matrix563
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 19,136
i have a 6000+ currently. i just wish amd would come out with a chip that blows intel away like the opteron did 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD X2 4400+ vs Phenom
- Thread starter DFinan
- Start date
More PCIe lanes doesn't make a chipset superior. The 680i SLI chipset has more PCIe lanes than X38 and it falls well short of the X38 in a number of areas. What precisely makes you think that 790FX is better than X38?
Intel's chipset drivers are frankly the best. The boards made with them are usually among the best and most stable you can buy for desktop use. Even if the 790FX was the equal of the X38 (and I don't think it is, especially not with the SB600 south bridge, which was less than impressive when it was released a year ago.) the Phenom and Athlon X2 processors are certainly not the equal of Intel's Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad/Core 2 Extreme processors.
i have a 6000+ currently. i just wish amd would come out with a chip that blows intel away like the opteron did
I would prefer more equal performance accross the board. This would force them to compete on price alone which would drives prices down for the consumer.
matrix563
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 19,136
yeah that is a good point. i only got a 6000+ for 170 cause of the price war
I'm an AMD fan but I would never pick the current crop of Phenom processors at their current price points over a Q6600... MAYBE if I already had an AM2 setup I would, and even then, it's a big maybe.
There is just no reason to IMO. I'm all for supporting the underdog, but not when the underdog is charging me the same or more for an inferior product.
There is just no reason to IMO. I'm all for supporting the underdog, but not when the underdog is charging me the same or more for an inferior product.
Check the video card forum. I'm comparing to someone with the exact same 8800GT as mine as well, he has 2gb of ram to my 4, and he's out-doing me by 9-10 fps... only difference, overclocked Q6600, vs my slightly overclocked 5000+ (slightly because mine won't do more than 400mhz over stock)
And I'm well aware of the differences between the cards. you're forgetting that the 8800GT uses faster ram to compensate for the smaller bus: they're almost identical in speed in reality.
vista_blista
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 480
Thought I'd present another opinion, being as the other side is so vociferous, better represented, and ever-present.
For me, the integrated memory controller, direct connect & hypertransport -- and yes -- native cores, are what make for a more responsive experience. I've seen these sentiments about AMD's superior responsiveness echoed on forums like Anandtech etc. Yes, I have owned both Intel and AMD systems. I have even tested this theory amongst friends (owners of both Intel and AMD systems) with almost unanimous agreement.
Eventually native core's responsiveness will also translate to greater scalability. Even though it has become fashionable to blithely say otherwise, native cores will become an extremely important future technology.
Maybe incremental leaps in responsiveness aren't a factor, and you'd rather have brute speed. AMD also supports hardware virtualization, which people like me find useful. Maybe you need fast memory access, or greater floating point calculation. Or yeah, maybe you just like calculating Pi 24/7 for it's own sake. Everyone has different criteria on what they need in a CPU. I just don't get the people who feel threatened or will begrudge having that choice.
To me, this is a theoretical work of art.
It's the platform, stupid.
For me, the integrated memory controller, direct connect & hypertransport -- and yes -- native cores, are what make for a more responsive experience. I've seen these sentiments about AMD's superior responsiveness echoed on forums like Anandtech etc. Yes, I have owned both Intel and AMD systems. I have even tested this theory amongst friends (owners of both Intel and AMD systems) with almost unanimous agreement.
Eventually native core's responsiveness will also translate to greater scalability. Even though it has become fashionable to blithely say otherwise, native cores will become an extremely important future technology.
Maybe incremental leaps in responsiveness aren't a factor, and you'd rather have brute speed. AMD also supports hardware virtualization, which people like me find useful. Maybe you need fast memory access, or greater floating point calculation. Or yeah, maybe you just like calculating Pi 24/7 for it's own sake. Everyone has different criteria on what they need in a CPU. I just don't get the people who feel threatened or will begrudge having that choice.
To me, this is a theoretical work of art.
It's the platform, stupid.
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,878
Thought I'd present another opinion, being as the other side is so vociferous, better represented, and ever-present.
For me, the integrated memory controller, direct connect & hypertransport -- and yes -- native cores, are what make for a more responsive experience. I've seen these sentiments about AMD's superior responsiveness echoed on forums like Anandtech etc. Yes, I have owned both Intel and AMD systems. I have even tested this theory amongst friends (owners of both Intel and AMD systems) with almost unanimous agreement.
Eventually native core's responsiveness will also translate to greater scalability. Even though it has become fashionable to blithely say otherwise, native cores will become an extremely important future technology.
