matrix563
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 19,136
i just bought a second Q6600 for 135. amd just didn't have performance for me that i needed 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Price Drops
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
matrix563
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 19,136
i just bought a second Q6600 for 135. amd just didn't have performance for me that i needed
It's weird. I bought a retail Phenom 9600 a couple of weeks ago for $105. Quad core for $105. Should be a no-brainer good deal, right?i just bought a second Q6600 for 135. amd just didn't have performance for me that i needed
After 7 months of being spoiled by overclocked Q6600 CPUs, the 9600 (TLB patch disabled) just doesn't feel fast or even feel like much of a bargain. It doesn't help that I can't overclock the 9600 either, and even if I could, with a stock cooler it wouldn't go much higher anyways.
The cherry on top is that the system ([email protected]/HD3870) at idle and load uses almost as much power as my main system's overclocked Q6600 @ 3GHz (Q6600@3GHz/8800GT) when configured similarly.
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
You'd have been better off with a cheap Core 2 Duo over that Phenom!
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/System-Builder-Marathon,1962.html
Good, e7200 vs phenom 9500 comparison.
dual intel vs quad amd, not completely apples to apples.
Goes to show you save money on the processor and spend more on your videocard(s). And just how many times dual core is good enough or faster, b/c things can't take advantage of all 4 cores.
I can take advantage of quad core, and maybe the system will have some uses. I'm still in the process of converting my DVD collection to h.264. But it's hard to justify the lower performance when running demanding applications where power consumption doesn't at least balance it out.
If I only needed dual core, I have some $50 E2200s that I could overclock to 2.93GHz easily on $30 P965 boards.
If I only needed dual core, I have some $50 E2200s that I could overclock to 2.93GHz easily on $30 P965 boards.
you got about 75% of the performance for half the price. It may not have been what you wanted but it was still a good deal. I did better as I got in on that 100 plus 2gb ram. then again if I could have gotten the Q6600 for 135 that would have been a deal breaker here.
The catch here is that if you want virtualization support you have to step up to the E8200, while all of AMD's Athlon X2 CPUs feature it.
Don't get me wrong, I have Q6600s. However, I see no reason to make a budget VM or backup VM server that would hold two single processor or one dual processor VM an Intel box instead of an AMD box.
I figure it at less than 70% of the performance for 60% of the price of my first Q6600 ($170), plus I can't use it for virtualization (not a very good server) without a huge performance loss. The power consumption is what sours me on it the most.
That's a big IF, and only if you need accelerated virtualization support, which ATM only is *required* by MS's WS2008 product.
Most people don't need it and if they do, the E63x0 chips are available cheaper, but even lower end processors can run VMWare. I even run it on my low end laptop, although it limits 64-bit client usage.
I made the same suggestion as you did when the topic came up in the Intel forum a few weeks ago. Dual core AM2 CPUs are dirt cheap and it makes little sense to buy a more expensive Core 2 ($120 and up) or Pentium D 9x0 (bleh, but under $80 for a 3GHz model) when cheap X2s are around for lightweight virtualization loads. And I think the rev G Athlon 64 also has hardware support for AMD-V. I haven't bothered testing my AM2 3500+ with VMWare.