Phenom vs. Conroe .

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.ocworkbench.com/200.../GA-MA790FX-DQ6/b1.htm

Even a crippled conroe wins this one . But! I can wait till monday for AMDs canned benchies . Than I can wait a little longer for real reviews other than the canned review that AMD is sending out.

Will the reviewers do the right thing ? I hope so . Will we see conroe 3ghz benchies running against AMDs 2.4 ghz? WE should but will we ? If the reviewers choose not to put Intels Top performer against AMDs top performer. One must ask 1s self why.
If they don't go head to head against each companies best. Than I would say these reviews are nothing more than an advertizing review with AMD using the hardware review sites to put out their fud. Hopefully the review sites will see threw this attempt to muddy up the real facts.

Apples to Apples is my best against your best= Apples to Apples.

Now only a twisted mind would say Clock for clock is the correct apples to apples .

That at best would be FUD. C2D will win either way . But Best against best would show what each company has to offer. Intel wins best against best by 30%+.

Only a fan-boy would say the 2 systems compare close in reviews. Clock for Clock .

The fact is this isn't about clock for clock its about headroom and who has it and who doesn't.

On the penryn side we already know 4.5ghz is doable on air. Is it stable ? It is @ 4.4ghz that much I know to be fact on water.

We have been told . I haven't seen it. That Phenom can hit 3.0ghz . But is that stable? I doubt it . Next 2 weeks will ans. all these questions.

 

[Lonyo]

Apples to Apples is my best against your best= Apples to Apples.

No, apples to apples = $200 CPU vs $200 CPU with everything else as close as possible.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I see your point and I respect it.

I consider myself an enthusiast . But not Xtreme. I don't live in a third world country.

I don't run out and buy the latest greatest hardware till I have used up what I have.

When I do upgrade I don't pis-s around. I get the best $$$ can buy and than I use it for as long as possiable.

AS an enthusiast second fiddle on a brand new system . Is a waste of time and money.

Appples to Apples is my BEST vs. your best. Cost is an old AMD throw back to before AMD64 . When AMD could compete only on price.


Now for the masses Phenom will do just fine. Enthusiast= Penryn.

 

[RussianSensation]

I think the whole point of the review was to show clock for clock performance. Like Lonyo said, the comparison will be made on a price level. But it's good to see that Phenom keeps up per clock for the most part which means AMD's biggest problem is ramping up clock speeds, not architecture.

However, considering Intel's more mature 65nm manufacturing process, it's doubtful a 2.3ghz X4 will match Q6600 2.4ghz which scale well past 3.0ghz. For the majority of customers who do not overclock, Phenom will be a good alternative. We need AMD to start making some profits.

I am not sure I agree with your definition of a computer enthusiast though. According to you it's your Best vs. my best. What best can be best price/performance ratio or best processor at the time period? Just because you buy QX9650 doesnt mean you are a computer enthusiast. It could be that you make $1000 a day and you could care less to drop that much on a processor. Another guy can buy a full rig for $1000 and overclock it way past the QX9650's performance.

 

[Helphin]

Yep, i agree apples to apples is same price... If a CPU is 1000$ and you compare it vs a 250$ one you know which one will come on top..

Hey lets compare cars! .. I have a Hyundai tiburon, you have a Bugatti Veryon .. wow your car beats mine! does it matter if yours costs 1million$ more? ... YES!!

AMD is aiming at the mid-range, the region where there are the most sales. I personally can't afford a 3000$ computer and I know most others can't or just don't want to pay that much.

 

[jones377]

While that review was total junk (they used an 2600XT for godsake) at least it provided a hint why Call of Juarez was part of the canned benchmarks AMD tries to peddle

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: jones377
While that review was total junk (they used an 2600XT for godsake) at least it provided a hint why Call of Juarez was part of the canned benchmarks AMD tries to peddle

To show cpu speed, you want to take the graphics out, so run at 640x480 low res. BUT Would a wimpy video card haelp do the same ? If so, that a good reason for it.

The problem I DO see is using DDR3 on the P35-DQ6 (I have 2 of them) They can or do use DDR2, that would put them more on the same playing field as the AMD setup.