Maybe incremental leaps in responsiveness aren't a factor, and you'd rather have brute speed. AMD also supports hardware virtualization, which people like me find useful. Maybe you need fast memory access, or greater floating point calculation. Or yeah, maybe you just like calculating Pi 24/7 for it's own sake. Everyone has different criteria on what they need in a CPU. I just don't the people who feel threatened or will begrudge having that choice.
To me, this is a theoretical work of art.
It's the platform, stupid.
impressive, but it's still slower and equally expensive
too bad all that marketing and over using the word "responsiveness" does not actually help the situation, unfortunately if it's faster in the first second but slower the rest of the time....who cares....?? i am assuming thats what you are talking about when you say "responsiveness", that it's somehow faster initially...but every single benchmark and review out there shows it's slower, so not sure why you put so much emphasis on "responsiveness"
if they would drop the price to $200-225 for the 9500 it would be a viable option, as long as the Q6600 remains at around $260 or so....there needs to be a gap in price like there is in performance
Enough with the responsivness BS, because that's exactly what it is... I own an AMD system, several infact and have built several C2D and C2Q systems as have many others on here and my system isn't any more responsive than the Intel systems... I take that back, my primary system is SLIGHTLY more responsive, but that's becuase it's running a Raptor drive, not becuase of the processor.
All this "theory" and flow charts are nice and everything, but what's even better is real world performance... Why make a decision based on theory when you have cold hard facts readily available?
All this "theory" and flow charts are nice and everything, but what's even better is real world performance... Why make a decision based on theory when you have cold hard facts readily available?
vista_blista
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 480
Use all the circular logic and relativism you want. Even feel free to believe differently. However, I have access to both a C2D and X2 systems in my house, and gravitate more to the X2 for everyday tasks based on real-world performance. One of the reasons why I primarily post in the AMD forum here.
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,878
dude, really, you're reaching hard, i don't think you are going to convince the overwhelming majority of enthusiasts that the Phenom is somehow an equal to the C2D....there is not a huge difference now between Intel and AMD performance wise, and i expect that gap to lessen when AM2+ boards and chipsets mature, but of course by then Intel will have super ceded C2D and it's current chipsets so .....
what we need is AMD to release a CPU that is as stunning as the C2D release was and at a reasonable price point, only die hard AMD fans dont mind paying more for less right now....you choose your own fate
It's not about believe differently, it's about knowing what is and what isn't...
Here is what isn't... AMD more responsive than Intel
Here is what is... C2Q faster than Phenom X4 at the same price point
Your claim of increased responsiveness is as laughable as those ricers in the honda civic forums that claim they felt a huge power boost with their catback exhaust setup.
Personally, I'm not even as optomistic as nobody_here is about Phenom's future. Prior to Barcelona's release, I had very high hopes for AMD's next micro-architecture, I was excited to see them regain the performance crown and be recognized once again as the performance leader and not the value CPU manufacturer, here we are now and sadly, AMD cannot claim EITHER title with the Phenom X4. And while AM2+ might help slightly, it won't be nearly enough... This art work that you're so fond of puts significanly less emphsis on chipset performance with it having an IMC. The only real way to get significantly better performance is for the manufacturing processes to mature and get the clock speeds up, until that happens, you're living in a pipe dream, nothing more.
debello_64
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 672
Been playing around with the 9500 i picked up for a day or so, and I have owned the 4400 X2 and by far the 9500 is faster. Once I figure out how to get it past 2.4 Ghz it will be cruzing along, I believe it is my memory timings but I regrese
Jeff Foley
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
- Messages
- 361
Just curious, what motherboard did you decide to go with?
debello_64
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 672
MSI K9A2 PL with a Zalman 9700. At 2.4Ghz the 9500 idles at 24 C and under full load never passes 38 C
My next upgrade is going to be an AMD. I fully recognize that RIGHT NOW, Intel is faster for the price. You will get no argument from me there. However, in the interest of the industry overall, I will buy AMD. Our current processors would not be as fast if AMD had not been around to push Intel. Prices wouldn't be as low either. So, for the interest of OVERALL greater performance in the future, I will sacrifice a little performance now. If AMD gets out of the cpu game, how much incentive do you think Intel has to roll out their newest processors except to outdo themselves over time? The fastest processors from both companies are faster than what I really need anyway. *shrug*
Intel has the better performing products right now. Intel also offers the best bang for your buck right now. In my opinion the only reason to buy an AMD processor outside of price considerations is if you are a fanboy and for no other reason.
