2 Phenom reviews

[gurusan]

so.....Phenom sucks, big surprise.

AnandTech: AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8

Phenom is, clock for clock, slower than Core 2 and the chips aren't yet yielding well enough to boost clock speeds above what Intel is capable of. While AMD just introduced its first 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz quad-core CPUs today, Intel previewed its first 3.2GHz quad-core chips. We were expecting Intel to retain the high end performance crown, but also expected AMD to chip away at the lower end of the quad-core market - today's launch confirms that Intel is still the king of the quad-core market.

Inevitably some of these Phenoms will sell, even though Intel is currently faster and offers better overall price-performance (does anyone else feel weird reading that?). Honestly the only reason we can see to purchase a Phenom is if you currently own a Socket-AM2 motherboard; you may not get the same performance as a Core 2 Quad, but it won't cost as much since you should be able to just drop in a Phenom if you have BIOS support.

[H] Enthusiast - AMD Phenom & Spider vs Intel QX9770

As stated on page one, the Phenom is a disappointment. It comes close to meeting a clock for clock battle at 2.4GHz or so, but still just does not do it. Phenom has not caught up with what Conroe had to offer so many months ago. As the clocks scale, Phenom begins to look even worse against the new Intel Yorkfield processors. Given those processors are priced about $700 more than our Phenom 9600, but the lower end Intel Yorkfield cores are coming and will be very close in price to our Phenom 9600 and will simply run away from it in clock to clock benchmarks.

 

[Apokalipse]

so.....Phenom sucks

Bull****
Even if it is behind Core 2's clock for clock, it's hardly anything.
In gaming benchmarks especially, the difference is usually a fraction of a frame per second between Core 2 2.4GHZ and Phenom 2.4GHZ

So one person couldn't get one chip stable at 3GHZ. But Phenom can and has reached 3GHZ stably, with typical cooling of what you'd see at stock.

No, Phenom doesn't suck. Not by a long shot.

 

[gurusan]

As you scale the clocks the difference is quite apparent....and with q6600s and Yorkfield hitting 4ghz the AMD doesn't stand a chance.

In Anandtech's review the Yorkfield at the same 2.66ghz clockspeed as the Phenom gets on average 16% more FPS.

The AMD may not suck, but it certainly pales in comparison with the current intel chips.

 

[Wildside]

Bull****
Even if it is behind Core 2's clock for clock, it's hardly anything.
In gaming benchmarks especially, the difference is usually a fraction of a frame per second between Core 2 2.4GHZ and Phenom 2.4GHZ

So one person couldn't get one chip stable at 3GHZ. But Phenom can and has reached 3GHZ stably, with typical cooling of what you'd see at stock.

No, Phenom doesn't suck. Not by a long shot.

god i am............surprised in all honesty. This is true, then Phenom is dead. I'm sry but all i have left to support is the 9700 n if that doesnt do the trick, then i might have to go with Intel. The 9700 mysteriously consumes 125w for an odd reason n i think it go out with a bang so Phenom might have a trick up it's sleeve.

now i shall cry in my sleep tonight..........

EDIT:

however, something tells me that those results dont..........look too right. I mean, y would it consume so much power when it was OC to 2.8GHz, it doesnt make sense.

EDIT 2:

how did AnandTech get their hands on an 9900? It's an early product, so tweaking before it's release can change the performance when it launches, but idk how much modification can be done to make it better.

 

[Apokalipse]

As you scale the clocks the difference is quite apparent....and with q6600s and Yorkfield hitting 4ghz the AMD doesn't stand a chance.

How many people get 4GHZ?

the vast majority will get only a little over 3GHZ. Which Phenom should be able to reach.
The only reason it hasn't so far, is this:
AMD delays Phenom 2.4 GHz due to TLB errata - The INQUIRER

In Anandtech's review the Yorkfield at the same 2.66ghz clockspeed as the Phenom gets on average 16% more FPS.

which is a newer architecture. And costs much more.

The AMD may not suck

not what you said in your first post.

but it certainly pales in comparison with the current intel chips.

Actually, the difference only starts to become something compared to Yorksfields, which cost much more.

 

[gurusan]

even the current core 2 quad outperforms it in the gaming benchmarks by an average of 7% when both clocks are 2.66

And how many people get 4ghz out of their q6600s? Quite a lot....they certainly always do more than 3ghz...the average G0 overclock is about 3.6ghz on nearly stock voltage.

lol. I'm not even going to start an argument over this. I've seen time and time again that many people in this forum just refuse to accept that Intel currently provides the best overclocking and performing chips for the money.

 

[Wildside]

lol. I'm not even going to start an argument over this. I've seen time and time again that many people in this forum just refuse to accept that Intel currently provides the best overclocking and performing chips for the money.

oh wow u save 5-10 seconds with video encoding n stuff, who cares about how many secs u save anyways.

10 fps off aint gonna hurt much either in games as long as im getting good fps is all i care about.

how much r the Phenoms? Idk what the real prices r n i want purchase one, maybe the 9700 or 9900 in december or something.

 

[Apokalipse]

refuse to accept

Now that's begging the question.

that Intel currently provides the best overclocking and performing chips for the money.

Not always. And Phenom's are only just out. And not their higher end-versions.

AMD's Brisbane chips have done very well. I don't think Intel even now can beat the value of a 3600+ Brisbane, overclocked past 3GHZ.

And now, AMD have native quad cores that perform well, and don't cost a heap. And they have a good platform to grow from.

 

[Wildside]

Now that's begging the question.

Not always. And Phenom's are only just out. And not their higher end-versions.

AMD's Brisbane chips have done very well. I don't think Intel even now can beat the value of a 3600+ Brisbane, overclocked past 3GHZ.

And now, AMD have native quad cores that perform well, and don't cost a heap. And they have a good platform to grow from.

their high-end Phenoms should do a lot better, but we dont know how much though n i cant wait too long on getting a Phenom now that it just came out.

ya the value can be considerably high if the price is lower then Intel with AT LEAST good performance while AMD can still make a profit. It's not like u have to get an Intel because it is faster n performs better. If u have low-budget, then n i guess the 3600+ Brisbane is the choice like Apokalipse says, especially when u can OC it to match a buyers perspective is all.

all those benchmarks, who is gonna run all those programs? If the customer is happy with price vs. performance, especially a lower price, then AMD still has the upper hand over Intel.

 

[gurusan]

especially a lower price, then AMD still has the upper hand over Intel.

the q6600 is 3 dollars cheaper than the 9600