and AM3 mobo but from a stand point of this .
> I want to build a new computer to replace my Q6600 I have a mobo ram and all the fixens to go 45nm Intel has a Q9550 that I can just pop right in for roughly $319.99 this is the cheaper way to go FOR ME .
> Looking at AMD I will have to get .
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103472 $235.00
> ...



well for the $414+shipping you gained 3*16x pci-e slots (@8-8-8 or 16-16 all pci-e 2.0), the ability to use the unreleased phenom 2 9x5 series and a board that oc's way better than your current one.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

The thing is how can you even know the one you get is going to be that killer over clocker ? I hate it when people say that and then some one switches over and they get nothing like what the person said they would . It is such a let down . 
Again I think it is a great CPU for people that already have the AM2+ mobo and can upgrade but for some one that has the Intel mobo and setup and wants an up grade there is no point in changing over . JMHO .


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> The thing is how can you even know the one you get is going to be that killer over clocker ? I hate it when people say that and then some one switches over and they get nothing like what the person said they would . It is such a let down .
> Again I think it is a great CPU for people that already have the AM2+ mobo and can upgrade but for some one that has the Intel mobo and setup and wants an up grade there is no point in changing over . JMHO .



it is very rare to get one of those boards that doesn't oc well and even [h] managed to get there P2 up to 3.8ghz on the no were near as good MSI version of that mobo


and i have that mobo's big brother and its a kick ass mobo


----------



## Darren (Jan 10, 2009)

*AMD Build*

Samsung 1TB Harddrive £73.56
Asus 4850 £118.06
ASUS M2N68 nForce 630a Socket AM2+ £51.20
Phenom 940 II x4 £237.03
Corsair 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 1066MHz £91.23

Total £571.08 inc vat

*Intel Build*

Samsung 1TB Harddrive £73.56
Asus 4850 £118.06
Gigabyte GA-EX58-DS4 iX58 Socket 1366 (cheapest mobo I can find) £197.02
Intel 940 £474.69 (cheapest i7 I could find)
Corsair 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1333MHz (cheapest DDR3 I can find) £102.26

*Total* £965.59 inc vat

The Phenom II build is 394.51 cheaper than the i7 build

All components from: Ebuyer.com
Edit:



CDdude55 said:


> We know Phenom II is cheaper, i still think Core i7 is more future proof.



Just re-iterating for the few people that still say the pricing variations between the PII and i7 as being small, also giving a UK perspective on builds.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

We know Phenom II is cheaper, i still think Core i7 is more future proof.

I am waiting for AMD's answer to Core i7, then i may get that CPU.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> We know Phenom II is cheaper, i still think Core i7 is more future proof.



depends what mood intel is in with chipsets and sockets.

anyone remember socket 423?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> depends what mood intel is in with chipsets and sockets.
> 
> anyone remember socket 423?



Nope 
And saying the i7 is futureproof is silly. People were saying when the Q6600 came out it would be better than the dual cores eventually when multi threaded games came out.. I still don't see any.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

we may have to rethink some things look at this

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/showthread.php?t=213221

peeps on XS getting 3.5ghz easily on the 920 







he got 3.6ghz on stock vcore


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Nope
> And saying the i7 is futureproof is silly. People were saying when the Q6600 came out it would be better than the dual cores eventually when multi threaded games came out.. I still don't see any.



Thats cuz no Mulit-threaded games are out(maybe Crysis), but they should come soon and Core i7 should take advantage of that.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

That's what people have been saying since the Q6600 came out.. And crysis is only single threaded. I think they made it dual threaded with warhead but I am not sure.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Nope
> And saying the i7 is futureproof is silly. People were saying when the Q6600 came out it would be better than the dual cores eventually when multi threaded games came out.. I still don't see any.



Essentially, one could almost always say the most powerful hardware available is the most future-proof, as it will allow for high performance longer than anything else. Thus, i7 would be the most future-proof per say. GTA IV is heavily multi-threaded.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 10, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Essentially, one could almost always say the most powerful hardware available is the most future-proof, as it will allow for high performance longer than anything else. Thus, i7 would be the most future-proof per say. GTA IV is heavily multi-threaded.



No I think its just unoptimized


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> That's what people have been saying since the Q6600 came out.. And crysis is only single threaded. I think they made it dual threaded with warhead but I am not sure.



Warhead is, it even says on the back of the box.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> No I think its just unoptimized



Well one can't say that without seeing the code. The developers said it was highly multi-threaded, so I have to trust em until I see proof otherwise. You could be right though.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

3.9ghz anyone?

he is on air BTW


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

Well the new Phenom II is nice and all I just can't see myself switching over to it . I will just get the Q9550 and OC the heck out of it if I want more performance than I have now .
Great job AMD finally is getting things together I hope they keep up the good work  .


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

cdawall said:


> 3.9ghz anyone?
> 
> he is on air BTW



I bet its not on the stock Heatsink tho. Nice nice clock tho.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Well the new Phenom II is nice and all I just can't see myself switching over to it . I will just get the Q9550 and OC the heck out of it if I want more performance than I have now .
> Great job AMD finally is getting things together I hope they keep up the good work  .



oha nd the guys on XS are showing a performance increase clock for clock on kentsfield and close to 1:1 with yorkie


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=212762
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206624


----------



## KBD (Jan 10, 2009)

very nice bus overclock. what board is that, btw?


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

Just ran this one on my 945BE ES


----------



## KBD (Jan 10, 2009)

wow, paulie, thats low voltage for phenom, or no?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

KBD said:


> very nice bus overclock. what board is that, btw?



GB GA-MA790GP-DS4H according to cpuz



KBD said:


> wow, paulie, thats low voltage for phenom, or no?



its about wat they used on XS for the 920


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

No boards out that support Phenom II out of the box right?


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> No boards out that support Phenom II out of the box right?



Correct. As of now they all need a bios update.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> No boards out that support Phenom II out of the box right?



[H] said the MSI worked out of the box and from what i have heard its out of the box ok just update for full support


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 10, 2009)

I actually may go AM3, if its as cheap as the AM2+ ones. Plus DDR3 is a good addition.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

Core i7 VS Phenom II .
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209796

WOW 4.9GHz i7 !! 

If you want to be fair the i7 here is licking the PII like a dog licking his a$$ !


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 10, 2009)

trickson said:


> Core i7 VS Phenom II .
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209796
> 
> WOW 4.9GHz i7 !!
> ...



Of course it is. We've established the i7 as the alpha platform right now. It's just much more expensive than a C2Q  or a Phenom II. That's where the decision is. If you're building a system from the ground up, and don't want to spend a fortune, then C2Q are very competitive and should both be considered. If you already have a s775 board, you should go C2Q. If you have an AM2+ board that does support PII, you should go PII. Fair enough?


----------



## human_error (Jan 10, 2009)

To the people saying you'll see a good boost in crysis and crysis warhead with an i7, hells no. My current rig is not getting much more than a similarly clocked dual core, the primary limit is the graphics card. 

Looking at most modern games the primary bottleneck for the performance is still the gpu, and i don't really see that changing much in the near future. However with dx11 coming out this year for vista and win 7 bringing a multithreaded render path i can see multi-core (3+ cores) systems starting to see some nice performance boosts, whether they will be able to utilise more than 4 cores thus making the i7 more useful is yet to be seen, i'm taking a gamble that with some games having 3 processes for teh game itself with dx11 possibly adding a couple more threads i think an i7 may gain the advantage, but this is all speculation and still does not overcome the issue with the gpu holding most games back.

What i am very pleased to see is amd now bringing an even better performing quad core to the table which is lower cost and that low cost will hopefully increase the adoption rate of quad cores so developers for games and apps will see even more incentive to properly multi-thread their games (evidence that this is starting is how multi-threaded the dx11 render path is and how win 7's startup process is now utilising multi-threading).

