My Phenom II benchmarks

[osrk]

Essentially, I wouldn't expect much out of Phenom II. If the rumors are indeed accurate, a die-shrink and more L3 cache won't make much of a difference when compared to existing Phenom processors. I don't forsee it matching Yorkfield and I don't even think Core i7 needs to be brought into the picture.

Every AMD thread degerates into a cost/performance ratio thread for some reason. That part does get old. However, relating to that topic, motherboards aside, Intel is very competitive with Phenom on a cost basis when comparing the Q6600 to any Phenom, and Phenom II is likely to be priced close to where we see the highest end Phenoms priced at today. In which case it won't be that far off from many of the Yorkfield Core 2 Quad's, and it will encroach on the Core i7 pricing for the entry level I7. In which case I don't think the Phenom II will compare favorably at all.

I'm going to have to agree with the fact that if a Phenom 2 is priced at around a Core i7 entry level processor it will not be competitive from a price/performance stand point. To keep me running AMD they would have to price just above the current Phenoms. At or just a tiny price below a Core i7 would be a failure on AMD's part.

I very much want to purchase a Phenom II but only for the right price.

 

[Esstee]

I'm going to have to agree with the fact that if a Phenom 2 is priced at around a Core i7 entry level processor it will not be competitive from a price/performance stand point. To keep me running AMD they would have to price just above the current Phenoms. At or just a tiny price below a Core i7 would be a failure on AMD's part.

I very much want to purchase a Phenom II but only for the right price.

I very much doubt that would be the case.
AMD has proven quite aware of their price performance market and it would make no sense whatsoever to try and distribute products anywheres near the i7 pricelines.

I could see the PII put up against the Core 2 quads through aggressive pricing.
If they can take the price path and cater to the enthusiast overclocking crowd, I think it has a very good chance at success. - This is to say that it can effectively beat match and outperform the Core 2 lineup.

On my own side of things, I was looking at the Maxwell render benchmarks, and I have to say, that seeing a single Core i7 @ 3.95Ghz match a 16 core Opteron cluster is somewhat of a mindblowing factor. - Just wow!

 

[Dan_D]

I'm going to have to agree with the fact that if a Phenom 2 is priced at around a Core i7 entry level processor it will not be competitive from a price/performance stand point. To keep me running AMD they would have to price just above the current Phenoms. At or just a tiny price below a Core i7 would be a failure on AMD's part.

I very much want to purchase a Phenom II but only for the right price.

Well actually I just looked at Phenom and Q6600 pricing. I had forgotten just how cheap they really were. So I seriously doubt AMD will price them much higher than the regular Phenom.

I very much doubt that would be the case.
AMD has proven quite aware of their price performance market and it would make no sense whatsoever to try and distribute products anywheres near the i7 pricelines.

I could see the PII put up against the Core 2 quads through aggressive pricing.
If they can take the price path and cater to the enthusiast overclocking crowd, I think it has a very good chance at success. - This is to say that it can effectively beat match and outperform the Core 2 lineup.

On my own side of things, I was looking at the Maxwell render benchmarks, and I have to say, that seeing a single Core i7 @ 3.95Ghz match a 16 core Opteron cluster is somewhat of a mindblowing factor. - Just wow!

I think that Phenon II will need to stick close to the pricing of the Q6600 and the lower end Yorkfield chips in order to sell well.

 

[brons2]

i totally understand this whole value thing.

my moms new rig that i built for her.

ok fine so it was only an X2 3800+ cpu.
however, it was not an easy choice decided intel or AMD.

the intel E2160's were faster at stock settings yes (this was to be a low power build, thus overclocking was not a factor in the purchasing).
For me to go for an intel board, it would have been $40 for a board, and then another $40 MINIMAL for the CPU.

I was able to get an AMD combo for $20 less.

now granted, its only $20 less, but we're only talking about a $100 build here. amplify that to a $500 build, and I jsut saved $100.

a $100 dollar build? you could have gone Via and you still would have to re-use some components to make that pricetag. No way you could build a full system for $100, otherwise, OLPC would be calling you on line 1.

 

[Scali2]

Well, the way I see it, there are certain 'revolutions' in performance/price every now and then.
The introduction of the Core2 Duo line was such a revolution. Suddenly you could get the performance of an Athlon X2, but for half the price, or less (I bought my E6600 for 300 euros when AMD's closest performer, the 6000+ was 700 euros... Ironically my previous system was an Athlon XP1800+, bought for the same reason: it gave me Pentium 4 performance at about half the price or so). This forced prices down on both Intel's own Pentium 4/D line, and AMD's products aswell.