Intel had to take their game to a new level because AMD was kicking thier asses performance wise and they were losing market share. They were losing market share because people were voting with their wallets and buying AMD instead of Intel.
If you want to do the right thing, you need to treat AMD the same way and vote with your wallet. Sub-par products are unacceptable in this market. If you want to send AMD the right message and motivate them to get their asses in gear, not buying their products sends a clearer message than buying their products out of some sense of loyalty or charity.
I understand what you're saying. And I do see it is one philosophy. My concern, however, is that in the CPU industry, it isn't as easy as redesigning the shell of a car, relaunching it and raking in the cash. Redesigning is way down the road. They need to keep going until then. I guess you could call it charity, but I more see it as I stated it in my last post. "In the interest of the industry (meaning for US) overall.
Just to clear things up, I am not an AMD fanboy. I used to be, 'back in the day' when they first rolled out the slot A's. My core duo laptop kicks my desktop A64's ass. I have no delusions about AMD. They are in serious trouble and they are not keeping up. The only hope they have at this point, imho, is to try to hang on until 'bulldozer' makes it's appearance or to quickly ramp up the speeds on Phenom. The latter isn't going to happen because if they could, they would have. You only pull your punches when you're barely losing, not when you're getting slaughtered.
Just to clear things up, I am not an AMD fanboy. I used to be, 'back in the day' when they first rolled out the slot A's. My core duo laptop kicks my desktop A64's ass. I have no delusions about AMD. They are in serious trouble and they are not keeping up. The only hope they have at this point, imho, is to try to hang on until 'bulldozer' makes it's appearance or to quickly ramp up the speeds on Phenom. The latter isn't going to happen because if they could, they would have. You only pull your punches when you're barely losing, not when you're getting slaughtered.
AMD doesn't need your charity. They have survived making very little in the way of profits for the last two decades. Hell they have operated at a loss for some time and at various periods throughout their history. I have every belief that they can continue to do so for some time.
As such I won't bother helping them out. I'd rather let them know I'm not impressed by what they are selling as I continue to by Intel processors to suit my needs. When AMD had the superior product I purchased an Athlon 64 3800+, two Opteron 240's, and two Opteron 254's all in six months. When they do well they are rewarded, when they do not, I reward their competitor for having the superior product.
Let me ask you this since you're probably more in the know than most people in regards to this subject. Do you think Phenom is a complete failure or with a properly (non bugged) version and some ramping of the clock speeds it can at least be 'competitive' ?
I know this is next to impossibly unlikely, but it almost seems like something just isn't right. Something not turned on or not operating at the right speed. I don't know. I've read though all the benchmarks from multiple sites and while there are brief spots of competitiveness, overall, not so much. The scaling seemed kinda off to me too. But what do I know, been out of the loop for a while.
I know this is next to impossibly unlikely, but it almost seems like something just isn't right. Something not turned on or not operating at the right speed. I don't know. I've read though all the benchmarks from multiple sites and while there are brief spots of competitiveness, overall, not so much. The scaling seemed kinda off to me too. But what do I know, been out of the loop for a while.
vista_blista
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 480
Take a trip over to xtremesystems.com for that information. There are quite a few knowledgeable and intellectually curious people testing these chips. You'll get more real-world Phenom answers than rash speculation, posturing, and obfuscation. In my estimation, I definitely believe the entire platform needs a few more weeks/months of maturity though.
think about it this way: The initial launch of the P4 was a failure. Bang for buck, compared to the same AMD processors, it was slower, cost more, and ran hotter, and required RDRAM to boot. It was an abysmal failure, all things considered. However, after time (several years), it finally matured and they were able to ramp to the point that it was more than competitive. Given time, Phenom may ramp to the point of being competitive. As-is, though, there is absolutely no reason to buy one, unless you have a fully compatible system already and just want to get a processor. Phenom offers no advantage over a Core Quad system currently, just as the original 423 P4 offered no advantage over a Socket-A Thunderbird.
I think it is too early to call Phenom a failure. They haven't been out long enough to get any real sales numbers in yet. You also have to ask yourself; What constitues a failure? Most people would agree that the Netburst Pentium 4 chips were all failures in regard to performance in most applications. Despite the fact that they were reliable, most people consider them to be the biggest failure and worst product mistake in Intels' history. The truth is in the sales numbers. Intel still hit record revenue levels even though they were losing the war on performance. They were still cashing out regular dividends on their stocks and they still saw more money in a single quarter than AMD does in an entire year. Sometimes the business strategy is far more important than the product itself.