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: jones377
While that review was total junk (they used an 2600XT for godsake) at least it provided a hint why Call of Juarez was part of the canned benchmarks AMD tries to peddle

To show cpu speed, you want to take the graphics out, so run at 640x480 low res. BUT Would a wimpy video card haelp do the same ? If so, that a good reason for it.

They only specified the res once, for Doom, and it was set to 1600*1200. In any case, if you want to test the CPUs it's never a good idea to use a crappy videocard. You don't need benchmarks to figure out they will all score the same.

 

[nyker96]

I agree with OP's assessment, however be mindful that some of these programs are optimized for Intel Core. Anyways, still, intel is quite unstoppable in video/graphics encoding. Especially that Intel is about to release the 45nm chip that's about 5-10% faster still. AMD has a tough road ahead of them, but good to see they are catching up a bit considering how C2D slaughtered X2s.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Helphin
Yep, i agree apples to apples is same price... If a CPU is 1000$ and you compare it vs a 250$ one you know which one will come on top..

Hey lets compare cars! .. I have a Hyundai tiburon, you have a Bugatti Veryon .. wow your car beats mine! does it matter if yours costs 1million$ more? ... YES!!

AMD is aiming at the mid-range, the region where there are the most sales. I personally can't afford a 3000$ computer and I know most others can't or just don't want to pay that much.

Strictly from a enthusiast point of view . (Enthusiast)

You take a QC2D @ the same price point as phenoms best performer. C2D wins. Than you start O/C the 2 differant systems. Intel wins . AT stock Intel Wins ! O/C Intel wins by huge % .

Phenoms are great in a $500 dell. But for pure performance and stability. ITs intel all the way.

Phenom vs Penryn isn't a apples to apples comparison in any true sense of the word. Its just AMD hasn't got anything else to show. Its that plain and simple. Hell on the roadmaps Intel lowest clocked Penryn 4 core is 2.5 GHz . So in reallity their is no apples to apples comparison . AMD's best loses to intels worst penryn 4 core. I can't wait to see AMDs lowk soi silly on 45nm . It should be amusing. Hell I can't wait to see AMD roll out the 45nm process in the 1st. half of 08. I will be sitting on pins and needles till AMD rolls out these babies in june of 08.

 

[Pederv]

Sorry Nemesis 1, never been interested in "fastest" VS "fastest". Doesn't mean anything to me.
What I get for my money means more to me than who has the fastest.
A clock to clock comparison allows me to extrapolate where my money can be used most effectively.
Maybe by the time some sites get to do thier own benchmarks, Nvidia AM2+ based boards will be available to add to the mix.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Pederv
Sorry Nemesis 1, never been interested in "fastest" VS "fastest". Doesn't mean anything to me.
What I get for my money means more to me than who has the fastest.
A clock to clock comparison allows me to extrapolate where my money can be used most effectively.
Maybe by the time some sites get to do thier own benchmarks, Nvidia AM2+ based boards will be available to add to the mix.

Interesting . To each his own . I have a question befor C2D or Dothan for that matter. Did this board or any other board on hardware come to that same conclusion. If so

could you link to ware P4 was given the same benefit of doubt . ANY hardware forum at all were the forum members would have agreeded that P4 was just as good as amd64.

Please give link for 04-05 were anyone made that type of statement were the other forum members agreeded. LINK please. Anyone who doesn't believe K8 wasn't slapped around more by C2D than AMD64 ever bitch slapped P4 is just lieing to themselves.

Today if you took a AMD64 and ran it against P4C@3.2ghz In a game that that is multithreaded. Would Intels Netburst with H/T lose? I know the ans.

Intel was way ahead of its times with netburst. Because Intel struggled with netburst they went threw a hugh learning curve the results of that lesson are not C2Ds. We will see that lesson learned in nehalem and its H/T .

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Pederv
Sorry Nemesis 1, never been interested in "fastest" VS "fastest". Doesn't mean anything to me.
What I get for my money means more to me than who has the fastest.
A clock to clock comparison allows me to extrapolate where my money can be used most effectively.
Maybe by the time some sites get to do thier own benchmarks, Nvidia AM2+ based boards will be available to add to the mix.