Then when Phenom was introduced (actually a bit beforehand even, if I recall correctly), the price of the Q6600 dropped (it was originally introduced at $851, slowly slid down, but didn't quite reach its current bargain price until there was any competition).

Currently I can't escape the impression that Intel keeps its Penryn prices artifically high. Since there is no competiton, they can charge any price... However, purely technically speaking, the Penryn is just a slightly updated version of Conroe, and with 45 nm it's cheaper to produce. So they could be priced at or lower than Q6600... There just is no reason to do so. I think Phenom II will provide Intel with a reason to drop the prices at last. So that will cause another 'revolution' in the performance/price of quadcores.
Ofcourse that has two sides... When Intel drops its prices, it still won't improve AMD's current situation, where there's little reason to go for Phenom in the face of Q6600.

I also think that Intel's Core i7 920 is already hinting at another revolution in perhaps 6 to 12 months. The processor itself has incredible performance/price, nothing even comes close at this point. Its main problems are the motherboard and the DDR3.
The coming Lynnfield (Core i5) will introduce cheaper chipsets, which should bring motherboard prices down to where they are with Socket 775 (or perhaps lower, since there is no northbridge anymore)... and by that time, the price of DDR3 will probably have come down aswell (it's dropping as we speak, and big OEMs such as Dell and HP are slowly starting to adopt them in their machines, which should accelerate the process).
Aside from that, since Lynnfield only runs dualchannel, people won't be tempted to go for 3 DIMMs, and just run with 2 (which is already possible with current Core i7 systems, it just doesn't make much sense to skimp on memory when you spend so much money on the motherboard).
So imagine a system where you combine the performance and price of the current i7 920 with the price of current Socket 775 motherboards and DDR2 memory. That would be a bargain of revolutionary proportions.

I think that's the one AMD really has to look out for. By the looks of it, Phenom II will make them competitive with the Penryn line... but that will only last a few months, and then AMD will have to come up with an answer to Lynnfield, or yet again be competing only in the shadows of the bottom-end of the quadcore market like they are doing today.

 

[Yuk]

I was thinking of buying a PHII and a 790GX motherboard for a new system. The reason being for low cost, good performance plus the integrated graphics ment no need to spend the extra on a graphics card.

Motherboard DFI 790 GX $ 144.99
CPU if the same as current Phenoms $ 179.00
Memory 4 Gig $ 54.99
Power supply $ 109.99
Hard drive 1 $ 59.99
Hard drive 2 $ 119.99
CPU cooler $ 49.99

Total $ 718.94

I did a comparison with an x38 and a Q6600 and it comes out to $50 more with a graphics card (ATI 3450 256). I'm not sure I could see a performance difference between the two.

This is not for gaming but casual internet, email, storage and video encoding/recoding. If the price of the PHII is priced higher then I would have to rethink my setup.

 

[Atech]

I was thinking of buying a PHII and a 790GX motherboard for a new system. The reason being for low cost, good performance plus the integrated graphics ment no need to spend the extra on a graphics card.

Motherboard DFI 790 GX $ 144.99
CPU if the same as current Phenoms $ 179.00
Memory 4 Gig $ 54.99
Power supply $ 109.99
Hard drive 1 $ 59.99
Hard drive 2 $ 119.99
CPU cooler $ 49.99

Total $ 718.94

I did a comparison with an x38 and a Q6600 and it comes out to $50 more with a graphics card (ATI 3450 256). I'm not sure I could see a performance difference between the two.

This is not for gaming but casual internet, email, storage and video encoding/recoding. If the price of the PHII is priced higher then I would have to rethink my setup.

You will se a difference there.

 

[Dan_D]

I was thinking of buying a PHII and a 790GX motherboard for a new system. The reason being for low cost, good performance plus the integrated graphics ment no need to spend the extra on a graphics card.

Motherboard DFI 790 GX $ 144.99
CPU if the same as current Phenoms $ 179.00
Memory 4 Gig $ 54.99
Power supply $ 109.99
Hard drive 1 $ 59.99
Hard drive 2 $ 119.99
CPU cooler $ 49.99

Total $ 718.94

I did a comparison with an x38 and a Q6600 and it comes out to $50 more with a graphics card (ATI 3450 256). I'm not sure I could see a performance difference between the two.

