# AMD Phenom GP 7000 vs Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Comparison



## malware (Nov 2, 2007)

Expreview has posted a comparison results between AMD's new Phenom GP 7000 2.0GHz processor and Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core 6400+ 3.20GHz. The systems used was: ATI RD790 motherboard, GeForce 8600 GTS and pair of 1GB Corsair DDR2-1066MHz memory (2x1GB).



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## theonetruewill (Nov 2, 2007)

They better be able to heighten the clock speed or this just isn't going to be good enough. Clock for clock it's good, but it needs to overclock well to really beat Core 2.


----------



## von kain (Nov 2, 2007)

even though the clocks are just plain low (2ghz is very low) i thing it sold much greater than this.but why a 8600gts??


----------



## Mussels (Nov 2, 2007)

that is a good improvement, but unless they sell them at 3GHz and up, they cant compete with the upcoming intels.

I guess tho, if its really cheap a loooot of gamers will move over to this.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 2, 2007)

The first graph is made a bit silly, fps and 3d mark score in the same horizontal line. Graphs are to visualize numbers, with those 3Dmark scores there we're still limited to the numbers.


----------



## ManofGod (Nov 2, 2007)

At first I thought that this just plain sucks.  Then I saw the clock speed difference and realized that I completely misread the chart.  That is absolutely fantastic, I am looking forward to this chip now. 

Joe


----------



## von kain (Nov 2, 2007)

i believe (and most people with brains in their head) that comparing a 2 ghz vs a 3.20 is a bit stupid but if you thing the arch difference it suppose to be much more fast than this  (plus i thought that phenoms will be named 9400, 9600 ,9700 not 7000)


----------



## wiak (Nov 2, 2007)

nice results 
Intel Core 2 Quad 2,4 ghz vs core 2 duo 3.0 ghz
is around the same alley


----------



## Ketxxx (Nov 2, 2007)

Phenom needs to clock to at least 3.2GHz to have a fighting chance, otherwise.. I think that AMD ship is goiong to sink completely.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 2, 2007)

von kain said:


> i believe (and most people with brains in their head) that comparing a 2 ghz vs a 3.20 is a bit stupid but if you thing the arch difference it suppose to be much more fast than this  (plus i thought that phenoms will be named 9400, 9600 ,9700 not 7000)



Of course not, Intel and AMD are commercial companies and their CPU's are commercial items. Therefor the most logical comparison is performance/price. It is not relevant if the chip runs at 20 terahertz and has a zillion GB cache or not. Company A offers x performance for y dollars, same goes for company B, how they achieve it isn't relevant for the customer. It's not like you'll ever be able to tell if it's 2x2 cores or 4 cores by using the system or how fast it's clocked.


----------



## jydie (Nov 2, 2007)

Some of those tests (like 3DMark05) do a bad job of utilizing multi core CPUs.  My old Athlon 64 3700+ can beat my X2 3800+ and X2 4200+ in several of these benchmarks simply because it has a higher clock speed.  So, remember to take that into consideration when looking at this information.

As far as AMD's future goes... Intel may have the fastest CPUs, but none of my friends own one because the are too expensive.  As long as AMD CPUs can compete in the mass market range ($30-$125), I think they will be fine.


----------



## nflesher87 (Nov 2, 2007)

lol AMD amazes me sometimes...using an 8800GTS for benchmarking their upcoming CPU when they OWN ATI...:shadedshu


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 2, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> lol AMD amazes me sometimes...using an 8800GTS for benchmarking their upcoming CPU when they OWN ATI...:shadedshu



Yup, we all know expreview secretly is AMD.


----------



## a111087 (Nov 2, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> lol AMD amazes me sometimes...using an 8800GTS for benchmarking their upcoming CPU when they OWN ATI...:shadedshu



...they used 8600


----------



## pbmaster (Nov 2, 2007)

I've been looking forward to the new AMD chips for quite a while. This looks pretty good as long as they will OC well.


----------



## Kreij (Nov 2, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Yup, we all know expreview secretly is AMD.



Is that your sarcasm sneaking out again on an AMD-Type thread? 

On the topic, the multimedia bench looks pretty promising.


----------



## Scrizz (Nov 2, 2007)

ehh I'll wait..


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 2, 2007)

How does the Phenom chip win in the 06 bench but not the 05? Seems like it would win in both or fail in both. 

Is this Phenom chip the "native" quad core or the dual core Phenom chip? If its the quad core, they really shouldnt compare a quad core to a dual core.