Can't we all be glad that no matter which camp you sit in (or like me either camp, depending on what is best) that amd has brought some clock for clock improvements over their previous quads which is low cost and holds a brilliant upgrade path? I, for one, do not want my next rig to cost twice as much because there is no competition.


----------



## trickson (Jan 10, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Of course it is. We've established the i7 as the alpha platform right now. It's just much more expensive than a C2Q  or a Phenom II. That's where the decision is. If you're building a system from the ground up, and don't want to spend a fortune, then C2Q are very competitive and should both be considered. If you already have a s775 board, you should go C2Q. If you have an AM2+ board that does support PII, you should go PII. Fair enough?



YES ! this is just what I am saying . But when you start a thread i7 vs PII and only talk about how much better the PII is and discount the fact that the i7 is much better and that Q9550 are just as good in price as well then I have problem so I sent over some links to even the playing field some .


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

OK I want to be fare and I wanted to find a system as close to mine as I could ( at least one that had the same video card and only one as I only have one ) I found this and I see that I am beating it (Not by much ) But still what reason is there to think that the new Phenom II is better than what I have when I see this ? 
MY sytem running at 3.6GHz 
















Now take a look at the Phenom II running at 3.7GHz ( more than mine ) . 






From this I can see that my Q6600 is faster than the new tech AMD is offering and with that said a $189.99 CPU is far cheaper than the $275.00 they want for the Phenom II  , Price performance ? well I still think Intel has the lead on that as well . 
Now this is just what I am seeing so far I know things maybe better the higher the clocks go but as mine is taped out at 3.6GHz and still giving AMD a run for the money I see no point in going that way not yet any way . Nice try AMD but not good enough I have to say .


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> OK I want to be fare and I wanted to find a system as close to mine as I could ( at least one that had the same video card and only one as I only have one ) I found this and I see that I am beating it (Not by much ) But still what reason is there to think that the new Phenom II is better than what I have when I see this ?
> MY sytem running at 3.6GHz
> 
> From this I can see that my Q6600 is faster than the new tech AMD is offering and with that said a $189.99 CPU is far cheaper than the $275.00 they want for the Phenom II  , Price performance ? well I still think Intel has the lead on that as well .
> Now this is just what I am seeing so far I know things maybe better the higher the clocks go but as mine is taped out at 3.6GHz and still giving AMD a run for the money I see no point in going that way not yet any way . Nice try AMD but not good enough I have to say .



Well, those are only certain benchmarks, and even among seemingly equivalent systems there is much variable, but yes in some cases the PII is slower than kentsfield, and in your case a change to PII would be for no other reason than to get something new (and something red, or green, or black, whatever amd is). It would be lateral. Most reviews have shown the PII to be faster than the q6600, but it's not as black and white as just saying one is faster than the other (depends on how well they oc, what you're doing, ect). This is also why I said the 940 at $200 is pure win, b/c that's that's really where it should be to truly shake things up.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 11, 2009)

Who gives a crap about synthetic benchmarks? I don't play them daily like I do games.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Who gives a crap about synthetic benchmarks? I don't play them daily like I do games.



I care, although I love gaming and for me that is also my main concern when contemplating a system, I also do other things that some synthetic benchmarks are indicative of, for instance cinebench. If we're going to just talk games then there is no reason to discuss cpu's really at all, at least on this level.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Who gives a crap about synthetic benchmarks? I don't play them daily like I do games.



Well seems like people only care about it when there side is winning then they can't shut up about how much better there CPU is in this benchmark than others . so well many people care about benchmarks and so what if you don't others DO ! and there is a place for them as a guide as to how well the system will function in a given environment But since you don't care does that mean we all shouldn't care ? 
OH yeah and I do think my 3dmark06 score counts as some thing seeing that this is the most over rated benchmark out there oh but as mine is beating the PII then it don't count right ?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

I only use my PC for gaming and the webs, but if AM3 is cheaper then i7 and at least price as much as the AM2+ PII's then i may go for that, and get me a better GPU also.


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> From this I can see that my Q6600 is faster than the new tech AMD is offering and with that said a $189.99 CPU is far cheaper than the $275.00 they want for the Phenom II  , Price performance ?



Your testing methods are so unscientific I don't know where to start!

WPrime is one benchmark out of the many hundreds. That score does not take into consideration of matching OS, tweaking of OS, configuration of hardware and software etc. The fact that you are going out of your way to prove that the Q6600 is faster than the PII shows that you are secretly unsatisfied with your Q6600 and you are trying project your insecurities onto AMD users.




trickson said:


> Well seems like people only care about it when there side is winning then they can't shut up about how much better there CPU is in this benchmark than others .



To be fair, we've already proved that the Q6600 is slower, the professional reviews show that the Q6600 is slower, so we don't need a bum on this forum to tell us otherwise 


If you want to act all smart ass with WPrime.


fullinfusion - Phenom 9850 3318 MHz - *11.145 *
wolf - Core 2 Quad Q6600 3600 MHz - *11.317 *
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369

The Q6600 is clocked a lot higher yet performs worst, so anyone with common sense can work out the Phenom IIs would perform even better.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Who gives a crap about synthetic benchmarks? I don't play them daily like I do games.



3Dmark06 the most over rated benchmark out there is a major guide for 99% of us as to how well a game will perform on our system and since mine is beating a system that is similar ( Same GPU ) Then that tells me that mine is going to be better at gaming and rendering as well did you not see cinabench10 results ? This to me is a HUGE indication that MY Q6600 is still a very powerful gaming setup and that is why I give a CRAP .


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> Your testing methods are so unscientific I don't know where to start!
> 
> WPrime is one benchmark out of the many hundreds. That score does not take into consideration of matching OS, tweaking of OS, configuration of hardware and software etc. The fact that you are going out of your way to prove that the Q6600 is faster than the PII shows that you are secretly unsatisfied with your Q6600 and you are trying project your insecurities onto AMD users.
> 
> ...



What are you blind ? I did the same tests this person did with there AMD Phenom II setup and mine came out on top with the AMD being run at 3.7GHz and mine at 3.6GHz what is your problem ? All I wanted to show is that in some cases they are not as fast as you would like and you get all up sad about what I found ? 
OH BTW 0.938 seconds faster in Wprime is NOTHING AT ALL !
Calling me names will not change the facts so maybe you should just stop now before you look to foolish .


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> This to me is a HUGE indication that MY Q6600 is still a very powerful gaming setup and that is why I give a CRAP .



knowone said that the Q6600 wasn't powerful, you did.

What we said is the Q6600 overall isn't as powerful as the Phenom II

to re-iterate we never said the Q6600 wasn't powerful

-----




trickson said:


> What are you blind ? I did the same tests this person did with there AMD Phenom II setup and mine came out on top with the AMD being run at 3.7GHz and mine at 3.6GHz what is your problem ?





PROOF​


I only copied and pasted what I saw, and what I see is the Q6600 loose in prime according to TPU's official WPrime thread.

Are you saying i pasted it wrong, Trickson?

fullinfusion - Phenom 9850 3318 MHz - 11.145 
wolf - Core 2 Quad Q6600 3600 MHz - 11.317 
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369

Edit:




trickson said:


> OH BTW 0.938 seconds faster in Wprime is NOTHING AT ALL !
> Calling me names will not change the facts so maybe you should just stop now before you look to foolish .



I never called you any names other than Trickson.

Oh now "0.938 seconds faster in Wprime is NOTHING AT ALL" in your unscientific test where your Q6600 happens to win by 
0.938 its a bit deal, how bias.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

I'm not sad or mad at ya. I know Phenom II isn't near i7 in performance and AMD is just now catching the Core 2's. But i guess it doesn't really matter since the i7's are really expensive while you can get Phenom II for cheap. As said, it depends on the apps used, sometimes the Q6600 with come out best while for some the Phenom II will come out on top.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> knowone said that the Q6600 wasn't powerful, you did.
> 
> What we said is the Q6600 overall isn't as powerful as the Phenom II
> 
> ...