This is not for gaming but casual internet, email, storage and video encoding/recoding. If the price of the PHII is priced higher then I would have to rethink my setup.

The main reason I'd go with a Q6600 in your case is for the motherboard chipsets. The stability and drivers are unmatched in the industry. (Speaking soley about consumer level machines.)

 

[Tom128]

Essentially, I wouldn't expect much out of Phenom II. If the rumors are indeed accurate, a die-shrink and more L3 cache won't make much of a difference when compared to existing Phenom processors. I don't forsee it matching Yorkfield and I don't even think Core i7 needs to be brought into the picture.

Can I ask a question that I know you may not be able (or willing) to answer? Do you guys here at [H] already have your hands on a Phenom 2? Have you already tested it and have numbers ready and are just held back by AMD's NDA? I ask because I have seen Kyles post on the front page about how Phenom 2's will be shit. I have seen you in this thread say that Phenom 2 will not perform well. I actually value your opinions on hardware quite a bit. However, I have also seen people that do have these things in hand in various forums and they seem to tell a different story. The picture that they paint is that Phenom 2 is not simply a die shrink and more L3. No, its not a new design at all, it could be AMD finally implementing Phenom in the way they originally designed it, unlike the nightmare that Phenom 1 was. Subtle fixes and tweaks are there along with a shrink and more L3. The fact that a 3Ghz part is launching with the first wave tells me they have corrected something in their process.

Just trying to sort out if you are being pessimistic in your expectation like I am being optimistic, or if you legitimately know things we don't to direct your comments

 

[Dan_D]

Can I ask a question that I know you may not be able (or willing) to answer? Do you guys here at [H] already have your hands on a Phenom 2? Have you already tested it and have numbers ready and are just held back by AMD's NDA? I ask because I have seen Kyles post on the front page about how Phenom 2's will be shit. I have seen you in this thread say that Phenom 2 will not perform well. I actually value your opinions on hardware quite a bit. However, I have also seen people that do have these things in hand in various forums and they seem to tell a different story. The picture that they paint is that Phenom 2 is not simply a die shrink and more L3. No, its not a new design at all, it could be AMD finally implementing Phenom in the way they originally designed it, unlike the nightmare that Phenom 1 was. Subtle fixes and tweaks are there along with a shrink and more L3. The fact that a 3Ghz part is launching with the first wave tells me they have corrected something in their process.

Just trying to sort out if you are being pessimistic in your expectation like I am being optimistic, or if you legitimately know things we don't to direct your comments

Any information we may have on Phenom II is under NDA at present. I do not know when the embargo on that information will lift. I can say that at the time of this post I have not actually worked with Phenom II myself. What I've said about Phenom II over the last few weeks has been based on the same rumors and information found on the internet that all of you have been able to read for yourselves. I've never heard anything credible suggesting Phenom II was anything more than a die shrink and more L3 cache. I could be wrong there. However I think my guesses (albiet educated guesses) concerning Phenom II's performance are probably right on the money based on what Kyle has said on the front page and via forum posts.

I can't say anything more than that.

 

[PhantomAu]

Well as an AMD fanboy I do hope they can compete on price as I'm still rocking a 939 x2 here and I have been loath to upgrade to an Intel Quad, regardless of how good they are. In truth I simply haven't been able to justify the cost to myself, having just bought a house. (Quad are expensive in Australia).

Anyway thats a little off topic, I've done some investigation on the current Phenons (price, performance & overclocking) and I hope to god the Phenon II is much better as I am a little shocked at the Phenom I

The best I have found (standard reproducible overclocking) is 3.0 to 3.2Ghz on a 2.6ghz cpu. When you compare this to Q6600 which is the same price, uses 50% less power & is 2 years old... its utter bullshit. For comparison the Q9550 is just shy of $500 in Oz.

Danny

 

[TheBlueChanell]

The main reason I'd go with a Q6600 in your case is for the motherboard chipsets. The stability and drivers are unmatched in the industry. (Speaking soley about consumer level machines.)

To each his own. Some people love intel chipsets, some people hate them. Same goes with AMD/Nvidia.

The 790GX is competitive with P45 in both price and features and the same goes for X48/790FX. The 9950 and the Q6600 are like $20-30 apart in price, and either setup can end up costing you more/less than the other depending on which motherboard you pick.