----------



## theonetruewill (Nov 2, 2007)

Kreij said:


> Is that your sarcasm sneaking out again on an AMD-Type thread?
> 
> On the topic, the multimedia bench looks pretty promising.



But look at the memory scores! They're appalling.


----------



## rhythmeister (Nov 2, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> Phenom needs to clock to at least 3.2GHz to have a fighting chance, otherwise.. I think that AMD ship is goiong to sink completely.



Come on dude, you oughta have faith in AMD! Bang per buck I predict it'll laugh at the quad core intels. I'm not gonna pay as much as my car's worth to get a cpu and AMD must've read my mind and designed the perfect cpu accordingly


----------



## jydie (Nov 2, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> How does the Phenom chip win in the 06 bench but not the 05? Seems like it would win in both or fail in both.



3DMARK05 does not benchmark well with multi core CPUs... and instead seems to give better scores based on the clock speed.  3DMARK06 takes advantage of multi core CPUs, so that is why this new CPU loses in 05 and wins in 06.


----------



## DaJMasta (Nov 2, 2007)

Clock for clock, as said before, looks fine.  It should be at least competitive with intel on that scale..... but that means nothing if it's running at 2/3 the speed...





Hopefully some aggressive pricing and clock speed ramps make these chips a real contender.


----------



## AddSub (Nov 2, 2007)

No! Say it aint so! Multi-core CPUs are largely useless outside of few games (maybe a dozen or so, total), some specialized video/audio/file management applications and a benchmark or two that are specially designed for em. 

I’m really digging the UT2004 scores.  What a slip! They actually included a game that was not optimized for multi-cores. I thought it was a standard manner of operation when it came to latest CPU/GPU technology to avoid older games in benchmarking and therefore keep the illusion of progress.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 2, 2007)

go AMD - they got got good results if you take into account the clock speeds, and since they're going to be cheaper than most intel chips (i hope) i see them doing well if the market has a brain and takes into account that its cheaper for the performance.


----------



## moto666 (Nov 2, 2007)

*4Cores Rulez*

Multi-core CPUs aren't useless!
Why are you saying dope things DuDe!
I have a core2 duo and it's realy handy in every day work/play/creative use!
And even programs that doesn't use many threads can utilyse the extra power, 
when u wan't u can manualy adjust which program which cores use!
Ctrl+Alt+Del Then in task manager you can adjust running programs cpu affinity!
And that is a cool thing if you think about it...
I definitely wait for Phenoms to buy one! 
When U have 4 Cores and hmm 2Monitors(that is no sience fiction novadays I think) 
Then You can Play on then first, and on the second you sea your msn, virus scanner, tv 

tuner, net rss, p2p, and so on! Or you don't play just doing some photoshop, or maya! I 

think I buy a third monitor soon! 
MultyCoreRulez!


----------



## GLD (Nov 2, 2007)

I don't need no stinkin' benchmark numbers. The AMD Quads will be the $h!t and we all know it. I will be buying one, maybe not on launch day, but I will buy one, or more. So go get you lube ready Intel, so it wont be so rough on ya'


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 2, 2007)

jydie said:


> 3DMARK05 does not benchmark well with multi core CPUs... and instead seems to give better scores based on the clock speed.  3DMARK06 takes advantage of multi core CPUs, so that is why this new CPU loses in 05 and wins in 06.



All right, that explains that.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 2, 2007)

GLD said:


> I don't need no stinkin' benchmark numbers. The AMD Quads will be the $h!t and we all know it. I will be buying one, maybe not on launch day, but I will buy one, or more. So go get you lube ready Intel, so it wont be so rough on ya'



Not necessarily. Everyone thought that about Barcelona and look how that turned out. Xeons are still faster. 

Please none of that fanboy crap. I cant stand it. Just have a healthy discussion/debate. Only the benchmarks will prove whether or not AMD comes out on top or flops.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 2, 2007)

benchmarks plus price - no one in thier right mind would buy an amazing cpu that p1sses all over intel if its £500 for example. benchs arnt everything


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 2, 2007)

rhythmeister said:


> Come on dude, you oughta have faith in AMD! Bang per buck I predict it'll laugh at the quad core intels. I'm not gonna pay as much as my car's worth to get a cpu and AMD must've read my mind and designed the perfect cpu accordingly



Have you seen the price lists for the release of the nwe 45nm Yorkfields in January?  There are some damn good prices in there, in fact, for their lower end quads....the ones with ONLY 6MB of L2 I would think that AMD will struggle to match it for $.....probably for perormance > $ also, but we will see, whichever of the 2 are the best bang for buck is the one I'll be buying......I fear that it will be Intel tho again.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 2, 2007)

ARTT said:


> benchmarks plus price - no one in thier right mind would buy an amazing cpu that p1sses all over intel if its £500 for example. benchs arnt everything



Yep your quite right, so take a look here in the UK at prices at the moment for example, just choosing one popular e tailer.........

