Anandtech: B3 Phenom, Q9300, Wolfdale Reviewed

[veg1992]

the 9550 is pretty close to the q6600 when you take the lower clock speed into consideration.
if i had an am2+ mobo i wouldn't feel bad about buying a 9550. if they are cheap. and they overclock.
if the q6600 is cheaper, i would buy it. i would want an SLi mobo, which i cant seem to find. but then, im in a hurry at the moment.

your 5000+ BE is pretty good

keep that

 

[Nagasama]

Dunno dude, look again...the 9850 is 100mhz faster than the quad but consistently behind.

tru nuff, hence the "pretty close" part.
like i said, IF i had an am2+ mobo, i wouldn't feel bad about the 9550. IF it met conditions i stated in my last post.
i'm the kind of user who doesn't care about 112 fps versus 128...and the difference on crysis is moot to me, as i am not going to buy a game in which i can only realistically hope to get 30-40 fps with my resolution and high settings no matter the hardware. screw that. i'll buy it (maybe) when hardware can actually run it. ie i aint playin nothin that makes me shift my beautiful monitor's native resolution down to 1024 x 768....in order to play it.
v-dog i aint givin up on my BE just yet. it still runs everything mucho fine, including fuel of war at 60+ fps higest settings, 1920 x 1200.
i could maybe be getting 75? with a quad core...maybe? i'd get a higher 3dm06 for sure. lol.
those e8200's are lookin frikkin pretty sweet tho. but, too rich for my blood at the moment.

 

[maroon1]

the 9550 is pretty close to the q6600 when you take the lower clock speed into consideration.

9550 is not close to Q6600

gurusan has posted only the gaming benchmarks, and games depends more GPU than CPU, thats why you don't see a lot of difference

But just look at other non-gaming applications like photoshop, encoding, 3d rendering etc

Q6600 is almost %50 faster than 9550 in photoshop. Thats a big difference !

In DiVX encoding Q6600 is also %50 faster than 9550

In 3d rendering, there was a big difference between Q6600 and 9550 as well.

Also, don't forget the fact that Q6600 (the slowest quad core from Intel) outperformed Phenom 9850 (Currently fastest phenom) in most cases

 

[gurusan]

Switching to the phenom from your black edition is not going to improve anything at the moment since no games are optimized for quads....except UT3.

It would improve your 3dmark06 for sure though.....I do have a feeling that there will be a few chips that will do 3.0-3.2ghz so I would wait and see which steppings those are...or wait for 45nm. Or bite the bullet and get a q6600


And yeah I only posted the gaming benchmarks because those are the most relevant for most users on this board.


also maroon I would compare the 9750 to the Q6600 since they are the same clock speeds.....still gets destroyed by 22% though.

 

[Nagasama]

am i just retarded or do i not know how to do percentages?
lol math was never my strong point...but i dont see how an increase (or decrease) of 7.9 seconds equals 50%. using the photoshop bench.

a 100% performance advantage for the q6600 would put the 9550 at 53.8 seconds, right?
and if the q6600 did the same thing, say, 50 seconds versus 75 seconds for the 9550, that would be a 50% increase, right?

so wouldn't a 50% increase be about 13 second (versus 7.9 lets say 8)difference on the photoshop bench?

seriously, i don't get it.

i see the 50% in divx, but not in photoshop. that looks more like 25ish-30% to me.
please feel free to bash my poor mathematical skills

 

[CntdwnToExtn]

am i just retarded or do i not know how to do percentages?
lol math was never my strong point...but i dont see how an increase (or decrease) of 7.9 seconds equals 50%. using the photoshop bench.

a 100% performance advantage for the q6600 would put the 9550 at 53.8 seconds, right?
and if the q6600 did the same thing, say, 50 seconds versus 75 seconds for the 9550, that would be a 50% increase, right?

so wouldn't a 50% increase be about 13 second (versus 7.9 lets say 8)difference on the photoshop bench?

seriously, i don't get it.

i see the 50% in divx, but not in photoshop. that looks more like 25ish-30% to me.
please feel free to bash my poor mathematical skills

that is how i see it too
but the only reason why i graduated grade 12 math was because i was the sports star XD

 

[gurusan]

34.8/26.9 = 1.29 ....or 30% more. In this case lower is better so that means it took the 9550 30% more time to do the same work.

...beats me how maroon got 50%.

 

[veg1992]

he's exaggerating to make AMD look worse?

 

[Nagasama]

hrrrrm...
well, i aint gonna buy an amd mobo and a phenom if i can buy an intel mobo/cpu that smokes it that much for the same price. that's what it's going to boil down to for me...price.
plus i really like those e8 series...they aren't on newegg anymore wtf?
45nm amd release this year (sometime) is what i am reading. i can wait that long.

 

[veg1992]

just go with what Intel has out now, but I for one am more than happy with what AMD has right now, because I only game and web surf, and an x2 4600+ will be fine for me

unless I go synthetic benchmark crazy, I don't plan on upgrading at all