The newer batches of 9950's have been hitting 3.4ghz+ and while the Q6600 might be faster clock for clock I feel anyone would be hard pressed to tell a difference between the two at the same clocks.

It all depends on what kind of budget you have. Lets say you save $50 picking up a 9950/790GX, that $50 could be used to get a nicer videocard like a 4870 1gb instead of 512mb, or a GTX260 216 instead of vanilla.

 

[koopaGG]

The main reason I'd go with a Q6600 in your case is for the motherboard chipsets. The stability and drivers are unmatched in the industry. (Speaking soley about consumer level machines.)

All the Intel chipsets I have ever used have been wonderful...

BUT so have all of the new AMD chipsets. Not only that, but the AMD chipsets have onboard video that is actually useful.

Like previously stated, to each his own.

 

[BravO)))]

Dan, were you the guy that recommended the p4 when the athlon 3xxx+'s were out?

 

[Dan_D]

Dan, were you the guy that recommended the p4 when the athlon 3xxx+'s were out?

It depended on what the system was going to be used for. For video editing/encoding it was still faster than the Athlon 64. That was the only thing it was faster than the Athlon 64 at. For gaming I recommended the Athlon 64. For regular office work, I said it didn't matter. And of course, it didn't. Though I preferred the snappy feeling of the Pentium 4. They always seemed more responsive in general use.

Back then I ran an Athlon 64 3800+ and found left wanting for multi-tasking despite its awesome gaming performance. So I built a dual Opteron 254 rig to give me the best of both worlds, which it did quite nicely.

 

[jonneymendoza]

is i7 still king?

 

[Atech]

is i7 still king?

It still is...but that was never really a question, now was it?

 

[dennisjai]

jonney, it will be for a while, but i hope the AM3 Phenom II will own the Core i5 (i5 will be dual channel and no QPI (whatever that means)).

 

[jonneymendoza]

i wand this new AMD chip to at least be on par with a i7 so that the price of i7 mobo's and cpu goes down

 

[ZMTToxics]

i wand this new AMD chip to at least be on par with a i7 so that the price of i7 mobo's and cpu goes down

It won't be. Not for a long time.

 

[Scali2]

I really don't think i7 CPU prices need to go down. The 920 is an absolute steal in terms of price/performance.
Motherboards... perhaps, but considering what an absolute bargain the 920 is, it's not too big a deal to spend a bit more on the motherboard. Prices have already come down a bit. They start at just over 200 euros now, here. Considering I bought a mid-end Asus P5B Deluxe board for 180 euros when Core2 Duo was introduced, I don't think these high-end boards are overpriced.
And DDR3 is now really cheap aswell. Sure, DDR2 is even cheaper, but if you want 3x2 GB DDR3, it's no big deal compared to the motherboard and CPU prices. I can get it for less than 100 euros now.

What I do hope is that Phenom II pulls down the prices of the Core2 Quad line. I'd like a 45 nm model with 12 MB cache, at the price of a Q6600, or less. AMD's Phenom II line might finally give Intel a reason to do that.

 

[TheBlueChanell]

It depended on what the system was going to be used for. For video editing/encoding it was still faster than the Athlon 64. That was the only thing it was faster than the Athlon 64 at. For gaming I recommended the Athlon 64. For regular office work, I said it didn't matter. And of course, it didn't. Though I preferred the snappy feeling of the Pentium 4. They always seemed more responsive in general use.

Back then I ran an Athlon 64 3800+ and found left wanting for multi-tasking despite its awesome gaming performance. So I built a dual Opteron 254 rig to give me the best of both worlds, which it did quite nicely.

I'm not trying to play devils advocate here because I might be mistaken but, wasn't that something you said was bs when people were stating that the phenom felt "smoother' than a Core 2 setup.

 

[alg7_munif]

Hopefully the AM3 PII with unlocked multiplier will come out soon. If the price of the AM3 PII is good enough, I think that I could make a "side-grade" from my C2Q system. I could sell my CPU and mobo and get the AM3 PII and a DDR2 mobo. Later I can sell the mobo and RAM to upgrade to DDR 3 when the price drops and DDR2 production ends.

 

[RiverRicer]

When did this degenerate into an i7 Über Alles thread? The sign on the door said 'My Phenom II benchmarks'.

