I'm feeling this Phenom II. Welcome back AMD! Some of us never lost the faith!

Many Thanks to cdawall for sending this in.

wooooooooooooooo

Oh crumbs, those results are poor. My Q6600 in my DDR1 AGP system pulls better scores at 2.7GHz. At least AMD is offereing a competitive "second tier" CPU. Let's hope pricing and power/heat make this things very competitive. But ULTIMATE machines need to be built on Intel.

Sadly, with Nehalem, and i7, AMD are in big big trouble.

alot better than what ive seen in the past with amd..now if these chips clock..watch out core i7 theres a new sherriff in town

AthlonX2watch out core i7 theres a new sherriff in town

:roll::roll::roll::roll:

AthlonX2alot better than what ive seen in the past with amd..now if these chips clock..watch out Q6600 theres a new sherriff in town

Fixed. :D

Well, at least they managed to equal Conroe's performance(on Super PI)...

lemonadesodaOh crumbs, those results are poor. My Q6600 in my DDR1 AGP system pulls better scores at 2.7GHz. At least AMD is offereing a competitive "second tier" CPU. Let's hope pricing and power/heat make this things very competitive. But ULTIMATE machines need to be built on Intel.

Sadly, with Nehalem, and i7, AMD are in big big trouble.

I dont get it. If you go to www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/7days/ you will see Q6600 have done 8161. Phenom II X4 did 15457, 47% more with only 20% more clock. Something is not right with you score.

trabanomI dont get it. If you go to www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/7days/ you will see Q6600 have done 8161. Phenom II X4 did 15457, 47% more with only 20% more clock. Something is not right with you score.

Yeah and if you look better you'll see that the Q9550 which is suposed to be faster than the Q6600 does 3040!!

:roll:

You realize that those charts are representing the number of participants that have that specific model right??

Nice. They was pretty cool that they tested it with the same board i just purchased. :rockout:

This just made my stupid day better. :)

My E6750 does a better job of SuperPi @ 3GHz than this does...thats shocking. :nutkick:

aCid888*My E6750 does a better job of SuperPi @ 3GHz than this does...thats shocking. :nutkick:

Meh, AMD processors never have really been able to calculate out to 1,000,000 digits of pi very quickly, I presume they over there just don't deem that important. :wtf: I know people say that test is optimized for intel, but I would like specifics on which instruction set intel is using that allows them to calculate that so well, cause I don't buy it.

At any rate, these come in around $200 and that's win. Much higher and it's just more of the same (amd coming several months late to the party and offering no compelling reason to choose them over intel).

these are set to cost more than $200ish

Bingethese are set to cost more than $200ish

I know, but you never know, things can change, and hopefully AMD won't simply attempt to operate under the assumption that people will buy it b/c it's AMD (although that would be partially correct) and if these are accurate numbers they will price it accordingly (not just to match intel, but to beat them, badly).

since gaming is a better result group than sp1m here is a Q6600@3.22ghz



score is w/i a couple 100pts of the phenom running 220mhz slower with shit as far as the ram goes




here is one @ 3ghz notice how it scores less

^^ The cpu score on said bench is roughly the same at the same speeds (within 100 points). Note that the q6600 is now less than $200 and 2 years old. So, if this is a worthwhile bench, then I guess perhaps the 940 should be much less than $200, I'm not so sure gaming is that good of a bench for cpu's these days though. We need some new stuff.

farlex85^^ The cpu score on said bench is roughly the same at the same speeds (within 100 points). Note that the q6600 is now less than $200 and 2 years old. So, if this is a worthwhile bench, then I guess perhaps the 940 should be much less than $200, I'm not so sure gaming is that good of a bench for cpu's these days though. We need some new stuff.

i figured that would make more sense bench wise than SP which AMD has always done poorly on.


best would be cinebench haven't found the benchies i want for that though

cdawalli figured that would make more sense bench wise than SP which AMD has always done poorly on.


best would be cinebench haven't found the benchies i want for that though

Yeah it is a bit better, I'm just curious as to why AMD always does poorly on that test. Truly test bias, or truly slower architecture? Perhaps a combination of both. Cine is good, somebody did winrar in another thread I think which I though would be a real good "real-world" bench. Sandra was among the first i7 benches and a very effective bench that doesn't seem to be used very often for some reason despite it's power and validity.

Why they are running SuperPi on a multicore system!?!? Last I knew, SuperPi was not multithreaded... so the extra cores do very little to lower the time. To lower the time in the SuperPi test, you need to raise the speed of the CPU. There is one test you can do with SuperPi to show off the benefit of 4 cores... kick off 4 SuperPi's at the same time and do the same on a single or dual core system. The quad system should finish all 4 tests far sooner then the single or dual core systems.

Oh... and just as I question running SuperPi on this system, what is up with Aquamark? That is one OLD test and I doubt it is multi-threaded???

jydieWhy they are running SuperPi on a multicore system!?!? Last I knew, SuperPi was not multithreaded... so the extra cores do very little to lower the time. To lower the time in the SuperPi test, you need to raise the speed of the CPU. There is one test you can do with SuperPi to show off the benefit of 4 cores... kick off 4 SuperPi's at the same time and do the same on a single or dual core system. The quad system should finish all 4 tests far sooner then the single or dual core systems.

Oh... and just as I question running SuperPi on this system, what is up with Aquamark? That is one OLD test and I doubt it is multi-threaded???

its not multithreaded either but does show a true similarity between the P2 and C2Q

Not bad but 1.352v for 3ghz.:eek:

Woody112Not bad but 1.352v for 3ghz.:eek:

Wow I didn't even realize that. What's going on here, can we get some 9950 comparisons? Did they just up the voltage and clock speed a bit, create more headroom and slap a new sticker on it? How is this even that much better than Phenom I?

How about we just wait for some real world benchmarks, perhaps? TRT740, myself and ascstinger will all have 945 BE ES chips within the week, and then we'll see.

farlex85Sorry I'm not trying to make it fanboyish if your referring to my comments, this just seems quite disappointing, I have visions of competition dancing in my head.....

You can keep that vision, it just needs to be against the penryn and not i7. i7 is on another level, performance wise and PRICE wise.

farlex85Wow I didn't even realize that. What's going on here, can we get some 9950 comparisons? Did they just up the voltage and clock speed a bit, create more headroom and slap a new sticker on it? How is this even that much better than Phenom I?

Now I know why all those other bench marks floating around here on TPU had a black bar going across the voltage on CPU-z.
I'm not going to BS anyone I've always been an intel fan but was actually considering the possibility of making a jump to AMD. Still may if prices are really good.