Intel C2D @ £72.84

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=632057

Equivilent priced AMD dual core, well just a couple of £ more:

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=632504

Now excluding fanboi's it would be interesting to see who would buy which and which would be the fastest at stock speeds and at max overclocks, my guess would be, bang for buck the overclocker at least would choose the E4500??  They will go 3.6Gig on good air and a decent mobo, the AMD wont, and roughly to get the AMD performing across the board with the same performance you would need to overclock it to 4Gig at least to match the E4500 at 3.6Gig......so who was talking about "Bang for Buck"???

And before anyone says it.......I am actually an AMD fanboi....but I also have eyes


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 2, 2007)

your right there tatty. i guess all the money that intel made of with the quads will be used to underpin AMD and price them out. if they know that they are running up massive losses each quarter then this could be the chance to under price them.

if thats true then a cheap intel system might be going my way, however much i love my AMD.

guess only time will tell


----------



## Frick (Nov 2, 2007)

I think it looks kinda good.. The 6400+ is roughly on par with the e6750 (@ stock anyway..) and this CPU thing is roughly on par with the 6400+ @ only 2 Ghz. If it overclocks well and has the right price it looks promising.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 2, 2007)

Kreij said:


> Is that your sarcasm sneaking out again on an AMD-Type thread?
> 
> On the topic, the multimedia bench looks pretty promising.



It is sarcasm yes, however AMD has nothing to do with it, which are exactly the words that describe my point as well.


----------



## Kreij (Nov 2, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> It is sarcasm yes, however AMD has nothing to do with it, which are exactly the words that describe my point as well.



I know Dan. I was just ribbing you, seeing as you had to explain your sarcasm, and it not being AMD related, in a thread a couple of days ago.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 2, 2007)

Kreij said:


> I know Dan. I was just ribbing you, seeing as you had to explain your sarcasm, and it not being AMD related, in a thread a couple of days ago.



But I liked the way my sentence worked in 2 ways


----------



## wiak (Nov 2, 2007)

jydie said:


> Some of those tests (like 3DMark05) do a bad job of utilizing multi core CPUs.  My old Athlon 64 3700+ can beat my X2 3800+ and X2 4200+ in several of these benchmarks simply because it has a higher clock speed.  So, remember to take that into consideration when looking at this information.
> 
> As far as AMD's future goes... Intel may have the fastest CPUs, but none of my friends own one because the are too expensive.  As long as AMD CPUs can compete in the mass market range ($30-$125), I think they will be fine.


+1
i whould realy like to see a test that uses x264 encoding using all four cores and High Profile on 1920x1080p @ 10mbit, and see how that is

multicore is totaly diffrent on games and video encoding
crysis is one of those games that uses much of all cores and that result was good compaired to the X2 6400 vs 
a phenom x4 3.2ghz vs x2 6400+ 3.2ghz, the phenom vil atleast be 50% faster


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 2, 2007)

Huh...it's decent.  Nice showing of quad vs dual.  Also, the memory architecture obviously improved.  But I think it's coming back to clock speeds again (Barcelona vs Clovertown)


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 2, 2007)

Last I checked (was around the Barcelona release) the Phenom chips were close to using 1.5v Vcore just at 2.0GHz. That is insane. There is next to no head room to OC if that is the case. You would be closing in on 2.0v just to OC it decent.


----------



## erocker (Nov 2, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Last I checked (was around the Barcelona release) the Phenom chips were close to using 1.5v Vcore just at 2.0GHz. That is insane. There is next to no head room to OC if that is the case. You would be closing in on 2.0v just to OC it decent.



You deffinitely checked wrong bud.


----------



## hat (Nov 2, 2007)

The old chips needed like 3.3v to get to 66MHz stock


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Nov 2, 2007)

If you can oc that 2gig chip to 3+ it will absolutely fly!!

Hopefully these will oc as well/better than the Core 2's.....  Hopefully.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 2, 2007)

erocker said:


> You deffinitely checked wrong bud.



http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3092&p=2

I was half right. It was the Barcelona chip, not the Phenom. But still, if the Phenom chip is supposed to be the desktop version of Barcelona, 1.5v is still bad.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Nov 2, 2007)

When I saw this I was surprised.  The X4 is actually keeping up at a much lower clock speed.  AMD may have a chance.