 

[Dan_D]

I'm not trying to play devils advocate here because I might be mistaken but, wasn't that something you said was bs when people were stating that the phenom felt "smoother' than a Core 2 setup.

Well the Pentium 4 had Hyperthreading which did help make the system feel smoother as it transitioned between tasks much quicker than the Athlon 64 and contributed to a sense of responsiveness that the AMD Athlon 64 based systems didn't have. Now compared to my dual Opteron 254 setup, the Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading had nothing going for it. Though the setup I had was more expensive than the best motherboard and Extreme Edition Pentium 4 was. So it wasn't a cost effective solution for everyone. So essentially I believe the psuedo SMP capabilities of the Pentium 4 did make the system feel smoother. When I switched from a Pentium 4 to an Athlon 64 3800+ I definitely felt like I took a step backwards in performance outside of gaming.

I've used plenty of Phenom based systems for extended periods of time and I've never felt like they were any different in their responsiveness. In general usage I can't tell the difference between a Phenom and a Core 2 Quad.

So on one hand I have felt the difference between the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64 in regard to "responsiveness" or "smoothness." Now as I said going with an SMP Opteron setup, or an Athlon X2 negated the advantage the Pentium 4 had. The Athlon 64 X2 always felt just as responsive as the Pentium 4 (if not more so) and just as fast as the Pentium D processors did. Of course in gaming performance there was no comparison. The Athlon 64 X2 raped their Intel counterparts even when huge clock speed advantages were held on the Intel side. On the other hand I've seen no evidence that the Phenom is any smoother or more responsive than the Core 2 Quad. Some say the Phenom is smoother due to the Hypertransport link and that some how the FSB is a bottleneck in their normal computing experience. A sentiment which I find foolish and next to impossible to prove. Some others claim the integrated memory controller is responsible for a smoother experience. While this sounds a bit more reasonable, I've of course never felt this was the case. If that were really true then the Athlon 64 would have felt as smooth if not smoother and more responsive than the Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading.

It just seems to me that psuedo SMP or Hyperthreading had more impact than Hypertransport or an integrated memory controller had on the overall responsiveness of a system. This seems to be confirmed in my eyes at least by everything going dual core and later quad core as everything felt the same to me after that happend. In any case the last advantages (perceived or real) of the Phenom outside of price have been swept away. Intel now has their own version of Hypertransport (QPI) and now they have an integrated memory controller which has considerably more bandwidth than anything AMD offers. So not only did Intel do what AMD already had done, but they improved upon it as well.

 

[TheBlueChanell]

Well the Pentium 4 had Hyperthreading which did help make the system feel smoother as it transitioned between tasks much quicker than the Athlon 64 and contributed to a sense of responsiveness that the AMD Athlon 64 based systems didn't have. Now compared to my dual Opteron 254 setup, the Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading had nothing going for it. Though the setup I had was more expensive than the best motherboard and Extreme Edition Pentium 4 was. So it wasn't a cost effective solution for everyone. So essentially I believe the psuedo SMP capabilities of the Pentium 4 did make the system feel smoother. When I switched from a Pentium 4 to an Athlon 64 3800+ I definitely felt like I took a step backwards in performance outside of gaming.

I've used plenty of Phenom based systems for extended periods of time and I've never felt like they were any different in their responsiveness. In general usage I can't tell the difference between a Phenom and a Core 2 Quad.

So on one hand I have felt the difference between the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64 in regard to "responsiveness" or "smoothness." Now as I said going with an SMP Opteron setup, or an Athlon X2 negated the advantage the Pentium 4 had. The Athlon 64 X2 always felt just as responsive as the Pentium 4 (if not more so) and just as fast as the Pentium D processors did. Of course in gaming performance there was no comparison. The Athlon 64 X2 raped their Intel counterparts even when huge clock speed advantages were held on the Intel side. On the other hand I've seen no evidence that the Phenom is any smoother or more responsive than the Core 2 Quad. Some say the Phenom is smoother due to the Hypertransport link and that some how the FSB is a bottleneck in their normal computing experience. A sentiment which I find foolish and next to impossible to prove. Some others claim the integrated memory controller is responsible for a smoother experience. While this sounds a bit more reasonable, I've of course never felt this was the case. If that were really true then the Athlon 64 would have felt as smooth if not smoother and more responsive than the Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading.

