![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Not surprising, pretty much in line with expected performance.
HardOCP said:
Tom's Hardware said:
Anandtech said:
Tech Report said:
bit-tech said:
Guru 3D said:
Tweak Town said:
Hardware Canucks said:
HEXUS said:
Anandtech said:
Current prices of Intel Quads versus the estimated $235 - $300 price of the Phenom 2 920 and 940 respectively.
QX9775 at $1,550, extreme model (doesn't make any sense to compare this to a $235 - $300 Phenom 2 does it now)
Reviews should start comparisons with the Phenom 2's and 1's here below, that would make sense because those that buy PH2's and PH1's instead of the 7 high priced Intel models listed above will be laughing all the way to the bank and for some good amount of time afterward as they enjoy themselves gaming and browsing and working etc. on their nice AM2+ and AM3 systems.
The PH1's and PH2's compare favorably to the Intel CPU's in the same general price range.
Please make comparisons betwee CPU's in the same general price range to present a decent review, and only include one of the higher priced high end Intel CPU's to show that Intel has the best CPU's now available but at a significant price in $$$, and most people, the very vast majority of people are concerned about $$$.
Then I'm going to check out the meltdown at fantasyzone for some laughs. Your post is filled with so many logical fallacies that I don't know where to start. Your understanding of the situation is so basic that I'm not even sure if it's worth taking the time to respond to your comments, but I'll try anyway in the hopes that I can explain things to you.
That statement is just outright silly. Screens switch between screens in daily use maybe a bit too fast? Those are quite literally your exact words, and yet that statement makes no sense at all. You won't notice applications switching faster between Intel and AMD CPUs, but what you will notice is applications running faster, and that is never, and I emphasize never, a bad thing.
It's true that in gaming, clock speed makes very little difference. That's why people don't pay a whole lot of attention to gaming performance when it comes to CPUs and instead look at other tests that will actually benefit from a faster chip. In those cases, Intel's current batch of CPUs is the clear winner.
Actually, the results would have been identical. The only differences between the Q9550 and QX9770 are the higher stock clock speed and FSB of the 9770, and the fact that its multiplier is unlocked. The architectures are identical, and so is the clock for clock performance of each of the CPUs.
This is an enthusiast site, and most people here DO overclock. These benchmarks were done to show pure performance, and what an enthusiast would see from one of these CPUs. The tests clearly showed that Phenom II is not as fast as Core 2 clock for clock, which means that as an enthusiast chip, Phenom II is still inferior.
Even with DDR2, the Phenom chips have significantly more memory bandwidth and less latency compared to the Core 2 CPUs, yet are still unable to perform as well. I doubt adding more bandwidth would help, since that is not a bottleneck for the CPUs.
Easy to post that hours later.
I couldn't find it on newegg when I posted early this morning. Good, it's not a paper launch.