So while we can all agree that outside encoding applications the Pentium 4 sucked. So did thier dual core variants and so called Extreme Editions. Even though they clearly were outmatched by their competition they still were financially successful.
Until the sales figures start to come in we can't really call the Phenom an outright failure. I will say this from a performance standpoint: The Phenom processor is dissappointing right now. It still doesn't match the stock performance of the Core 2 series processors and certainly doesn't touch them overclocked. Even with their integrated memory controllers they still get pounded in most of the benchmarks. The Phenom is reasonably priced and I agree with the Toms Hardware article on that point. Even so I wouldn't recommend them for anyone building a new box today. Only as upgrades for existing AM2 board owners or as replacements for failed AMD CPUs would I ever really recommend them to anyone. It's not that they are that bad but rather that the Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme Edition are just better performers. Right now the prices are so close between the higher end Phenom and the Q6600 that I just can't think of any reason to go Phenom. If the Phenom were priced more aggressively than my opinion would certainly change on the subject.
I don't think a fixed stepping or microcode updates will bring the Phenom up to where it needs to be. It will take a pretty major revision to make the Phenom truly competitive. It is possible that improved manufacturing will bring the yields up but probably not to the point where AMD can start selling models that will outrun or out ovrerclock Intel's Core 2. I'm not a semi-conductor engineer so that's just my opinion based on what I know of the subject. The problem is that K10 has a lower IPC than Core 2 does. It will take considerably higher yields at higher clock speeds for them to overcome this fact and that seems unlikely at present.
I'd wager that K10 is mainly competitive in memory bandwidth intensive applications. K10's integrated memory controller has an incredible amount of raw bandwidth and that counts for a lot in certain circumstances.
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,878
Yes, actually, I do. AMD not shipping Barcelona's doesn't affect that I want a Phenom - I already have a sweet motherboard, and a Q6600 don't fit in it
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,878
Yes, actually, I do. AMD not shipping Barcelona's doesn't affect that I want a Phenom - I already have a sweet motherboard, and a Q6600 don't fit in it
read further, it's not just Barcelona Opterons....it's a problem with the core architecture in the L3 cache on "AMD's phenominal new architecture" to hear vista_blista tell it...... no matter what box it's in.....and it's a big enough problem they have stopped shipping man....no small matter, that is the absolute LAST thing a CPU manufacturer or any manufacturer wants to do, stop shipping product.....
you could always sell that sweet motherboard and get one the Q6600 fits in and get better performance for your money....but that would make too much sense....of course, that motherboard might not sell so well now....dunno...whatever you like i guess
i know....low blow....but i couldn't resist!!
seriously though, to stop shipping product is no small thing, i mentioned the Errata issue in this very thread earlier....
Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
read further, it's not just Barcelona Opterons....it's a problem with the core architecture in the L3 cache on "AMD's phenominal new architecture" to hear vista_blista tell it...... no matter what box it's in.....and it's a big enough problem they have stopped shipping man....no small matter, that is the absolute LAST thing a CPU manufacturer or any manufacturer wants to do, stop shipping product.....
you could always sell that sweet motherboard and get one the Q6600 fits in and get better performance for your money....but that would make too much sense....of course, that motherboard might not sell so well now....dunno...whatever you like i guess
Then I guess I better pick up one of the 9500 or 9600s before newegg runs out
And please, I've checked the numbers - it isn't like the Q6600 walks all over the phenom.
(In terms of 9600 vs. Q6600)
Lame MP3: -11%
Windows Movie Maker: -8%
DivX: -12%
TMPGEnc: <1% (123min vs. 122min, lower == better)
WinRAR: -7.5%
If the reports of the microcode update adding ~10% performance (I'm not banking on it, just throwing this out there), that will make up (in some cases more so) the performance difference between the 9600 and the Q6600. However, I am primarily a gamer (looking at getting a quad mainly for supreme commander - X2 4200 isn't cutting it anymore), so the hassle of selling my motherboard that I know works great doesn't seem worth it to me. Besides, paying an additional ~$50 for an Intel motherboard of similar build (and an additional $50 for a wifi card to replace the one built into my Asus) and the Q6600 ends up being ~35% more expensive while delivering ~10% more performance. So why again should I switch to Intel? Then again maybe I should just blindly follow your advice and piss away my money
Please do not take me for an idiot or a fanboy. I'm a poor college student who is also in need of a video card upgrade. I would love to get a Q6600, but from a price/performance standpoint it just isn't justified.
legcramp
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,401
Sold my Q6600 quad setup, and videocard, motherboard, and everything... now back to my old trusty Athlon 64 754 setup agp setup, can't wait for peryn! 4ghz here I come haha.