It just seems to me that psuedo SMP or Hyperthreading had more impact than Hypertransport or an integrated memory controller had on the overall responsiveness of a system. This seems to be confirmed in my eyes at least by everything going dual core and later quad core as everything felt the same to me after that happend. In any case the last advantages (perceived or real) of the Phenom outside of price have been swept away. Intel now has their own version of Hypertransport (QPI) and now they have an integrated memory controller which has considerably more bandwidth than anything AMD offers. So not only did Intel do what AMD already had done, but they improved upon it as well.

Opinion stated, Case closed.

The i7 is the first intel architecture that I've actually been impressed with. The P4/Pentium D's where obviously a wash, I had a Pentium D 930 and while it was nice, I much preferred my x2 3800 at the time because the main thing I use my rig for is gaming and with the X2 the performance was there, and so was the price. That's the same decision making process I used when purchasing my E4400.

The i7 is really intriguing to me because it takes the high points of AMD and Intel engineering and kind of meshes it into one "super" CPU. I've not really been able to use an i7 system first hand, other than the demo that was setup @ the AMD Dragon event in Chicago. I'm very interested in the X58 platform but unfortunately with the economy the way it is I don't feel it's wise to invest $700-$1000 into just a motherboard, CPU and ram.

I guess I will just stick to the free Phenom 2 AMD gave me. I hope that it lives up to the expectations I set for it, but only time will tell.

 

[flippin_waffles]

Pssst, hey Dan, just thought you should know, your bias is really starting to shine through. lol

 

[Scali2]

It just seems to me that psuedo SMP or Hyperthreading had more impact than Hypertransport or an integrated memory controller had on the overall responsiveness of a system.

It can also be backed up with facts on how an OS runs applications on your system, unlike the memory controller/HyperTransport thing.

Namely, the thing is that memory controllers/HyperTransport only make I/O faster. While this has obvious advantages when performing a single I/O-intensive task, it doesn't necessarily relate to more responsive applications when multitasking.

In a nutshell, every core (logical or physical, doesn't matter to the OS) can handle a single thread at once.
In order to simulate multiple threads/processes running at the same time, the OS schedules them by timeslices. These timeslices are usually a fixed length, somewhere in the order of 10-20 ms, and are generally not dependent on the underlying hardware (so a faster CPU won't result in shorter timeslices or anything).

So basically thread 1 will run for a period of one timeslice on a core, then the OS will freeze that thread, and wake up thread 2 for a period of one timeslice, etc, creating the illusion of running multiple tasks simultaneously.

Now, when you have only one core, then there will always be only one thread active at any given time. Therefore your application will only respond during its timeslice.
Especially when there are a lot of high-priority threads, such as handling hardware interrupts and things, it could take a while before your application receives another timeslice. During that time, your system will be unresponsive.

When you have multiple cores, this means that multiple threads can be active at the same time, because all cores can run a timeslice in parallel.
Generally only one core handles all the hardware interrupts, which means that on a system with two or more cores, you'll always have a 'free' core for handling whatever else is running. This allows your applications to still respond to user input, even though in the case of a logical core, the actual processing speed won't be very high.

So while faster I/O through a memory controller or HyperTransport or such might reduce the total time it takes to handle a big load of hardware interrupts or other high-priority workloads, it won't make the system any more responsive during that period, unlike HyperThreading.

 

[christof139]

Thanx for the explanations of how the arcitectures work. Chris

 

[Dan_D]

Pssst, hey Dan, just thought you should know, your bias is really starting to shine through. lol

I hope you are being sarcastic.

If I was anti-AMD I wouldn't have purchased two dual processor Opteron systems. That's right, when most people were running Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 based systems I ran two dual Opteron workstations. One was my file server built around dual Opteron 246's and the gaming computer and main workstation was based on dual Opteron 254's. They were purchased when the latter processors were $825 each. Needless to say if I was anti-AMD I wouldn't have switched from a Pentium 4 540 that was overclocked to 3.85GHz to such a setup.

 

[Dan_D]

It can also be backed up with facts on how an OS runs applications on your system, unlike the memory controller/HyperTransport thing.

Namely, the thing is that memory controllers/HyperTransport only make I/O faster. While this has obvious advantages when performing a single I/O-intensive task, it doesn't necessarily relate to more responsive applications when multitasking.

