Phenom 9850 OC'd close to QX6850

Saw this review and overclock of the new 9850.

Looks like the Phenom 9850 OC'd to 3.0GHz is right on the QX6850's tail at stock 3.0GHz. Considering the QX6850 is about $1,000 thats pretty amazing. Sure it won't overclock as well as the Intel quads, but it shows that AMD is inches away from Intel clock for clock in some instances. Thats pretty refreshing to see IMO.

juane414 said:

Saw this review and overclock of the new 9850.

Looks like the Phenom 9850 OC'd to 3.0GHz is right on the QX6850's tail at stock 3.0GHz. Considering the QX6850 is about $1,000 thats pretty amazing. Sure it won't overclock as well as the Intel quads, but it shows that AMD is inches away from Intel clock for clock in some instances. Thats pretty refreshing to see IMO.

Click to expand...

not to burst ur bubble but the QX6850 is older 65nm stuff... look at the QX9650 ... same 3.0ghz quad as the QX6850 but better by quite abit better performance wise... this is also to say that the 9850BE is stock 2.5ghz and is going on newegg for 243 and they had quite a hard time grabbing 3ghz for tests... the Q6600 which is the closest clock wise to the 9850BE is also within 7 bucks price... 249.99 on newegg, and 3ghz is a cake walk and most ppl can get 3.4-3.6ghz.. like you stated they are more ocable...

It is refreshing to see that the new phenoms clock slightly better than the originals but they still have a ways to go... only a 20% OC ... cmon... every chip i have ever ocd could do better than 20% easily... heck even amd's older stuff, i remember ppl clocking the opty 165 from 1.8ghz to 2.6-2.8ghz+ on a daily basis! or the 3600 brisbanes!!!... i honestly think AMD shoulda gone the intel route and taken 2 brisbane dual cores and stuck it on one die with some shared chache.... o well... props to amd for stickin it out this long, lets hope they continue to make steps forward, cus without them we all are skrewed!

nd4spdbh2 said:

i honestly think AMD shoulda gone the intel route and taken 2 brisbane dual cores and stuck it on one die with some shared chache.... o well... props to amd for stickin it out this long, lets hope they continue to make steps forward, cus without them we all are skrewed!

Click to expand...

It is impossible to put 2 brisbanes onto one die because of the integrated memory controller, thus the reason why nehelm is going to be all on 1 die. I will probably order the 9550 and oc it.

I'm not saying that the new Phenoms are better than Intel quads, nor did I expect them to be better. Intel is a larger company with vast resources. AMD has been and probably will be the underdog for a long time. As long as AMD products can come close, I will support them. Sure there is a big difference between a 4.0GHz overclock and a 3.0GHz overclock, but I don't have a need for 4.0GHz right now anyway. I'm just excited to see that AMD is making good improvements. They are far behind and have a long road ahead of them, but they offer a good alternative product at a reasonable price. Thats enough to convince me to buy them.

juane414 said:

Looks like the Phenom 9850 OC'd to 3.0GHz is right on the QX6850's tail at stock 3.0GHz. Considering the QX6850 is about $1,000 thats pretty amazing. Sure it won't overclock as well as the Intel quads, but it shows that AMD is inches away from Intel clock for clock in some instances. Thats pretty refreshing to see IMO.

Click to expand...

That kind of stock VS OCd comparisons do not really show anything, I bet it feels good to compare AMD's ocd procs to Intel's one year old offering but still quite pointless.

The aforementioned Intel proc came out 9 months ago, and could be overclocked a bit higher.
If you want to compare ocd procs the q6600 costs 275 since 07 July, which could be overclocked to reach those speeds as well.
Stock vs stock, took amd more than a year to catch up with the Q6600 and offer quads with similar performance unfortunately their TDP is still higher than those oldies goldies intel Q6600s but I agree at least clock for clock they are where Intel was a year ago.
On the bright side quads are still not really required so by the time we really need them they are going to offer 45nm 3G+ quads.

not to mention the like extra power needed to take the phenom new stepping up 900Mhz, the power consumption almost DOUBLEs,

Dapman02 said:

It is impossible to put 2 brisbanes onto one die because of the integrated memory controller, thus the reason why nehelm is going to be all on 1 die. I will probably order the 9550 and oc it.

Click to expand...

ohh i am sure they would have NO problem linking to 2 individual cores together... its just they wanted to have a "true" quad.... for what ever its worth.

I'm not interested in stock vs. stock... I'm interested in clock vs. clock, and 3.0GHz on a Phenom looks pretty close to 3.0GHz on an Intel Quad. Overclocks, underclocks, its all clocks. 3000MHz is 3000MHz. I'm not concerned with AMD beating Intel at this point, I'm just happy to see that they are catching up.

Wow, you guys are a bunch of AMD smashers... jeez

Whatever you say they'll find or they try as hard as they can to prove you AMD sux that's y I quit writing in threads like this 1. They won't respect what AMD has done to the market and these are the guys that keep buying intel even if it's pentium vs athlon.

+1 for AMD here. My next build is going to be 100% AMD.

Well, I'm not denying that AMD sucks, if thats would being second best means. I'm just saying that its good to see a decent product coming from a decent company. I like the underdog, I think its awesome that a small company can compete with a large company, even if their product is inferior. I just don't understand why people have to get so aggressive every time a bit of AMD news pops up.