Overall there about on par with each other, plus it depends on the apps used.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> To be fair, we've already proved that the Q6600 is slower, the professional reviews show that the Q6600 is slower, so we don't need a bum on this forum to tell us otherwise
> The Q6600 is clocked a lot higher yet performs worst, so anyone with common sense can work out the Phenom IIs would perform even better.





Darren said:


> knowone said that the Q6600 wasn't powerful, you did.
> 
> What we said is the Q6600 overall isn't as powerful as the Phenom II
> 
> ...



Sounds to me as if you did ....


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> OH BTW 0.938 seconds faster in Wprime is NOTHING AT ALL !
> Calling me names will not change the facts so maybe you should just stop now before you look to foolish .



I never called you any names other than Trickson.

Oh now "0.938 seconds faster in Wprime is NOTHING AT ALL" in your unscientific test where your Q6600 happens to win by 
0.938 its a bit deal, how bias.

But on the official TPU thread for WPrime it doesnt count...


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

> so we don't need a bum on this forum to tell us otherwise



Sound familiar ?


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> I never called you any names other than Trickson.
> 
> Oh now "0.938 seconds faster in Wprime is NOTHING AT ALL" in your unscientific test where your Q6600 happens to win by
> 0.938 its a bit deal, how bias.
> ...



NO mine lost to the PII in this by 0.938 seconds I do not consider that much seeing that the extra 100Mhz could have been the underlying factor in this .


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> NO mine lost to the PII in this by 0.938 seconds I do not consider that much seeing that the extra 100Mhz could have been the underlying factor in this .



Then how do you justify the official TPU Wprime benchmark thread where the Phenom 9850 beats your CPU despite being clocked 300mhz SLOWER.


Edit:

Unless everyone in this thread is making up the results, or maybe I copied and pasted it incorrectly. Please enlighten me Mr Scientist.


fullinfusion - Phenom 9850 3318 MHz - 11.145 
wolf - Core 2 Quad Q6600 3600 MHz - 11.317 
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> It wasn't directed at you, I was talking about anyone in the forum that makes unscientific claims, your not the only one that I can think of.



GOOD GOD MAN I don't have some scientific lab here I have a computer and I have a desk . I am not a scientist nor do I wear a white Fing LAB COAT . Do I have to have a lab to be spot on for you ? I searched for what I found to be a similar setup and posted what I got for the same tests that they did what the HELL are you talking about . should I get a lab first then test so it is all official ?


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> Then how do you justify the official TPU Wprime benchmark thread where the Phenom 9850 beats your CPU despite being clocked 300mhz SLOWER.



DUDE I am only posting what I got for the test what more do you want ?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> It wasn't directed at you, I was talking about anyone in the forum that makes unscientific claims, your not the only one that I can think of.



You don't need benchmarks to tell you one CPU is better then the other(aka''being scientific'').

When AM3 comes out with DDR3 attached, the performance should be near i7, thats unless the HT comes into play with the 8 threads of i7. I am waiting for AM3, because as a gamer i dont think i need to spend that much for a rig just for that, even my QX6700 CPU is doing really well in games, but for the long term i am hoping AM3 will put out so i can move over to that platform. And no, i didn't base that off 3Dmark for some other ''system evaluator''


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> GOOD GOD MAN I don't have some scientific lab here I have a computer and I have a desk . I am not a scientist nor do I wear a white Fing LAB COAT . Do I have to have a lab to be spot on for you ?



Which is why the tests should be conducted by the professionals, the professionals clearly state that the Phenom IIs are placed between the Q*9*xxx and i7, we don't need amateurs saying bias things such as "my Q6600 is faster than the Phenom II" when it clearly isn't!

And don't pretend that you didn't say that because I've got your quote here!-->



trickson said:


> From this I can see that my Q6600 is faster than the new tech AMD is offering and with that said a $189.99





If you cannot be unbiased, leave the reviews to the professionals!


----------



## RevengE (Jan 11, 2009)

Ahhhhh the never ending Intel AMD wars..my favorite


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> Which is why the tests should be conducted by the professionals, the professionals clearly state that the Phenom IIs are placed between the Q9xxx and i7, we don't need amateurs saying bias things such as "my Q6600 is faster than the Phenom II" when it clearly isn't!
> 
> And don't pretend that you didn't say that because I've got your quote here!-->
> 
> ...



Are you for real ? Good GOD man I don't need some " pro" telling me any thing I can say that if you find a system close to the one you have and you both do the tests then one comes out on top then that is as scientific as it gets . What PRO's ? these PRO's as you call them are nothing more than you or me they do not have some special skills that make them any more or less better at what I do ! I am at a loss for words . Then the tech power up official thread on Wprime is worthless as well it is not done by the PRO's !
OK according to DARREN any benchmarks that are done by "US" are not valid . They must be done by the pro's or scientist in a lab before they can be considered valid !


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> Which is why the tests should be conducted by the professionals, the professionals clearly state that the Phenom IIs are placed between the Q*9*xxx and i7, we don't need amateurs saying bias things such as "my Q6600 is faster than the Phenom II" when it clearly isn't!
> 
> And don't pretend that you didn't say that because I've got your quote here!-->
> 
> ...


So since this was not according to your scientific specs and not done by pro's and clearly shows my Q6600 being faster than the Phenom II I am wrong right ? 







mine .. 










Man we all have to send our computers to the PRO's now ! How am I being BIAS BTW the facts are right there in front of your FACE !


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Are you for real ? Good GOD man I don't need some " pro" telling me any thing I can say that if you find a system close to the one you have and you both do the tests then one comes out on top then that is as scientific as it gets . What PRO's ? these PRO's as you call them are nothing more than you or me they do not have some special skills that make them any more or less better at what I do ! I am at a loss for words . Then the tech power up official thread on Wprime is worthless as well it is not done by the PRO's !



No, I have nothing against non-pro reviews, I actually rather amateur reviews as it gives a real life perspective. What I hate is bias reviews, when people go out with the intent of one component either winning or loosing before the test has been conducted.

I hate when people make a small performance gap appear huge

I hate when people use one synthetic test as an indication of performance

I hate when people use one real world benchmark as an indication of performance

I hate when guys make multiple posts prove an inaccurate point

I hate when people tell you a particular component isn't cheaper in my country

I hate when people can not accept my purchase preference

I hate when people do not admit when they are wrong, I haven't heard you admit once that you were wrong about saying that the Q6600 was faster than the PII, shows your ignorance.


Edit:



trickson said:


> So since this was not according to your scientific specs and not done by pro's and clearly shows my Q6600 being faster than the Phenom II I am wrong right ?





No someone that could articulate themselves in a non-bias matter would say something like:

_Although the Q6600 was able to score higher in WPrime than the Phenom II, one must take into consideration of the many variables in this situation, such as tweaking of OS, configuration of hardware and software etc. One must also note that WPrime is just one benchmark of hundreds and a one off test shouldn't be taken for a indication of overall performance.

Other reliable sources such as the official Tech Power Up WPrime thread which is operated by respected members of the forum have posted results stating that the older Phenom 9850 was able to attain a better score than the Q6600 despite the Q6600 being clocked 300MHz higher. This would suggest that the newer revamped architecture of the Phenom II would indeed perform faster than the Q6600._



trickson said:


> How am I being BIAS BTW the facts are right there in front of your FACE !



How mature, I'm actually going to stop babysitting you. Tech Power Up need to stop letting kids in this forum.  I hate kids in real life, and I hate them on the internet. 

From this point on, I'm actually only going to reply to your intelligent posts, which is a rarity.