In a nutshell, every core (logical or physical, doesn't matter to the OS) can handle a single thread at once.
In order to simulate multiple threads/processes running at the same time, the OS schedules them by timeslices. These timeslices are usually a fixed length, somewhere in the order of 10-20 ms, and are generally not dependent on the underlying hardware (so a faster CPU won't result in shorter timeslices or anything).

So basically thread 1 will run for a period of one timeslice on a core, then the OS will freeze that thread, and wake up thread 2 for a period of one timeslice, etc, creating the illusion of running multiple tasks simultaneously.

Now, when you have only one core, then there will always be only one thread active at any given time. Therefore your application will only respond during its timeslice.
Especially when there are a lot of high-priority threads, such as handling hardware interrupts and things, it could take a while before your application receives another timeslice. During that time, your system will be unresponsive.

When you have multiple cores, this means that multiple threads can be active at the same time, because all cores can run a timeslice in parallel.
Generally only one core handles all the hardware interrupts, which means that on a system with two or more cores, you'll always have a 'free' core for handling whatever else is running. This allows your applications to still respond to user input, even though in the case of a logical core, the actual processing speed won't be very high.

So while faster I/O through a memory controller or HyperTransport or such might reduce the total time it takes to handle a big load of hardware interrupts or other high-priority workloads, it won't make the system any more responsive during that period, unlike HyperThreading.

Well that's the more technical version of the point I was trying to make. Hyperthreading did do something for the responsiveness of the system. Hypertransport and the integrated memory controller never did. Sure it helped performance in certain applications but it didn't change how the system felt doing normal every day use while performing mundane tasks. If the integrated memory controller and Hypertransport links didn't do it back then I certainly don't think it does now with the current Phenom CPUs when compared to Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, or Core 2 Extreme based systems. Essentially, I refute claims that Phenom systems are more responsive than Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Extreme based systems are. I've worked with tons of Phenom processors and boards and I've never found this to be the case. I believe that such claims are actually being made by fan boys as they attempt to justify their choice. If you like Intel better, buy Intel. If you like AMD better buy AMD. You can be brand loyal if you want to with no valid or sensible reasoning being behind your favorite choice. I may not agree with that choice but I'm not the one who has to live with it. But manufacturing artifical reasons to back up your purchasing decisions makes me think that such individuals aren't as happy with their choices as they like others to think they are.

Really since everything went dual core or better, I haven't been able to tell the difference between any of these machines in every day tasks. A Phenom 9600 is the same as a stock Q6600 in that regard assuming all other things are equal.

 

[HondaGuy]

 

[Boostage]

Dan You spend most of your time Trolling the AMD board trying to criticize its products all while praising the Intel chips. I have been interested in the PII and everything thread about it, you are some where inside arguing. one would say not only are you an Intel fanboy, but you feel pretty insecure about being one.

 

[Scali2]

Dan You spend most of your time Trolling the AMD board trying to criticize its products all while praising the Intel chips. I have been interested in the PII and everything thread about it, you are some where inside arguing. one would say not only are you an Intel fanboy, but you feel pretty insecure about being one.

I think Dan_D just supports whichever technology is the best at the time.
If you can afford a Core i7 (and let's be honest, building a system around the i7 920 is not THAT expensive, I recall Athlon FX systems back in the day being much more expensive, and did anyone complain there?), you cannot deny that it is the best solution at this time.

I think that's the Phenom's biggest problem. It may be a decent solution for its pricetag, but there are faster alternatives which are still affordable to most people.

 

[Casper312]

I really do not see why phenom 2 is impressive, sure it gives am2 users the ability to get a quad thats not that behind i7, but you also get that option with lga775

Good thing my amd fanboyism did not get hold of me when i was upgrading from my old 939 rig.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I really do not see why phenom 2 is impressive, sure it gives am2 users the ability to get a quad thats not that behind i7, but you also get that option with lga775

Good thing my amd fanboyism did not get hold of me when i was upgrading from my old 939 rig.

