The only critical difference between Nehalem and Netburst is Nehalem fixed all the cache misses that plagued Netburst (they compensated by upping the clock speed). QPI helps but Netburst didn't fall flat because of the FSB.

Their architectures are strikingly similar. Not to mention, the name Nehalem was originally attached to a Netburst chip.

P6: Pentium Pro (USA), Pentium II (USA), Pentium III (USA), Pentium M (Israel), Core (Israel), Core 2 (Israel)
Netburst: Pentium 4 (USA), Pentium D (USA), Core i# (USA)


At AMD...

Kryptonite: K6, K6-2, Athlon (K7), Athlon XP (K7 w/ SSE), Athlon 64 (K8), Phenom (K10)

FordGT90ConceptGeekbench: forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=88575
img.techpowerup.org/090523/geekbench.png

Intel Burn Test: forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=94721
img.techpowerup.org/090523/intelburntest.png


Clock for clock, Xeons with FB-DIMMs spank the rest. It's a clear trend. They're slow out of the start gate but once they get going, they're hard to stop. As proof of this, note how they generally have lower memory scores but still win in the end. The latency of the FB-DIMMs will strike against any benchmarking but it more than makes up for it in CPU results because of the huge bandwidth.

Mine, for instance, is only running at 533 MHz FSB but with memory running in quad-channel. It could push upwards of 16,800 MB/s. My motherboard supports 32-64 GiB memory (8 DIMMs).

Also, the biggest advantage of FB-DIMMs are shown on the four-way platform (604 socket). The reason there are over 150 fewer pins is because FB-DIMM only needs a fraction of the number of memory controller -> DIMM interconnects as normal DIMMs.


Core i7s are currently getting the highest marks for memory because of QPI.

That's nice, but you're using a 8 core system, and scores you marked are the score/ghz.
Because of this every 8 core system will have a much bigger score/ghz value than the other 4 core systems.

We need the score/core, but there is no such column!



Anyway i don't see why the fb-dimm helps when there is cpu limit (because of fsb).
Fb-dimm only gives a big bandwith, which helps in applications which are memory bandwith limited.

farlex85If, however, you mean by "average" they are playing mostly games and/or have a love affair w/ AMD, then yes PII does serve a better buy for those folks. I would hesitate to call them average though. 720BE is great in all situations though, doesn't matter what the build that's just a great chip for the money. Thought I would clarify though......:laugh:

Ether I'm still sobering up or there was a jab in there towards me. :confused:

TheMailMan78Ether I'm still sobering up or there was a jab in there towards me. :confused:

I wasn't trying to jab at you, just challenging the notion that PII is better for the "average" consumer that you said in the post I quoted, and is a sentiment others have said before. I suppose it wasn't totally relevant nor necessary, but in truth I wasn't totally sober myself. :D :toast:

FordGT90ConceptThe only critical difference between Nehalem and Netburst is Nehalem fixed all the cache misses that plagued Netburst (they compensated by upping the clock speed). QPI helps but Netburst didn't fall flat because of the FSB.

Their architectures are strikingly similar. Not to mention, the name Nehalem was originally attached to a Netburst chip.

Perhaps they are similar to the same vein as PIII was to Core 2, but to me that really isn't very much. Both architectures, although maybe using and building off of previous architecture, are their own and the performance is of course very different. There will of course be similarities though as they can't start from scratch every time.

FordGT90ConceptIf you recall, Pentium 4/D handed it to Athlon 64/X2 in media/encoding

That's true, but only when p4/d were clocked 800-1200mhz higher than a64/x2.

MelvisI would like to see a Q6600 beat a Phenom 955 :pimp:

955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's

DrPepper955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's

No...there are 4 platforms for the Q6600...if you get the cheapest theres not chance in hell...if you go X38/X48 it's the same price?

MrAlexNo...there are 4 platforms for the Q6600...if you get the cheapest theres not chance in hell...if you go X38/X48 it's the same price?

p35 ?

ValdezAnyway i don't see why the fb-dimm helps when there is cpu limit (because of fsb).

Since the north bridge is talking to processors directly on the sticks of memory, requests to the memory can be shorter and more complex. It decreases physical interconnects and bandwidth consumed by the memory modules.