I swear Trickson is R9s other account!


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 11, 2009)

OK guys, let's be civil. I really don't want to start handing out infractions.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

I'm sorry MR. Scientist I was wrong for thinking that some one with a similar setup as mine and same benchmarks as I did was going to be right maybe the scores are wrong and my computer really is shit ! After all the lab tests show AMD supreme !


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> OK guys, let's be civil. I really don't want to start handing out infractions.



Agreed, its not worth it guys.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

I am 41 years old born in 1967 thank you .


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 11, 2009)

Phenom I = 65nm, 2MB L3 Cache DDR2.  (AM2+)
Phenom II = 45nm, 6MB L3 Cache DDR2. (AM2+)

The clock vs clock different is under 2%.
Overclocking for 24/7 use is ~3.8GHz, on Air.
The price different is $100 for the BE Edition. (Phemom BE vs Phenom II BE)

Core 2 Quad = 45nm, 12MB Cache, Memory Controller on NB, Dual Channel Memory.
Core i7 = 45nm, 8MB L3 Cache, Memory Controller on CPU, Hyper Threading, Triple-Channel DDR3 Memory.

The different? Up to 20% faster in multi-threaded application. And 10% in clock vs clock with HT off.
x1.5 Memory bandwidth compare to  previous CPU generation.

Prices? Core i7 920 ~ Q9550, Core i7 940 ~ Q9650.

Is there any current game that could use up to 4 cores, 8 threads? Nope.

The Core i7 platform is bloody expensive.
Yes, It is. It wasn't mainstream platform in the first place.

The Phenom II is an old CPU, with smaller die and bigger cache. And cost alot more.

AMD is blinding your eyes.

If Phenom I could reach 3GHz + in most caces, you don't need Phenom II. 

With Phenom II, you're paying for performance. 
With Core i7, I'm paying for both performance and new technologies.

Upgrading to Phenom II from your current system? This sound reasonable.

Buying a whole new Phenom II platform? Not worth it. Unless they drop the price to $239 for BE.

Core i7 absolutely faster than Phenom II, there is no question.

How much Phenom II is faster than Q6600?

How much Phenom II cost more than Q6600?

Is it worth to pay more and get the Phenom II? Or It is more cost effective to get a Q6600, and spend more on your VGA card? Which result in better FPS in gaming?


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Q6600 cost effective !


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Q6600 cost effective !



and beaten by phenom 1's which are even cheaper.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

I still think that Q6600 is a kick@ass CPU with lots of OCing headroom. Just depends if you want the latest or not.

As kid412 said, yes Core i7 is definitely better then PII  performance wise.

If you do mainly benchmarking i recommend the i7, but for gaming and what not the Q6600 is still holding its own. I have a QX6700 CPU, Intels first Quad Core CPU and it still has yet to dissapoint.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

PII is great to for people with a compatible board, there up to the Core 2's in performance and OC well.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

cdawall said:


> and beaten by phenom 1's which are even cheaper.



Really that is news to me and mine 
DID you not see this post ? 
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1152400&postcount=184


----------



## r9 (Jan 11, 2009)

All you need to know is in my signature just add that 2.6 i7 is 25% faster than PII at 3GHz and i7 can OC higher. Looking platform vs platform yes for the money PII is looking good. But what about PII with DDR3 the CPU it self will cost more DDR3 cost more it will match i7s platform in price but it will be far behind in performance. Unless DDR3 over DDR2 improves PII by 40%.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

I hate Intels push pin fan design.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

AMD .


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Really that is news to me and mine
> DID you not see this post ?
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1152400&postcount=184



It's a known fact that futuremark benches favor intel cpus over AMD. I would rather see something like Generic CPU Bench to test them against each other.

Edit:
Seriously, who cares though? Does it really deeply offend any of you when somebody buys intel over AMD, vise versa? People are going to buy what they want and feel that they need at the time and if you really have that big of an issue with how someone is spending thier money you really need to go evaluate your life.
This thread started as a great objective analysis, however now it's just a stupid fanboy debate.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> AMD .



Trickson, YHPM


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> It's a known fact that futuremark benches favor intel cpus over AMD. I would rather see something like Generic CPU Bench to test them against each other.



Now I would like to see all kinds of benchmarks done by this line of CPU . I would love to compare it to the Q9400 and the Q9550 as one is going to be my next CPU .


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

What so bad about AMD?


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> What so bad about AMD?



Nothing at all . AMD has a great line up they are powerful and have lots of OC head room . I just think the cheaper and faster route for me is to upgrade CPU a Q9XXX is a good option and not having to rebuild for another 2 years is a great thing .


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 11, 2009)

It's not that I hate AMD, but I had bad experiences with the Phenom 1. So, I'm kind of "don't want to go back" feeling.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Nothing at all . AMD has a great line up they are powerful and have lots of OC head room . I just think the cheaper and faster route for me is to upgrade CPU a Q9XXX is a good option and not having to rebuild for another 2 years is a great thing .



Was going to go to build a Q9400 system, but i may go Cote i7 when i get a job(i have nothing to pay so i can save up), plus with a good video card the system will fly.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> It's not that I hate AMD, but I had bad experiences with the Phenom 1. So, I'm kind of "don't want to go back" feeling.



Oh, well at least you have a i7 system. Should do well in gaming(if you do any gaming)


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> It's not that I hate AMD, but I had bad experiences with the Phenom 1. So, I'm kind of "don't want to go back" feeling.



With what you have in your system there is no need . 
I have to say that AMD has a made up some ground and is really looking good but for me , for now , it is far faster and easier for me to just do upgrades for the next 2 years than going all out and rebuilding . But again if I were in the market ( Could not afford the i7 setup due to its high price ) I would go for the AMD Phenom II .


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Really that is news to me and mine
> DID you not see this post ?
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1152400&postcount=184





trickson said:


>





trickson said:


> AMD .



did you not see the posts after yours showing a phenom 9850 beating a Q6600 wait you posted about it.

now as for the other post tbh honest my 1st thought was to tell you to GTFO but im going to be the bigger person and tell you that half of the forums reported those posts and you are already receiving PM's about them. if you continue this your going to get banned because you're trolling which is clearly outlined in the forum rules as being innappropriate.

here is an excerpt since you don't seem to have had a chance to read it yet



			
				DanTheBanjoman said:
			
		

> _Behavior that is inappropriate/should be reported_
> 
> Insulting other forum members (calling someone makes you look stupid anyways)
> Racist, hateful, and otherwise demeaning comments will not be tolerated; whether meant as a joke or not.
> ...



here is a link to it so you can take a look at it.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/announcement.php?f=14

read it its got some very insightful points in it. it will save you alot of trouble in the future.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 11, 2009)

I never thought this thread would live. Lol! And we all started talking about tricycles.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 11, 2009)

if you are going to build a new rig you might as well pay the extra cash and get the i7 series. considering the performance boost over 775 it is worth the cost.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> what do you think?





cdawall said:


> now as for the other post tbh honest my 1st thought was to tell you to GTFO but im going to be the bigger person and tell you that half of the forums reported those posts and you are already receiving PM's about them. if you continue this your going to get banned because you're trolling which is clearly outlined in the forum rules as being innappropriate.



The OP really left this one open for interpretation . What DO you think ? Covers a lot IMHO .