QTF. if this AMD cpu was faster then a i7 or equal for less the price. i would get it but its not and i7 is and will be the best cpu you can get for most of this year at least and no fanboy can deny facts presented to them in their face

 

[sirmonkey1985]

QTF. if this AMD cpu was faster then a i7 or equal for less the price. i would get it but its not and i7 is and will be the best cpu you can get for most of this year at least and no fanboy can deny facts presented to them in their face

and yet again.. another intel fanboy that knows nothing.. no ones claiming the phenom II is better then the i7 and nor is AMD.. hell even AMD said them selves that they werent going to try and compete with the i7 because the last thing they want to do is get into another mhz battle with them.. and no im not going waste my time finding the article for anyone but cause its not worth my time and effort.. seriously anyone claiming the phenom II is better then the i7 doesnt know anything about cpu's and computers and should be completely ignored.. but even now if amd gets remotely close to the i7 performance wise the phenom II will be the best bang for the buck.. especially for people that already own AM2+ motherboards.. and even then for people that want to upgrade.. since AM2+ motherboards are dirt cheap compared to the over priced x58 boards..

no matter how much people hate or like amd or intel there has to be competition otherwise we would still be paying 500-600 dollars for a cpu like we were back in the PII days..

and yes im still going to buy an AMD processor before i waste my money on an intel processor..

 

[Casper312]

and yes im still going to buy an AMD processor before i waste my money on an intel processor..

So your calling him a fanboy and your posting this?

Anyways, i do understand what your trying to say on the whole ''phenom vs i7''. Thats all nice and dandy that amd said that, but most people are still gonna compare it to it, even though its purpose is not to.

and no im not going waste my time finding the article for anyone but cause its not worth my time and effort..

Once again, your posting, so you must care. (God i hate saying this)

Im not trying to be a dick here, but like i said, it might not be meant to compare to i7, but people are going to.

As for your

since AM2+ motherboards are dirt cheap compared to the over priced x58 boards

Your comparing it yourself, so i guess you should be

doesnt know anything about cpu's and computers and should be completely ignored..

.

Im gonna be waiting to see how it performs, after nda is lifted, and see the official results, if it performs close to my Q9550, expect a pm showing you the cost of my rig compared to a phenom 2 rig with a sb750 board

Before you go all primal on me and start name calling, I do think the phenom 2 is a good chip, but its a bit too late, well atleast it is for me. *WARNING THIS IS AN OPINION*

 

[jonneymendoza]

and yet again.. another intel fanboy that knows nothing.. no ones claiming the phenom II is better then the i7 and nor is AMD.. hell even AMD said them selves that they werent going to try and compete with the i7 because the last thing they want to do is get into another mhz battle with them.. and no im not going waste my time finding the article for anyone but cause its not worth my time and effort.. seriously anyone claiming the phenom II is better then the i7 doesnt know anything about cpu's and computers and should be completely ignored.. but even now if amd gets remotely close to the i7 performance wise the phenom II will be the best bang for the buck.. especially for people that already own AM2+ motherboards.. and even then for people that want to upgrade.. since AM2+ motherboards are dirt cheap compared to the over priced x58 boards..

no matter how much people hate or like amd or intel there has to be competition otherwise we would still be paying 500-600 dollars for a cpu like we were back in the PII days..

and yes im still going to buy an AMD processor before i waste my money on an intel processor..

so im a fanboy because i buy stuff that is better then the other one imo(although i7 IS THE BEST atm)?

drink some coffee to wake up abit and read my post again, if AMD had a cpu thats equal or better then a i7 thats cheaper, i will be all over AMD'S ass but because its not, im going for intel purely for the fact that its a "better" product for the money i will spend.

I have not even build my i7 rig and could of done so before xmas but i wanted to wait and see if AMD can actually compete with the i7 first

good thing about computer hardware is that its easy to actually idenify which product is better with actual FACTS and FIGURES without the bullshit fanboy talk from either side.

i expect fanboys for game consoles and various media(movies, music etc) where its hard to actually tell if somethings better or not with facts and figures to boot but computer hardware in particulary cpu's? seems like anyone that favours the i7 over this purely because of performance is a fanboy

 

[Scali2]

The Phenom II 940 got slaughtered by an i7 920 in many benchmarks listed here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3543987&postcount=229

With such a large performance gap it's hard to do any price/performance comparisons. There isn't a linear scale between price and performance, there never was, and there never will be. It makes sense when performance is within 5% of eachother, but when you see gaps of 30-50%, that's just a whole different level of performance.

Phenom II shouldn't be compared against anything other than Core2 Quad in terms of price/performance, because at least those processors are in the same league as far as performance goes. Which also pretty much nullifies the DDR2/motherboard arguments in the process.
All we need is a price drop on Core2 Quad. It's rather ridiculous that the i7 920 is so cheap, yet outperforms nearly all Core2 Quads, even ones that are more than three times as expensive.