ValdezThat's true, but only when p4/d were clocked 800-1200mhz higher than a64/x2.

Again, that was because of the Netburst architecture. They had the clockspeeds so high to overcome the high number of cache misses.

I love how all AMD post really bring out the love in this forum O:)

DrPepper955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's

Here in the UK I could build a Phenom II 955 build for almost the same price as a Q6600 build. The Q6600 is around £160, the Phenom II 955 is around £200. But because AM2+ boards are cheaper than socket 775 boards, the total price is almost the same.

If I was to put together a Phenom II 810, 920, 940, or 945 build it would be alot cheaper than the Q6600 build. Cheaper and faster, you can not go wrong!

Edit:

i7 is just too expensive to consider in the UK.

Edit 2:

Actually you should know you're from Scotland!

DarrenHere in the UK I could build a Phenom II 955 build for almost the same price as a Q6600 build. The Q6600 is around £160, the Phenom II 955 is around £200. But because AM2+ boards are cheaper than socket 775 boards, the total price is almost the same.

If I was to put together a Phenom II 810, 920, 940, or 945 build it would be alot cheaper than the Q6600 build. Cheaper and faster, you can not go wrong!

Edit:

i7 is just too expensive to consider in the UK.

Edit 2:

Actually you should know you're from Scotland!

Okay counting motherboard and cpu only

i7 = £385
Phenom II = £332

That is the cheapest Phenom II board that does DDR3 (I know it can do DDR2)
And the i7 build is a Asus P6T SE and 920 D0 with a free game. Now I would pay the extra for the i7 build. Also I though q6600's would be cheaper. I got mine when they were about £105.

Most Phenom II reviews see little performance gain between DDR2 and DDR3 anyways, but I must admit the DDR3 and AM3 motherboards are still expensive, usually from £100 but its optional, you could easily drop the Phenom II in a regular £40-50 motherboard with PC8500 and there is no way that a socket 775 or i7 could beat it from a price/performance ratio.

DarrenMost Phenom II reviews see little difference between DDR2 and DDR3 anyways but I must admit the DDR3 and AM3 motherboards are still expensive, usually from £100 but its optional, you could easily drop the Phenom II in a regular £40-50 motherboard with PC8500 and there is no way that a socket 775 or i7 could beat it from a price/performance ratio.

Indeed that is true but I tried to keep RAM costs out of the question.

DrPepperIndeed that is true but I tried to keep RAM costs out of the question.

If we take ram out of the equation and we presume that both the i7 and Phenom II builds are using DDR3 compatible motherboards and memory the Phenom II should be a lot cheaper than your predicted prices.

Remember if we match up the two cheapest and the two most expensive CPUs in the opposing brands range we'll see the price gap.


Cheapest CPUs:
Intel Core i7 920 is £229.99
AMD Phenom II 810 is £146

Difference: £83


Most expensive CPUs:
Intel i7 940 is £505
Intel i7 965 Extreme Edition is £804
AMD Phenom II 955 is £200

Difference: £305 or £604

Prices from Novatech.co.uk

Edit:

£305-604 is a huge difference in price, if one was to go the AMD route and select a AM2+ board/DDR2 memory the gap would be even larger for the overal build.

I got my prices from OCUK though they aren't predicted. Also I did them in terms of performance not flagship v flagship

DrPepper955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's

I said what i said because of what the other poster said > Originally Posted by newtekie1 View Post
The Q6600 released in Jan2007 is still outperforming their top offering today, they still have a lot of ground to make up.

As proven along time ago that the AMD 9950 and Q6600 are around the same in performance (im not going into OC because not many people do it) so when i see someone say that!! i know that there way off, because any Phenom above the 9950 will outperform a Q6600, its just crazy thinking a Q6600 can compete with any Phenom II these days. It might be more expensive and so it should be if it out performs a Q6600 at stock speeds........

The fact is that it beats it, thats all i was trying to say :)

Remember, the X58 chipset which is mandatory for Core i7 is the creme of the crop with Crossfire and SLI support and 6.4 GT/s QPI links. AMD doesn't have any boards that support both or even close to that much bandwidth.

Core i7 920 is substantially faster than the Phenom II X4 955 (benchmarks are 11:1 in favor of the i7). Never mind the 940 and 965--they turn a bad beating into a slaughter.