Yeah I may have had some over the top posts I will admit this but they were more annoying then trolling and well as I see it I did keep to the facts as many here have not ( not mentioning any one ) Fact is I do not care what beats what what matters to me is when I find some one running some thing as close to the setup I have and speed I have as well . Look the 9850 is a great CPU and so is the Phenom II what you clearly fail to see is how similar is that 9850 to mine ? is the video card the same ? or is it the 4870 x2 ? are the clock speeds the same or is the 9850 running at a higher clock speed . Fact is I am not trying to talk down about the NEW AMD chip ( really I am glad to see AMD is performing very well this will bring prices down all around great for every one ) . 
Fact I posted about a Phenom II on a setup as close to mine as I could find and you rejected it and dismissed it as some kind of joke Calling me names saying I am a child and that I am uneducated and not being scientific . I merely wanted to show that even a Q6600 still has a hold after all these years . 
Now as to the OP's question " what do I think ? " how is it TROLLING if I express what I think ? if it makes you mad then how am I to blame for that ? 
I have been called names and dismissed as a kid and no one els seems to be getting PM'd for that ? WOW how you can twist this around and call me names dismiss me and treat me like shit and not only get away with it but ( And here is the kicker ) quote the rules to me ! 
All the while breaking them and getting away with it seems some what biased to me . 
This thread is not about how well the new AMD CPU is nor is it just about Intel but it is and I quote .
"what do you think?" and it also starts out i7 VS Phenom II , This in and of it's self it denotes a WAR . 
I hope that I made my side clear that I am happy that AMD has made some head way I love the OC head room of there new line and the price is better than right . 
But on the other hand it is just not enough for me to jump ship pull out the setup I have and go for it I see no real reason for that . Now as for the i7 there is nothing to say AMD has not come that far not at all . 
I sure hope that my post will not get me banned but if that is the way you want it what am I to do about that ?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Binge said:


> I've proven in another thread that you can get a i7 for the cost of a high end P II rig.  "Cheapest" but not a bad build of a motherboard starts a $206



this thread is 9 pages long so sorry, but I am not reading this all.  I wil however 2nd this, I built my i7 rig for $700 

Oh and no im not bashing AMD, see my system specs, I also have a Spider Platform which im waiting for its mobo to come back, then I will get my Phenom II, so save those comments if you thought about them please.


----------



## Binge (Jan 11, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> this thread is 9 pages long so sorry, but I am not reading this all.  I wil however 2nd this, I built my i7 rig for $700
> 
> Oh and no im not bashing AMD, see my system specs, I also have a Spider Platform which im waiting for its mobo to come back, then I will get my Phenom II, so save those comments if you thought about them please.



It's more than possible to make an i7 on a budget.  You've just got to hunt around.  Mine was $630 total.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Binge said:


> It's more than possible to make an i7 on a budget.  You've just got to hunt around.  Mine was $630 total.



the only thing I re used from my previous rig is PSU and video card

$300 board, $300 CPU, $130 Ram

So I actually did it for the same money as you


----------



## Binge (Jan 11, 2009)

You got it man, that's the extent I went for everything.  I had to jump at a private deal, but I'm glad I did.  Reused my PSU/Graphics as well.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Binge said:


> You got it man, that's the extent I went for everything.  I had to jump at a private deal, but I'm glad I did.  Reused my PSU/Graphics as well.






I got my Board (EVGA X58) and CPU (i7 920) at Performance PCs, and my RAM at Tiger Direct locally


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> I bet its not on the stock Heatsink tho. Nice nice clock tho.


TBH who in their right mind will want to OC on a stock heat sink


----------



## wiak (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres a comparison at [H] http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
> 
> Even tho the conclusion is pretty disappointing for Phenom:
> 
> ...


well if you check the FREAKING prices on the compared cpus you will notice the huge good point to get a phenom II

the phenom II system had 2GB and rest of the non amd systems had 4GB, well crysis gives you a realy good boost on 4GB 

anandtech and techreport both have the best reviews atleast they used cpus and nealy identical systems that cost the same to compare

both the new denebs aims right at Q9300 and Q9400, and both the new denebs beat them


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 11, 2009)

if amd came out with a cpu better than i7 would u buy it or stick with intel?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> if amd came out with a cpu better than i7 would u buy it or stick with intel?



If it was cheaper then i7 and performed about the same,then hell ya!!!


----------



## miniquake32 (Jan 11, 2009)

if you could name intels next cpu what would u name it


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

miniquake32 said:


> if you could name intels next cpu what would u name it



Intel Core iawesome,  Codename:1337. Socket LGA 100,000.

It would be as big as your hand.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

wiak said:


> both the new denebs aims right at Q9300 and Q9400, and both the new denebs beat them



I think this is were the problem lies . If you OC the Q9300 and Q9400 then it will surpass the NEW line of AMD CPU's ( even if they are oc'd ) . And I also think that since this is supposed to be AMD's "NEW" line it should be taking a huge lead over the old phenom's  ( It is clearly not even doing this ) So to recap it is barely hold up against 2 year old tech ! Yes AMD has gained some ground but they have let us down once again . with Intel you get performance and new tech not just the ability to over clock with some performance gain . 
I think this is were the let down is when people see the NEW line and find that it holds it's own against the comps OLD line this is why .


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

> if you could name intels next cpu what would u name it



Pownage .


----------



## SeanG (Jan 11, 2009)

Benchmarks mean nothing to me,I still think AMD plays games better and smoother than Intel.And I have both.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

SeanG said:


> Benchmarks mean nothing to me,I still think AMD plays games better and smoother than Intel.And I have both.



Benchmarks may mean nothing at all to you but they do for 99.9% of us out there  
They are a guide as to how well the comp is doing and how well your OC is going and so many other reasons why we have benchmarks that they have become very important to us as system builders .


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> The OP really left this one open for interpretation . What DO you think ? Covers a lot IMHO .
> 
> Yeah I may have had some over the top posts I will admit this but they were more annoying then trolling and well as I see it I did keep to the facts as many here have not ( not mentioning any one ) Fact is I do not care what beats what what matters to me is when I find some one running some thing as close to the setup I have and speed I have as well . Look the 9850 is a great CPU and so is the Phenom II what you clearly fail to see is how similar is that 9850 to mine ? is the video card the same ? or is it the 4870 x2 ? are the clock speeds the same or is the 9850 running at a higher clock speed . Fact is I am not trying to talk down about the NEW AMD chip ( really I am glad to see AMD is performing very well this will bring prices down all around great for every one ) .
> Fact I posted about a Phenom II on a setup as close to mine as I could find and you rejected it and dismissed it as some kind of joke Calling me names saying I am a child and that I am uneducated and not being scientific . I merely wanted to show that even a Q6600 still has a hold after all these years .
> ...



dont you dare talk down to me like i was wrong and talk about how scientific your being. your trying to prove a bloody point and you have been proven wrong be 3 different bloody people but you found *1* god damn case were you were right so everyone else is wrong. thats not how its works. you were proven wrong you were shown a phenom 1 clocked @3.3ghz beating a Q6600 @3.6ghz there is no way around it video cards dont bloody matter in wprime. now get off your bloody high horse and either read what everyone is bloody posting or get out of the bloody forums.



trickson said:


> I think this is were the problem lies . If you OC the Q9300 and Q9400 then it will surpass the NEW line of AMD CPU's ( even if they are oc'd ) . And I also think that since this is supposed to be AMD's "NEW" line it should be taking a huge lead over the old phenom's  ( It is clearly not even doing this ) So to recap it is barely hold up against 2 year old tech ! Yes AMD has gained some ground but they have let us down once again . with Intel you get performance and new tech not just the ability to over clock with some performance gain .
> I think this is were the let down is when people see the NEW line and find that it holds it's own against the comps OLD line this is why .



NO IT WONT they DO NOT beat them when oc'd AMD chips are oc'ing higher than intels and cost the same they are performing clock for clock the same and if you perform the same at the same clocks yet your clocked higher your going to outperform the other fucking chip.


now to prove you wrong.