But I hope AMD comes back, I miss clicking on the AMD subforum.
O well, the yateloon high speed on my ultra-120 on my new e8500 with the side panel open will blow my tears away
But I hope AMD comes back, I miss clicking on the AMD subforum.
O well, the yateloon high speed on my ultra-120 on my new e8500 with the side panel open will blow my tears away
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,878
Then I guess I better pick up one of the 9500 or 9600s before newegg runs out
And please, I've checked the numbers - it isn't like the Q6600 walks all over the phenom.
(In terms of 9600 vs. Q6600)
Lame MP3: -11%
Windows Movie Maker: -8%
DivX: -12%
TMPGEnc: <1% (123min vs. 122min, lower == better)
WinRAR: -7.5%
If the reports of the microcode update adding ~10% performance (I'm not banking on it, just throwing this out there), that will make up (in some cases more so) the performance difference between the 9600 and the Q6600. However, I am primarily a gamer (looking at getting a quad mainly for supreme commander - X2 4200 isn't cutting it anymore), so the hassle of selling my motherboard that I know works great doesn't seem worth it to me. Besides, paying an additional ~$50 for an Intel motherboard of similar build (and an additional $50 for a wifi card to replace the one built into my Asus) and the Q6600 ends up being ~35% more expensive while delivering ~10% more performance. So why again should I switch to Intel? Then again maybe I should just blindly follow your advice and piss away my money
Please do not take me for an idiot or a fanboy. I'm a poor college student who is also in need of a video card upgrade. I would love to get a Q6600, but from a price/performance standpoint it just isn't justified.
psstt....they are saying a 10-20% performance loss with current BIOS workaround for the issue...just FYI
i surely wouldnt want to pay that much for something that i could never trust to run properly
If you like 3Dmarks score that would be a good places, but for gaming that would be the worst place to go.
They are all for synthetic benachmark numbers...but real world preformance is a town in russia overthere...
vista_blista
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 480
Unfortunately, yes. Though for starters, I was referring to purposeful/useful threads like this one....
Lets talk breaking the HTT 230 limit on k10 here
Then I guess I better pick up one of the 9500 or 9600s before newegg runs out
And please, I've checked the numbers - it isn't like the Q6600 walks all over the phenom.
(In terms of 9600 vs. Q6600)
Lame MP3: -11%
Windows Movie Maker: -8%
DivX: -12%
TMPGEnc: <1% (123min vs. 122min, lower == better)
WinRAR: -7.5%
If the reports of the microcode update adding ~10% performance (I'm not banking on it, just throwing this out there), that will make up (in some cases more so) the performance difference between the 9600 and the Q6600. However, I am primarily a gamer (looking at getting a quad mainly for supreme commander - X2 4200 isn't cutting it anymore), so the hassle of selling my motherboard that I know works great doesn't seem worth it to me. Besides, paying an additional ~$50 for an Intel motherboard of similar build (and an additional $50 for a wifi card to replace the one built into my Asus) and the Q6600 ends up being ~35% more expensive while delivering ~10% more performance. So why again should I switch to Intel? Then again maybe I should just blindly follow your advice and piss away my money
Please do not take me for an idiot or a fanboy. I'm a poor college student who is also in need of a video card upgrade. I would love to get a Q6600, but from a price/performance standpoint it just isn't justified.
um, the microcode update takes 10%, not adds. 10-20, in fact. it's a performance cut to deal with the race condition present in the TLB logic, probably because they're taking it from hardware and running it in some form of software logic built in to the new microcode.
. Plus, do we really know how phenom performs on non-790 boards? And don't forget how well the Q6600 overclocks. Phenom is having trouble reaching shipping speeds.
I've heard it both ways - that the current Phenoms using the Bios workaround have a 10% performance hit and thus the microcode update removes the Bios workaround and restores performance (eg, increases by 10%), and now people are saying the opposite, that this new workaround decreases performance by 10%.
I'm not buying now, so I'm just going to wait for the BEs that have the issue fixed and re-evaluate cost/performance then.
As for overclocking, over at XS they have Phenoms hitting 3ghz, and running stable at 2.8-2.9ghz
2.8GHz is all I've been able to hit with the Phenom 9700 and it isn't even entirely stable. In contrast I can hit 3.2GHz easily (100% stable) and I can even run the system at 3.6GHz though it isn't 100% stable.