Clock for clock is a poor parameter for comparison if one architecture inherently scales higher than the other. I think I can say without hesitation that Penryn will clock MUCH higher than Phenom.

Even on a clock for clock basis, it appears Phenom already loses to Kentsfield, albeit by a narrow margin. That margin will only grow with Yorkfield thrown into the mix...

I still believe the best way to compare is products of equivalent value. On current pricing, that would be a 2.2GHz Phemom 9500 vs Q6600, which is a battle Phenom cannot win. AMD needs to slash prices of the 9500 to around the $200 mark IMO.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Pederv
Sorry Nemesis 1, never been interested in "fastest" VS "fastest". Doesn't mean anything to me.
What I get for my money means more to me than who has the fastest.
A clock to clock comparison allows me to extrapolate where my money can be used most effectively.
Maybe by the time some sites get to do thier own benchmarks, Nvidia AM2+ based boards will be available to add to the mix.

Clock for clock is a poor parameter for comparison if one architecture inherently scales higher than the other. I think I can say without hesitation that Penryn will clock MUCH higher than Phenom.

Even on a clock for clock basis, it appears Phenom already loses to Kentsfield, albeit by a narrow margin. That margin will only grow with Yorkfield thrown into the mix...

I still believe the best way to compare is products of equivalent value. On current pricing, that would be a 2.2GHz Phemom 9500 vs Q6600, which is a battle Phenom cannot win. AMD needs to slash prices of the 9500 to around the $200 mark IMO.

Good point at stock... The problem is, I can take that Q6600 to 3.4 pretty easy, and the Phenom won;t go over 2.5 ? Not even close in performance then.

 

[harpoon84]

I think most people realise Phenom won't really be a contender when it comes to overclocking, especially once Intel releases 45nm quads.

But you never know, they may get a miracle stepping out that fixes all the scaling problems.

 

[Pederv]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Clock for clock is a poor parameter for comparison if one architecture inherently scales higher than the other. I think I can say without hesitation that Penryn will clock MUCH higher than Phenom.

Even on a clock for clock basis, it appears Phenom already loses to Kentsfield, albeit by a narrow margin. That margin will only grow with Yorkfield thrown into the mix...

I still believe the best way to compare is products of equivalent value. On current pricing, that would be a 2.2GHz Phemom 9500 vs Q6600, which is a battle Phenom cannot win. AMD needs to slash prices of the 9500 to around the $200 mark IMO.

But with a clock to clock comparison I can extrapolate which is better for the money, across a wide range of frequencies. Providing I can get enough comparisons to see how linear scaling is.

Overclocking is fun to play with but my mother or one of my kids won't get my old system overclocked, it will be at stock.

An apples to apples comparison just doesn't exist with apples let alone two different CPU architectures.
Granny Smiths (which are good for pies) don't taste as sweet and juicy as a ripe Golden Delicious.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

I say put the two best rigs money can by just to see how much damage can be done also. I want to see AMD take the crown, that ensures that we keep getting better chips. Intel is already dragging its feet on the process for 45nm by eliminating an extra set of steps that improve the chip infusion process. This cost saving measure was reported a while. If true, this means we could be seeing some really fast but more expensive stuff out there. From evaluating systems over the last few years, if appears that what you spend on intel, you could spend about the same on AMD and get the same performance. Overclocking throws in a different set of numbers and that is where most of the web stories come from that influence sales. While the cost of the current 6950 is only slightly more than a 6700 to produce, they are charging the same premiums that both companies charged for their extremes. You pay for the privilege to overclock and get the premium chip that is only slightly faster at stock then one half it's price but overclocked near the point of smoking it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

While I see the point of a clock to clock comparisions. In this case its just not practical in any sense.

The best Amd is going to beable to do as Intel 45nm ramps up. Is price their high end cards at intels mid range . Intel will by this time frame have its lowend parts in place.

As AMD ramps up K10 ghz. Intel will simply ramp penryn up at the high end . Easily holding AMD in check.

Hell Intel with 3 fabs running 45nm. Intel could end AMD Soon if it wouldn't hurt them .