Q9400's 
BEST wprime 1024 score *288.108s *
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/wprime 1024 Q9400.jpg
best wprime 32 score* 9.015s*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/wprime 32 Q9400.jpg

X2 940 
best wprime 1024 score *222.222s*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/wprime 1024 phenom.jpg 
best wprime 32 score *6.884s*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/wprime 32 phenom.jpg

ok now the phenoms were clocked higher but what if the Q9400 is?

well what do you know the phenom wins at a lower clock to!

phenom @3987 scores *9.315s*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/wprime 32 phenom 3987.jpg

Q9400 @4040 scores *9.594s*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/wprime 32 Q9400 4040.jpg

now i have proven wrong that the Q9400 clocks higher scores better and is better clock for clock. so do you have any other misconceptions you want me to prove wrong cause i can pull Q6600 numbers to if you want.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

HOW dare YOU ! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE USING THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE AT ME FOR ME POSTING MY THOUGHTS ? HOW DARE YOU TAKE THIS TONE WITH ME ! Just who do you think you are ? 
NO I do not care what you think NO SIR NOT AT ALL I PROVED MY POINT AND YOU COME ON HERE TO BERATE AND CURSE AT ME JUST WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE !


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> HOW dare YOU ! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE USING THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE AT ME FOR ME POSTING MY THOUGHTS ? HOW DARE YOU TAKE THIS TONE WITH ME !



what are you 3? way to use caps lock your cool


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 11, 2009)

Stop feeding him. Hes a *troll*. Hes lying and doing this to get you to do things that would get you infractions or banned. Just stop.. Its been going on long enough.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

cdawall said:


> what are you 3? way to use caps lock your cool



You have the right to cures me out talk down to me and now this ?


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Stop feeding him. Hes a *troll*. Hes lying and doing this to get you to do things that would get you infractions or banned. Just stop.. Its been going on long enough.



Again just how am I trolling ? I am the one being cursed at and berated here !


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Again just how am I trolling ? I am the one being cursed at and berated here !








You make religious icons cry.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Stop feeding him. Hes a *troll*. Hes lying and doing this to get you to do things that would get you infractions or banned. Just stop.. Its been going on long enough.



i am done i just proved him wrong i'll take the infraction if thats what the mods want to give out.



trickson said:


> You have the right to cures me out talk down to me and now this ?



here's the thing look under my pic to the left do you see how many posts and thanks i have gotten. now look at yours who do you think the mods are going to ban in all the member that has been here a while posted a ton and is very very well known on these forums or you?

and i give respect were i get it i got none so i gave none maybe if you acted like a human being i would have been polite but you were not so i give you no pity


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

I am done with you and this thread just because you have more thanks and posts gives you the right to cut down and cures some one out ? Great place to be !


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Stop feeding him. Hes a *troll*. Hes lying and doing this to get you to do things that would get you infractions or banned. Just stop.. Its been going on long enough.





trickson said:


> I am done with you and this thread just because you have more thanks and posts gives you the right to cut down and cures some one out ? Great place to be !



Oh noes I found you out


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 11, 2009)

Everyone is about to get infractions. Let's give this thread a break fellas.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

Jeebus!!, Lots of fighting going on over CPU's.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2009)

here are some more benchmarks

here are some 3D benchmarks now notice the Q9400 rig is tec cooled and @4ghz with the 4870@845/1127 while the 940 rig is H2O cooled @3.987ghz with the 4870@840/1035 so the intel rig wins but not by much at all. this is the point i'm trying to make

*3D03* AMD looses by 15%
AMD X4 940 scores *48692*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/3D03 940.jpg
Intel Q9400 scores *56429*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/3D03 Q9400.jpg

*3D05* AMD wins by 8%
AMD X4 940 scores *25827*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/3D05 940.jpg
Intel Q9400 scores *23621*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/3D05 Q9400.jpg

*3D06* AMD looses by 2%
AMD X4 940 scores *18068*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/3D06 940287.jpg
Intel Q9400 scores *18501*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/3d06 Q9400.jpg

*3D mark Vantage* AMD looses by 4.9%
AMD X4 940 scores *P10251*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/phenom 3Dvantage.jpg
Intel Q9400 scores *P10756*
http://img.techpowerup.org/090111/Q9400 vantage.jpg


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Jeebus!!, Lots of fighting going on over CPU's.



YEAH over things like this .



> Tom's Hardware DE. A comparison between the current top-of-the-line AMD Phenom II X4 940 and the Intel Core i7 shows the Intel processor coming out about 22% faster. On the other hand, in comparison with the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, the same Phenom II CPU finishes about 10% ahead.


And this .


> X-Bit Labs .However, all the changes in the AMD quad-core processor lineup seem significant enough only when compared against the previous generation Phenom X4, and not against their competitors. It took AMD way too long to switch to 45nm manufacturing technology and launch their Phenom II X4. They missed the window of opportunity and the launch of Phenom II X4 doesn't have the desired effect on the market. The new Phenom II X4 doesn’t look too impressive against the background of contemporary Core 2 Quad and especially Core i7 CPUs. The results of our tests show that the top Phenom II X4 processors can only be worthy rivals to the Core 2 Quad CPUs from the “junior” Q8000 series. Unfortunately, Phenom II X4 cannot yet do better than that.



There are many more out there as well . I am done you are right ..


----------



## chris89 (Jan 11, 2009)

Arn't lot of the tests against the C2D they are equiped with DDR3? so not a fair test...

And against the I7 AMD will win as the phenom II is massivly cheaper.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

chris89 said:


> Arn't lot of the tests against the C2D they are equiped with DDR3? so not a fair test...
> 
> And against the I7 AMD will win as the phenom II is massivly cheaper.



would you mind explaining how much cheaper the Phenom II is over the i7?  Seriously, I don't mean to start anything with this, I'm just curious as to why people think this way.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> would you mind explaining how much cheaper the Phenom II is over the i7?  Seriously, I don't mean to start anything with this, I'm just curious as to why people think this way.  Thanks in advance.



AMD Build

Samsung 1TB Harddrive £73.56
Asus 4850 £118.06
ASUS M2N68 nForce 630a Socket AM2+ £51.20
Phenom 940 II x4 £237.03
Corsair 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 1066MHz £91.23

Total £571.08 inc vat

Intel Build

Samsung 1TB Harddrive £73.56
Asus 4850 £118.06
Gigabyte GA-EX58-DS4 iX58 Socket 1366 (cheapest mobo I can find) £197.02
Intel 940 £474.69 (cheapest i7 I could find)
Corsair 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1333MHz (cheapest DDR3 I can find) £102.26

Total £965.59 inc vat

The Phenom II build is 394.51 cheaper than the i7 build

All components from: Ebuyer.com




Edit:



Chicken Patty said:


> Bro that i7 build totals 790 to me.  Plus, that cheap intel board is way better than that $50 dollar board, get a good AMD board and its the same price, except for a few bucks more of RAM.



Depends where you live. In the UK our components cost more than the Americans  :s


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> AMD Build
> 
> Samsung 1TB Harddrive £73.56
> Asus 4850 £118.06
> ...





Bro that i7 build totals 790 to me.  Plus, that cheap intel board is way better than that $50 dollar board, get a good AMD board and its the same price, except for a few bucks more of RAM.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 11, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> would you mind explaining how much cheaper the Phenom II is over the i7?  Seriously, I don't mean to start anything with this, I'm just curious as to why people think this way.  Thanks in advance.



AMD 920 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103472
4gb DDR2 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231122 
790GX - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138128
374$

i7 920 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202
3gb DDR3 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145221
X58 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128375
594$

Do the math


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jan 11, 2009)

this thread has turned into a flamebate thread. STFU or get out. back on topic please


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> AMD Build
> 
> Samsung 1TB Harddrive £73.56
> Asus 4850 £118.06
> ...



My AMD build, yes I have an AMD rig too!

