2 Phenom reviews

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

Q6600 not only outperformed 9700, but it outperformed the higher clocked phenom 9900 2.6GHz in most cases

Please check the review from anandtech
AnandTech: AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8

Q6600 consume less power as well

WOWE

It doesn't bother me if you don't like my assumption but that is my opinion.

They have lost resources due to their own mistakes and that doesn't mean they cant produce something better than intels old core 2 duo architecture.

i am not and intel fanboy, and would actually like to see the x4's kill all the intels lineup but it seems like they will not surpass intels processors for now...

"Quad-core is really overkill for a lot of games anyway" cept crysis lol

Well lol, Crysis unnecessarily consumes too many system resources. I would never use Crysis as a benchmark to say "If I can't run this game, then I won't be able to play any future games! Besides, it's more GPU-bound than anything else. Crysis is maybe 3-4 years ahead of its time as far as consuming system resources, but unfortunately does not translate that into anything visually amazing. Everything else that has been recently released runs at least 100% to 200% faster on similar settings, most notably CoD4, Bioshock GoW and UT3 (Beta) and despite their more cartoony looks, I prefer the graphics rendering to those games instead of Crysis.

 

[Apokalipse]

Q6600 not only outperformed 9700, but it outperformed the higher clocked phenom 9900 2.6GHz in most cases

Please check the review from anandtech
AnandTech: AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8

Q6600 consume less power as well

Other benchmarks show the Q6600 sometimes less than the 9700, and if anything, only slightly faster on average. (by less than a frame per second or so)

 

[veg1992]

I'm disapointed... really badly..

 

[maroon1]

Apokalipse,

If you read my post I said that Q6600 2.4GHz beats phenom 9900 2.6GHz in most cases. I didn't say in all cases.

It might be slightly faster but this doesn't change the fact that it is better than a higher clocked phenom

 

[Apokalipse]

Apokalipse,

If you read my post I said that Q6600 2.4GHz beats phenom 9900 2.6GHz in most cases. I didn't say in all cases.

It might be slightly faster but this doesn't change the fact that it is better than a higher clocked phenom

If you read my posts, you'd see I'm not denying that the Core 2 Quad's are on average faster. My point is that the Phenom's are still good processors, despite that.

I just don't like it when people keep beating and beating and beating and beating the drum all the time, and saying things like "Phenom sucks"

 

[maroon1]

Other benchmarks show the Q6600 sometimes less than the 9700, and if anything, only slightly faster on average. (by less than a frame per second or so)

9700 performed better than Q6600 in two benchmarks only

Q6600 outperformed 9700 in all other benchmarks

What is the "frame per second" you are talking about ? Are you talking about gaming ?

Q6600 was better in gaming overall but not by a lot. In other benchmarks it was much better. In some cases it performed 20% faster than 9700

 

[Apokalipse]

9700 performed better than Q6600 in two benchmarks only

Q6600 outperformed 9700 in all other benchmarks

in that one particular review.

What is the "frame per second" you are talking about ? Are you talking about gaming ?

mainly.

Q6600 was better in gaming overall but not by a lot. In other benchmarks it was much better. In some cases it performed 20% faster than 9700

Yes.
The Q6600 was better in gaming, but not by a lot.

But it was better.

but it was not by a lot.

Intel CPU's have always been faster in things like video encoding, superpi.

There are some areas where the Phenoms would be better by a good margin. Like unRARing.

 

[Invisible]

so all in all this is not worth buying
if you don't have an AM2 mobo and are not an AMD extremist

 

[maroon1]

in that one particular review.[/SIZE]

AnandTech is one of the most reliable source in the net, and I'm pretty sure that many people here agree with me

All reviews are showing the same thing, anyway

Just check the review from hardocp, Q6600 outperformed 9700 in all benchmarks (except in one or two)

In some few cases Q6600 outperformed Phenom 3.0GHz according to hardocp

There are some areas where the Phenoms would be better by a good margin. Like unRARing.

But it seems that Q6600 was better than phenom in winrar

 

[Apokalipse]

AnandTech is one of the most reliable source in the net, and I'm pretty sure that many people here agree with me

All reviews are showing the same thing, anyway

Just check the review from hardocp, Q6600 outperformed 9700 in all benchmarks (except in one or two)

In some few cases Q6600 outperformed Phenom 3.0GHz according to hardocp

There's also the choice of programs used. And, the B2 stepping still has a couple of issues.

But it seems that Q6600 was better than phenom in winrar

That doesn't seem right. Barcelona was better in unraring things than comparatively clocked Xeon's.

Also, how is a Phenom at 2.4GHZ better than a Phenom at 3.0GHZ?
*edit*
ignore that. I was reading the graph wrong.

But I don't think the scaling is right, still. 25% clock increase for 8% performance gain?
and the one second difference between the 9600 and 9700?