It would seem intel wants AMD @ 10% market share seems reasonable to me .

 

[taltamir]

apples to apples is 200$ vs 200$.... apples to gold plated apples with spinning rims and diamond studs is "my best vs your best".

Nobody but you thinks comparing a 1000$ cpu to a 250$ cpu is a good benchmark, because everyone assumes that the 1000$ cpu is gonna perform better. They compare the 200$ to 200$ from each company because that is what people are gonna buy, they set a price and get the most for that price.

And buying "the best on the market and using it until it is old" is a waste of money AND saddles you with bad hardware... buy 10% lower performance for half the price and upgrade twice as often.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Interesting . To each his own . I have a question befor C2D or Dothan for that matter. Did this board or any other board on hardware come to that same conclusion. If so

could you link to ware P4 was given the same benefit of doubt . ANY hardware forum at all were the forum members would have agreeded that P4 was just as good as amd64.

Please give link for 04-05 were anyone made that type of statement were the other forum members agreeded. LINK please. Anyone who doesn't believe K8 wasn't slapped around more by C2D than AMD64 ever bitch slapped P4 is just lieing to themselves.

Is this your first post on a hardware forum? Anyway, assuming you've ever in your life read a computer hardware forum, you already know that no matter what the question, there's never 100% agreement on anything. That means asking for a link to said 100% agreement is actually admitting defeat in the argument you were trying to make. Oh, and most actual computer enthusiasts wouldn't even agree with your definition of an enthusiast.

edit: I forgot to say what I had to say about the thread. I agree with both sides here, actually. I would like to see both companies' best go against each other, along with a price/performance comparison. Since I won't be buying any $1,000 CPU's (ever), I'd be more interested in how the $250-300 CPU's stack up against each other. Of course, I've just built my new quad-core system, so I won't be buying either.

 

[classy]

Hmmm.......I didn't get into the particulars, but they appeared to be pretty even, except for a couple of benchmarks.

 

[amenx]

Originally posted by: classy
Hmmm.......I didn't get into the particulars, but they appeared to be pretty even, except for a couple of benchmarks.

And this be the problem (for AMD). Intel has tons more headroom to spare and throw into the battle while AMD is struggling just to get to a point Intel has already achieved and passed.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: amenx

Originally posted by: classy
Hmmm.......I didn't get into the particulars, but they appeared to be pretty even, except for a couple of benchmarks.

And this be the problem (for AMD). Intel has tons more headroom to spare and throw into the battle while AMD is struggling just to get to a point Intel has already achieved and passed.

In all of Intel's dominace the last 18-24 months, while AMD has lost money, they have lost very little market share. Which means that being competive with Intel again performance wise is a win for AMD. People forget that AMD has now become well entrenched and will not be uprooted any time soon. Intel is in the front seat, but not driving the bus. For example at my last job which had about 1500 pcs we used all AMD. Many many businesses have had success the last 5 years using AMD and even though Intel has something better, folks are just more prone to continue to use what they have had success with.

 

[jonmcc33]

Nothing about AMD excites me.

 

[amenx]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: amenx

Originally posted by: classy
Hmmm.......I didn't get into the particulars, but they appeared to be pretty even, except for a couple of benchmarks.

And this be the problem (for AMD). Intel has tons more headroom to spare and throw into the battle while AMD is struggling just to get to a point Intel has already achieved and passed.

In all of Intel's dominace the last 18-24 months, while AMD has lost money, they have lost very little market share. Which means that being competive with Intel again performance wise is a win for AMD.

Maintaining market share can be easy when you drop the prices of your best performing chips to equal the competitors mid-range offerings, and when you drop your mid-range prices to equal their low-end. Maintaining market share with painful margins is not an envious position to be in IMO.

Originally posted by: classy
People forget that AMD has now become well entrenched and will not be uprooted any time soon. Intel is in the front seat, but not driving the bus. For example at my last job which had about 1500 pcs we used all AMD. Many many businesses have had success the last 5 years using AMD and even though Intel has something better, folks are just more prone to continue to use what they have had success with.

Whats AMDs overall share vs Intels? Its easy to pick one business that has relied on one brand or another, but whats the overall picture?