ASUS M3A79-T $200
Phenom II 940 $275
Tracers 1066 2GB $ 70
Radeon 4870 (visiontek) $275

Total: $820

My i7 build


EVGA X58 $300
Core i7 920 $300
2GB corsair Ram DDR3 $125
Radeon 4870 (visiontek) $275

Total: $ 1000

thats a $180 difference because I got a board that is $300, you can find really good performing boards for cheaper.  If I would have bought the Gigabyte board for $209 it would have been about a $90 dollar difference.  Yes, I know some poeple dont have much money, but you guys make it seem like its $1000 more for an i7 build.  

I do however say that if you already have a compatible board that is your best bet as you would only have to buy the Phenom II and thats it, but for a new build, I dont see a reason why not to go i7, unless of course you want AMD because you like AMD and you are not interested in owning an intel.

To be honest, anybody on here knows I dont bash AMD, nor intel.  But the performance is twice as good bro, Hyper threading helps tremendously and the chip is just fast bro.  this is not what AMD people wanna hear, and not me neither since I love AMD, but the i7 is much quicker and in benchmarks it is untouchable at the moment by the Phenom II.  A lot of people complain, oh but turn off Hyper Threading, well I don't mind doing it for comparison purposes, but really tell me one good reason why I should turn off HT?  CPU has HT technology, why not use it?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> Its not twice as fast, that is incorrect, but i7 it is faster overall
> 
> In some situations Hyperthreading is known to decrease performance (on particular applications)
> 
> ...




When i said twice as good, its an exxageration, we all know its not twice as good, but its a considerable amount, clock for clock the QX series does not touch the I7, however a high clocked QX will, but clock for clock it falls short, not to mention all QX CPU's are very very expensive compared to the baseline i7 920 which outperforms it clock for clock.

So far i Have no came across the application that has decreased performance because of HT, without HT the computer feels slower in everything, so therefore I have it on. 

BUt like I said and so did you in your last post, if you already have a AM2+ mobo, Phenom II is your best bet, i'm just waiting for my board to come back from RMA to get my Phenom II.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jan 11, 2009)

amd is almost to a wall though. where do they go from here?

PII is on the lines of core 2 quads not i7.

if you want to see a comparison some one borrow me a PII BE and mobo and i'll put it under LN2 and show you benches against my i7.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

fitseries3 said:


> amd is almost to a wall though. where do they go from here?
> 
> PII is on the lines of core 2 quads not i7.
> 
> if you want to see a comparison some one borrow me a PII BE and mobo and i'll put it under LN2 and show you benches against my i7.



dude if i had money i would buy you one, no lie lol.


AMD has gotten much farther than with the 1st generations of Phenoms, they really have and this current Phenom is a great chip, they just can't settle for this though, they need to get something out there thats going to blow everyone away, and they need to do it quick.


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

fitseries3 said:


> amd is almost to a wall though. where do they go from here?
> 
> PII is on the lines of core 2 quads not i7.
> 
> if you want to see a comparison some one borrow me a PII BE and mobo and i'll put it under LN2 and show you benches against my i7.



I would like to see to see that as well, someone give him a free CPU! 

The new Phenoms have made quite an improvement in the fact that previously the Intel E8xxx was able to compete with Intel Q9xxx series and win in benchmarks, however the AMD Phenom II 920 is enough to beat the E8xxx.  This means that as long as AMD keep prices down performance/price would be good enough even if it looses to the i7 overall.

Edit:

Removing and putting in previous post in 10mins


The improvement came from smaller die, and bigger cache, there is no different in architecture. I'm expecting a different architecture in the next generation of AMD cpu.[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

But a performance increase is a performance increase. I hope for a new architecture next time as well 

Edit 2:



Darren said:


> Its not twice as fast, that is incorrect, but i7 it is faster overall



In some situations Hyperthreading is known to decrease performance (on particular applications)

The Phenoms II are not i7 counters, its the Q-series counter, AMD said this almost a year ago, and it does indeed matchup between to the Q9xxx and i7.  

Most situation the difference between the i7, PII, and Q9xxx is insignificant. We've seen the Q9xxx beat the i7 on particular benchmarks, and we've seen the Phenom II beat the i7 on particular benchmarks. People like me that have AM2+ dont want to change motherboards  and ram to DDR3 just for Intel when we can keep our existing motherboard and ram and go Phenom, and hence even more cheaper upgrade path.


Edit 3:



kid41212003 said:


> The improvement came from smaller die, and bigger cache, there is no different in architecture. I'm expecting a different architecture in the next generation of AMD cpu.




But a performance increase is a performance increase. I hope for a new architecture next time as well


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> I would like to see to see that as well.
> 
> The new Phenoms have made quite an improvement in the fact that previously the Intel E8400 was able to compete with Intel Q9xxx series, however the AMD Phenom II 920 is enough to beat it.  This means that as long as AMD keep prices down performance/price would be good enough even if it looses to the i7 overall.
> 
> ...



yeah they have improved drastically, and the chip clock for clock is much quicker than the old gen phenoms,   But i think we all just expected AMD to release something closer to the i7 or as good, I just can't settle for this bro, AMD needs to bring their game up with the AM3 Phenoms or something!


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 11, 2009)

The improvement came from smaller die, and bigger cache, there is no different in architecture. I'm expecting a different architecture in the next generation of AMD cpu.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> The improvement came from smaller die, and bigger cache, there is no different in architecture. I'm expecting a different architecture in the next generation of AMD cpu.



amen to that, they need it, and I want to see it too!


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152150
Combo Price: $554.98 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152170
Combo Price: $534.98

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...010170147 1052429231&name=DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500)

I do not see were Intel is going to be all that bad in tearms of price if you can for go getting the top of the line ram and all that then for about $600.00 bucks you can have a very nice i7 setup that can be later on improved upon . 

lets see about the Q9400 now . 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152182
Combo Price: $356.98

Not bad for a CPU that is in line with the AMD PII . 

NOw for AMD PII .
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471
$275.00
Mobo ...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131331
$149.99
Total $424.99

What am I getting at ? well any one can find good deals and I bet you can get even better deals on a Q9550 combo setup and you can go cheaper on the AMD mobo and all that but if price vs performance is a key the the combo Q9400 would be the best deal over all JMHO .


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152150
> Combo Price: $554.98
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152170
> ...



do you really want to start this up agian. just stop. ok you have been warned by multiple moderators just leave it and move on.


and a 920+K9A2 platinum would be best price v performance


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> You dont need a $149.99 motherboard to operate AM2+
> 
> There you go making up lies again



I know this I just pick the first one . sorry .
Fact is the AMD is a cheaper setup yes but the Intel setup is not all that far off and the notion that it takes $1000.00 buck to get a i7 is completely false .


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 11, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ubCategory=343&SortField=0&PageSize=10&Page=2

The first combo.

Phenom II BE + Asus 790GX + Asus HD4870 1GB + This Memory.

Happy gaming under $700.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> You dont need a $149.99 motherboard to operate AM2+
> 
> There you go making up lies again




http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813185113
you actually need only $ 39.99, haha, does that even support Phenoms   wonder if you can overclock 1mhz on that board


----------



## SeanG (Jan 11, 2009)

I dont see it with benchmarks,I see it as I could own any one of you in COD4 or CODWAW with my AMD rig against your Intel rig.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

For a gamer, would it be best to wait for AM3? I hope their cheap.


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ubCategory=343&SortField=0&PageSize=10&Page=2
> 
> The first combo.
> 
> ...



Nice .


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> For a gamer, would it be best to wait for AM3? I hope their cheap.



Why wait ? if you want a budget build and AMD then you are going to get a PII but if you have a open mind and some good perspective there is the Q9400 that is on par with the PII and an i7 can get you some fun times for under 600 bucks so really it is all about the person and what the person thinks would be best for them . 
ether way you are going to get a great setup at a great price .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

SeanG said:


> I dont see it with benchmarks,I see it as I could own any one of you in COD4 or CODWAW with my AMD rig against your Intel rig.



