WheresYerbrainwow, yer just as bad ! :slap: Did you even check the front page?

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

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

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

interesting

Gringslol, no, i didnt read the original post, so ignore the second part of my post:)

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

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

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

These are the current relevant prices.

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


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

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

Its Intels market now :rockout:

you totally missed the point

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

Its Intels market now :rockout:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I soo agree with you.

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

Yahp yahp :)

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




I soo agree with you.

The Phenom X4 that's used in this benchmark costs $ 320 by PriceGrabber. Almost 1/3 the price of a QX6850

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



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


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

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

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



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


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

Here's the funny part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dang, Btarnr beat me!!! lmao

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

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

VILLAIN_xxdang, Btarnr beat me!!! lmao

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

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

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

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

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

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

btarunrAM2+ and no HT 3.0? Beats me man! So what's so AM2"+" about it? Just Phenom support? This is deceptive marketing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ouch Ouch Ouch

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

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

::sigh:::


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

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

techreport.com/articles.x/13628

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well I got response from the testers..

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

thats a damn shame. lol maybe its gigabytes fault?

ChaoticBlanknessI'll believe it when I see official reviews.

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

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

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