----------



## mandelore (Nov 2, 2007)

firstly i believe the 2ghz phenom was on 1.15 or something vcore, secondly on the overdrive screen we seen on another post there was a range of phenom clocks on each core, ranging from sub 3ghz to 3.3ghz, so i believe these will indeed clock decently.  still not certain why a 2ghz was compared to a 3ghz and using an 8600 card. it does show how well a 1ghz slower chip with new architecture compares t a 1ghz faster chip with older architecture in applications like 3dmark where the raw cpu speed is taken into account as described in one previous post


----------



## Sovereign (Nov 2, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> When I saw this I was surprised.  The X4 is actually keeping up at a much lower clock speed.  AMD may have a chance.





mandelore said:


> firstly i believe the 2ghz phenom was on 1.15 or something vcore, secondly on the overdrive screen we seen on another post there was a range of phenom clocks on each core, ranging from sub 3ghz to 3.3ghz, so i believe these will indeed clock decently.  still not certain why a 2ghz was compared to a 3ghz and using an 8600 card. it does show how well a 1ghz slower chip with new architecture compares t a 1ghz faster chip with older architecture in applications like 3dmark where the raw cpu speed is taken into account as described in one previous post



Basicaly the same thing can be said about AMD's current (now previous generation) AM2 vs Intel's C2D. The C2D on average runs slower (stock) than it's rival AM2 chip and manages to outperform it (mostly) with lower clocks and on average. This will be the same case with the Phenom because it is a newer generation chip and MHZ are NOT everything! Those chart pics clearly show that.

On a side note, I am going to miss my opty in a few short weeks! She has served me well in the short amount of time that I've had her!

P.S - Also remember that they are comparing AMD's lowest end Phenom (AFAIK - AMD Phenom GP 7000) vs their highest end mainstream CPU. Just think what the higher models will be able to do to that poor little 6400+ and most likely, the competition!


----------



## mandelore (Nov 2, 2007)

Sovereign said:


> On a side note, I am going to miss my opty in a few short weeks! She has served me well in the short amount of time that I've had her!



yes, but i will miss mine slightly less, stupid thing, awww, im sorry 

*pets opty 185. "_its just your RMA'd 185 predecessor owned your crappy stepping_"

* Opteron 185 cries



* me feels thoroughly evil


----------



## OneCool (Nov 3, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Yup, we all know expreview secretly is AMD.





thinking the same thing


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 3, 2007)

Price is what is going to make a difference, bang for the buck as said by others. I have always preferred AMD, but have no doubt that Intel is going to stay on top for a good while, and that Intels processors will still smoke the quad core AMD. The price of the new Barcelona indicated the Phenom may be inexpensive and a good budget buy, at least I hope so!


----------



## b1lk1 (Nov 3, 2007)

There is an entire market out there buying AMD CPU's that could care less about this performance war.  The reality is that AMD can still build a highly competitive CPU without beating Intel.  They don't need to beat Intel in performance, only price.  Everyone bashing AMD should be praising them for trying to stay in the fight toe to toe of we wouldn't have sub $300 Quads right now.  They are keeping Intel honest with their pricing and AMD is not going anywhere.  Some of you guys really need to study some business and look past the fact that maybe 5-10% of the world actually buys a PC for pure performance with the rest of them buying the cheapest one possible.  OEM's will keep AMD alive indefinitely and AMD will keep all brands of CPU prices low as long as they breathe.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Nov 3, 2007)

Having just read the chart, at first, I was about to be pissed off. However, I did notice the clocks and how close it was and was actually impressed. That 7000 (which I think will be their low end/mid range chips) is actually keeping up nicely. OC that sucker, and it should fly through everything. Not to mention, 4 cores versus 2, thats still alot more work for those 4 cores.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 3, 2007)

DrunkenMafia said:


> If you can oc that 2gig chip to 3+ it will absolutely fly!!
> 
> Hopefully these will oc as well/better than the Core 2's.....  Hopefully.



Then they are in trouble if thats all they overclock to as Intel have the 45nm release also which should be significantly better than the current 65nm.....assuming of course you meant the current C2D's.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 4, 2007)

Phenom 65nm?


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 4, 2007)

They will have an FX in Q2 next year that is expected to be around 2.8, so likely that will hit 3.0 if none of the others. If the little 2.2 will hit 2.66 like I have with the dual core, I will go for it if the price is under $200. If not I will be getting a 5000+ black box.


----------