I know you didnt mean any harm with this post, but thats how arguements start, look back to the last page and you'll see what I mean in case you missed it.  Especially in such a sensitive thread like this one


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> I know you didnt mean any harm with this post, but thats how arguements start, look back to the last page and you'll see what I mean in case you missed it.  Especially in such a sensitive thread like this one



I am not starting any thing I think I am being very objective in my view and I am adding some great input as well . 

What ever your choice the facts are still going to be great price great setup and great fun no matter if you go with AMD or Intel .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> I am not starting any thing I think I am being very objective in my view and I am adding some great input as well .
> 
> What ever your choice the facts are still going to be great price great setup and great fun no matter if you go with AMD or Intel .



trickson, please.  I did not direct that post to anybody, no need to feel guilty.  Sorry but thats what it seemed like to me with that last post.

I do agree, whether AMD, C2Q, or i7, they are all extremely great game setups.  For those looking to save every penny, AMD is the cheapest, but for people like me for example that care about every bit of performance and rather run their chip at 1.7v everyday as long as it gets that extra fps in Crysis, then money is not an issue and you get what you want


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> trickson, please.  I did not direct that post to anybody, no need to feel guilty.  Sorry but thats what it seemed like to me with that last post.



NO I know .


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Why wait ? if you want a budget build and AMD then you are limited to PII but if you have a open mind and some good perspective there is the Q9400 that is on par with the PII and an i7 can get you some fun times for under 600 bucks so really it is all about the person and what the person thinks would be best for them .
> ether way you are going to get a great setup at a great price .



I would like an i7 system, but where is it $600?(the CPU alone is about 299.99 on newegg)


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> I would like an i7 system, but where is it $600?(the CPU alone is about 299.99 on newegg)



http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152170

This is under 600 bucks ....


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> I would like an i7 system, but where is it $600?(the CPU alone is about 299.99 on newegg)



in my case, i had my amd rig, and the mobo died so I had the rig down.

So i bought me an i7 rig while my board is away for RMA.

I just had to buy Board, CPU and RAM, total was $720-$725


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> in my case, i had my amd rig, and the mobo died so I had the rig down.
> 
> So i bought me an i7 rig while my board is away for RMA.
> 
> I just had to buy Board, CPU and RAM, total was $720-$725



http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152170.

They are going down in price and I bet they will go down even farther soon ..


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.152170.
> 
> They are going down in price and I bet they will go down even farther soon ..



yeah they should go down very soon.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

I actually already have a Core i7 build in my wishlist and a 45nm Core 2 Quad rig also.

The i7 one is $1,024 everything but PSU

Core 2(Q9400): $951.94 everything but PSU


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> I actually already have a Core i7 build in my wishlist and a 45nm Core 2 Quad rig also.
> 
> The i7 one is $1,024 everything but PSU
> 
> Core 2(Q9400): $951.94 everything but PSU



Why combo deals are great and you can get some cheap DDR3 ram for now and save some bucks .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> I actually already have a Core i7 build in my wishlist and a 45nm Core 2 Quad rig also.
> 
> The i7 one is $1,024 everything but PSU
> 
> Core 2(Q9400): $951.94 everything but PSU



i would go i7


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> i would go i7



Agreed .


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

Heres the system

Core i7 920 2.66Ghz
EVGA X58 mobo
3GB Gskill DDR3 1333 tri channel
XFX 9800 GTX+
WD Caviar 250GB HDD SATA
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit

Using my OCZ 600W PSU.
Total: $1,024


----------



## Darren (Jan 11, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Heres the system
> 
> Core i7 920 2.66Ghz
> EVGA X58 mobo
> ...



Good build. Although I'd use a 4850 or 260 GTX, I heard on newegg. the 260 GTX is going for just $200



Edit:

The ATI 4870 is $194.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102810


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> Good build. Although I'd use a 4850 or 260 GTX, I heard on newegg. the 260 GTX is going for just $200



216 or 192? If 216 then OMG!!


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> Not sure, but for $200 it is a good deal either way..



No. Last time i checked MSI 260 192 is for $170 MIR, $190 w/o MIR.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 11, 2009)

Darren said:


> I think it was a special deal, but last week it was $200, now its $229
> 
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127361



 That's bad news.


----------



## Blacklash (Jan 11, 2009)

All I have to say is I love Ph II 940. It does 3.4GHz on stock volts and 3.7GHz 1.45v. I'm using it to push HD 4870 1Gb Crossfire @ 850 on the core. I've been playing a lot of AoC on it @ 1920x with all enabled + AA|AF. It tears it up. No stutter, no lag, solid FPS.

No it doesn't hold a candle to my main rig in things like FC2 and it still puts up perfectly playable FPS. I don't see below 40FPS mins with1920x Ultra settings. In AoC in largely CPU bound areas where my main rig gets 55FPS my AMD rig will get 46, aka I can't feel the difference.

My main rig specs are below-

Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.96GHz (1.36v)|Mushkin 998681 XP3-12800 (3x2GB) (1.65v)
Evga 132-BL-E758-A1 (X58)|Evga GeForce GTX 260 (711|2300)(x3)|DoubleSight DS-263N
WD VRaptor 150GB HD (x2)|PIONEER DVR-2920Q|LG GH22LS30|Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 2.0
SilverStone OP1000-E|SilverStone TJ10-B|Thermalright U-120 Extreme|VISTA HP x64 SP-1

The X3 on the GTX 260s = Tri-SLi.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

With MSI GTX 260

its now $1,064.94


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Man I want to go i7 but I just can't right now maybe when the price is a little lower . 
Blacklash that is one sexy i7 rig you have !


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Man I want to go i7 but I just can't right now maybe when the price is a little lower .
> Blacklash that is one sexy i7 rig you have !



Same here, planning this system for when ever i get a job and i can then save for it.


----------



## Blacklash (Jan 11, 2009)

trickson said:


> Man I want to go i7 but I just can't right now maybe when the price is a little lower .
> Blacklash that is one sexy i7 rig you have !



Thanks, it's great for things like FC2 with 16xQ AA Ultra settings @ 1920x and of course e-peen marks. 

I dropped  some benches from it below when it was first built, if you're interested-

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=124545


----------



## trickson (Jan 11, 2009)

Blacklash said:


> Thanks, it's great for things like FC2 with 16xQ AA Ultra settings @ 1920x and of course e-peen marks.
> 
> I dropped  some benches from it below when it was first built, if you're interested-
> 
> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=124545



GOD that is ONE BAD A$$ setup MAN ! 
I just have to get the Q9550 now as this Q6600 is nearing the end of it's power house days now . 
LOVE what you built man keep up the great work .


----------



## Blacklash (Jan 12, 2009)

trickson said:


> GOD that is ONE BAD A$$ setup MAN !
> I just have to get the Q9550 now as this Q6600 is nearing the end of it's power house days now .
> LOVE what you built man keep up the great work .



Well thanks again. Overclocked GTX 260 Core 216 Tri-SLi is wonderful for 1920x. This was made a little more sweet for me because I ordered two regular Evga GTX 260s from Newegg when they were 220usd and got two with Core 216 GPUs in them. I matched them up with an old GTX 260 192SP I already owned. So mixed GTX 260 SLi works fine.

You may wish to hold off on building something new until we see the price vs performance of GTX 285s around the 15th of this month.


----------



## anthoniosmythe (Feb 10, 2009)

*i7*



miniquake32 said:


> what do you think?


i7 all the way! Wanted the extreme of course! But saved up and bought the £480 bought mine from~: www.okobe.co.uk http://www.okobe.co.uk/ws/product/Intel+Core+i7+940+Processor+2.93GHz+Socket+B/1000010275


----------