FordGT90ConceptRemember, the X58 chipset which is mandatory for Core i7 is the creme of the crop with Crossfire and SLI support and 6.4 GT/s QPI links. AMD doesn't have any boards that support both or even close to that much bandwidth.

Core i7 920 is substantially faster than the Phenom II X4 955 (benchmarks are 11:1 in favor of the i7). Never mind the 940 and 965--they turn a bad beating into a slaughter.

I wish AMD boards did support CF and SLI, it does make me slightly jealous.

But I would like to see what benches are 11:1, because I just dont find myself encoding or running Vantage all day long, what I find myself doing is gaming, which seems like most of TPU'ers do. You can pick end results to make it look like a landslide if you pick well. No one is arguing that i7 crushes PII's in synthetics and most benches, but in gaming performance the PII's are awesome and even the tri-cores hang with the i7 920.

And most of the PII users wouldn't bat an eye at the 940 or 965 comparisons, because thats 2x and 4x the price of the best AMD procs. If I was spending that money it would be going under DICE, and bringing that into account no cold bug the PII's rock for quiet a bit less than a 965.

Either way I don't really see the point of this as it has very little to do with the new offerings of 45nm processors.

My bad, it's 12:1. Core i7 920 took all except two gaming benchmarks:
www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14

Only Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead went to the Phenom. However, the Phenom didn't beat the Core i7 965 in either of those benchmarks; moreover, in all those benchmarks, the Core i7 920 was greater than 60 FPS average.

1Kurgan1Either way I don't really see the point of this as it has very little to do with the new offerings of 45nm processors.

I agree. AMD threads are doomed to become vs Intel and Intel threads are doomed to become vs AMD.

DarrenMost Phenom II reviews see little performance gain between DDR2 and DDR3 anyways, but I must admit the DDR3 and AM3 motherboards are still expensive, usually from £100 but its optional, you could easily drop the Phenom II in a regular £40-50 motherboard with PC8500 and there is no way that a socket 775 or i7 could beat it from a price/performance ratio.

even so the controllers in the chip so when they do make a gain/advance/ect we'll have it. and hopefuly like last time the next chip will fit the slot.

FordGT90ConceptMy bad, it's 12:1. Core i7 920 took all except two gaming benchmarks:
www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14

Only Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead went to the Phenom. However, the Phenom didn't beat the Core i7 965 in either of those benchmarks; moreover, in all those benchmarks, the Core i7 920 was greater than 60 FPS average.


I agree. AMD threads are doomed to become vs Intel and Intel threads are doomed to become vs AMD.

Once again all except for 2 gaming benchmark is twisting the words to sound favorable as I could turn and say.

"PII beat the i7 920 (it's competitor, not the 965 thats 4x the price) in all but 2 gaming benches"

What you really should say is the gaming results were a tie, the 955 took 2 and the i7 920 took 2. To even compare the 965 at 4x the price is absurd as it is a far different market.

But I don't see why the threads are doomed, a troll jumps in the thread and says something to piss everyone off that is reading the thread. They get shot down, then a bunch of people jump in to back a troll (why?) This goes for both sides, it's a news thread if you think its cool that AMD is fleshing out their product line and finally releasing a Dual Core version for budget consumers and adding in some energy efficent offerings then speak up, otherwise move on. I can see the debate happening about WR bench results or the new AMD or Intel top dog, but this is about low end procs, why even bother talking about top dogs? These offerings aren't meant to compete with the i7 920/940/ 965 so why is any of that being brought up?

I'm not going to argue wording. I cramed a lot of info into three sentences. :þ


Yeah, it's good AMD is getting off 65nm. Their 65nm processors are hideous performance wise. The sooner they get 65nm in the past, the better.

I'm really not looking to argue :p Looking to just keep it all on subject.

But yeah 65nm is the past now, granted I been having a lot of fun with my gf's 7750. Seems the old 65nm's just clock much better as dual cores than quads, my old 9850 would clock, but it made me feel like tearing my eyes out.

Now the question is when 32nm is coming around for AMD. I'm really curious to see how much it helps moving to that process and to see the results, what will it be 24mb L3?

i read the comments and is boring...to many fanboys from all sides...