There has been quite the influx of hardcore intel fanboys that trash AMD any instant they have. I know where AMD stands, definatly need to go quite a ways to catch up, but I will continue to support them. They have done alot in this industry for being such a small company, and many newb intel fanboys seem to forget the only reason they get remotly reasonable Intel prices is because of AMDs competition.

Hell, people got 8800GTs early because of AMD..nvidia released them early as a pre-emptive strike on the HD3000 series.

its like pepsi and coke, their competition made both of them stronger and still does.

juane414 said:

I just don't understand why people have to get so aggressive every time a bit of AMD news pops up.

Click to expand...

juane414 said:

Looks like the Phenom 9850 OC'd to 3.0GHz is right on the QX6850's tail at stock 3.0GHz. Considering the QX6850 is about $1,000 thats pretty amazing.

Click to expand...

If you start the post with an Intel bashing (so to speak) then what do you expect ?
If you care clock for clock then why not compare the OCD Phenom to an OCD Q6600 which is more than capable of doing 3G ?
That part of your post is a provocation.

I wouldn't have written my previous post if you hadn't written that 100USD in it, and would write it again if you compare an ocd Celeron E1200 to the 6400 BE's launch price.
I am not an intel fanboy, I am glad for the clock for clock result and wish that they can make cool 45nm K10 without L3 for cheap.

It is nice to see they are making progress. I hope they can catch up sooner than later but I have my doubts. If the rumors are true nehalem may be even more of a blow than the core 2 architecture was.

My last build was my first Intel system. I would have loved to continue to support AMD but the performance just wasn't there.

I am just terrified that when they finallY get pheniom straightened out they are going to get in the same mess trying to integrate a GPU onto the die.

The reason why the comparison is so terrible and it is done by alot of reviewers is because they are comparing AMD Black Edtion to Intel Extreme Edition and that is utterly pointless in itself. It is not only a few reviewers too, it is a large majority that keep doing this and it is the wrong way to look at it. BE should not be compared to intel Extreme Edition. The EE is for the extreme overclocking enthusiast,rich and those wanting the newest tech out as soon as it drops. It is not for the mainstream audience which the highend is usually under 300$ bucks. If you are going to compare processors, compare them at the same price points. That is why when I see such reviews I don't even think twice to read them because the comparison is worthless and the time it takes to read it is totally wasted.

AMD have good products. They are good enough for the general user and good enough for the next few years. And probably you can get an AM3 processor to fit in your AM2+ board so the path is a little longer for AMD on upgrading. Technically the Core 2 45nm penryn has no competition until AMD goes to k10.5. Intel is always a year ahead of AMD but this time around Intel does not force you to get ddr3 as their architecture can use both DDr2 and DDR3 unlike the switch to Pentium D. So it is much harder for AMD to make a niche for itself. Once intel does a full conversion to strictly DDr3 and if DDr2 is stil alot cheaper or reusable some may switch to AMD just because it may offer better performance at the time for the right price than going to DDR3 and fullblown other socket like Nehalem.

ou_phidelt said:

I am just terrified that when they finallY get pheniom straightened out they are going to get in the same mess trying to integrate a GPU onto the die.

Click to expand...

That's not going to be the same product, you can expect a die shrink of K10 from Q3 if lucky more likely Q4 covering the whole range of AMD's products.
Opterons and Phenoms first, L3 less cheaper quads and triples later duals closing the line about a year from now.
Integrated GPU comes only H2 next year and most likely for mobile cpus first as notebook sales make bigger and bigger share of the CPUs.

Kuroimaho said:

If you start the post with an Intel bashing (so to speak) then what do you expect ?
If you care clock for clock then why not compare the OCD Phenom to an OCD Q6600 which is more than capable of doing 3G ?
That part of your post is a provocation.

Click to expand...

I don't see any provocation... I think you're just mis-understanding... What exactly are you considering Intel bashing? the fact that the QX processors are $1,000+ and the OP mentioned that?

Can you Intel supporters at least admit that Intel's pricing scheme is vastly unfair? Just look at the price difference between the q6600 to the q6700 and then again from the q6700 to the qx6700. I could overclock a q6600 a mere 266mhz and have a $250 product comparable to a $1000 product.

I think AMD's prices are fair for the performance they offer, unlike Mr. robber baron Intel.

Firestrider said:

Can you Intel supporters at least admit that Intel's pricing scheme is vastly unfair? Just look at the price difference between the q6600 to the q6700 and then again from the q6700 to the qx6700. I could overclock a q6600 a mere 266mhz and have a $250 product comparable to a $1000 product.

I think AMD's prices are fair for the performance they offer, unlike Mr. robber baron Intel.

Click to expand...

thats how its always been man... only reason AMD prices are "fair" is because they CANT price like intel....

My posts were not ment to be AMD bashing... i was just pointing out the fact that the OP was not comparing apples to apples... in this case latest tech to latest tec (IE 9850BE @ 3.0ghz to QX9650)... like i said in my original post i am very glad to see that AMD is stepping forward in the clock speed performance and not backwards like they didnt with the original 65nm dual cores... but like i said i would like to see AMD clocking these phenoms higher

As for a die shrink, i wish amd the best of luck but the last time they tried to rush out a die shrink it came later than they said with negative effects... lets hope they dont repeat that!

hateration for AMD is rife !