Phenom 9850 OC'd close to QX6850

[Hardin]

If it can be overclocked then it goes on this forum. It doesn't matter how expensive it is. $1,000 processors are good at stock and especially when overclocked. People who buy them aren't stupid for buying it. It can be a very good choice for them. It's been brought up in this thread before, but don't forget at one point AMD had $1,000 chips.

 

[rseven]

It is refreshing to see that the new phenoms clock slightly better than the originals but they still have a , lets hope they continue to make steps forward, cus without them we all are skrewed!

Excellent observation, nd4spdbh2. Most people running Intel don't seem to realize how important AMD's competition is to us all.

Cheers!

R7

 

[David]

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.

Probably part of their roadmap. Cobbling two dualcores together seems a little 'stopgap'ish although stopgap might have been a better choice at this point. Methinks AMD wanted to start on true quad core asap and then try to perfect it. It's a bit of a gamble when the B3s are still behind (although not by as big a margin).

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.

The point that everyone seems to have missed. Regardless of everything else, the Phenom B3 can perform as well as some intel chips clock for clock. Granted the intel chip being compared is an older part but this thread isn't a "AMD beat Intel!" it's "AMD is closing the gap a bit on Intel". There is definately still a gap and it's far from closed, but this is a step in the right direction.

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.

It wasn't at all. He simply suggested AMD were going down the right path before a crowd descended and derailed the thread. Yes, Intel beats AMD on overclockability but the point of the thread was the clock for clock comparison. See my point above.

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.

You misunderstood his post. He wasn't attacking a top end Intel CPU for costing a grand, he was comparing clock for clock performance with a high end Intel chip. AMD still has the MHz gap to make up though, and power consumption to control.

Might be or I am not using the right words so i describe it.
I am pretty sure Juane could have come up with a better comparison along the lines of what I posted above rather than to compare to the price of a processor from last year when AMD didn't even have a quadcore processor, not mentioning one which could do 3G on stock.
So he wrote that price even though he could have write something more fitting or realistic. Call it purposefully painting a bad and incorrect picture of Intel if you do not like my wording or whatever.

To compare the performance to a 3G C2D is useful we have some idea how it performs

Off-topic. See my point above.

Would just drop in that there is a rather huge potential left in the Q9XXX processors and as I recall the last FXes those F2s couldn't really oc 30%+.

I don't get what his has to do with the thread.

Lets not have this thread derailed into Intel vs AMD please.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

We have a parallel thread on this dealing with how Phenom deals with multithreaded apps. On that note, currently 32bit single threaded games and most of the newer dual thread games are performing a little better on Kentsfield and Wolfdales clock for clock. Getting a better pipeline and Integer instructions will bring Phenom closer along with speed in the cache handler. Phenom is more responsive than Brisbane and Windsor with a good bit of improvement in what I've seen running some of the simulator games. I think (IMO) the L3 cache helped with the single threaded tests where the Phenoms Architecture stepped up for the multi threaded tests I conducted last year.

I have not gotten a B3 so I have no new data as I'm waiting on K10.5.

 

[juane414]

David, thanks for summing things up for me. This thread did get derailed a bit but thats ok with me as long as its still a good discussion. I don't expect that AMD will ever be as big as Intel, I just hope that they can come out with a good product long enough to give Intel a little reminder, like the original Athlon did, that they aren't the only ones in the business. I just want AMD to keep Intel honest

 

[juane414]

Hey all, just found this new Phenom B3 review from TweakTown. The B3 revision is definitely much closer in performance to the 65nm Core 2 Quads. The only thing the Phenom actually beats the Core 2's in is memory.

 

[Hardin]

That's wonderful, but Intel has 45nm chips now.

 

[Albuquerque]

If you're going to compare overclocked chips, then compare overclocked chips. In other words, a $230 Phenom x4 9850BE is competition for a $230 Core 2 Q6600 -- the Phenom isn't going to compete against the Quad Extreme market for several obvious reasons. Hence, I understand the pessimism regarding "Gee look, a $230 chip can perform like a $1000 chip". Yes, it certainly can, just like a turbocharged Civic can compete with a Porsche Carrera 911 when drag racing -- but the reality in both cases is far more than the comparison made.

That all being entirely beside the point, I like what I see. If the B3's can hit 3Ghz at this price range, that's certainly a good product. In fact, the only "problem" I see is that AMD still doesn't have pricing in their favor at all -- I'm sure they'd LOVE to be selling these for $350 like Intel is wanting for the QX9450's.

 

[juane414]

If you're going to compare overclocked chips, then compare overclocked chips. In other words, a $230 Phenom x4 9850BE is competition for a $230 Core 2 Q6600 -- the Phenom isn't going to compete against the Quad Extreme market for several obvious reasons. Hence, I understand the pessimism regarding "Gee look, a $230 chip can perform like a $1000 chip". Yes, it certainly can, just like a turbocharged Civic can compete with a Porsche Carrera 911 when drag racing -- but the reality in both cases is far more than the comparison made.

This is the second time someone has said that I need to compare overclocked chips to overclocked chips.

For the second time I will say that I am not the one making the comparison. If I had a Q6600 system and a Phenom 9850 system at home I would OC both of them and post my benchmarks here.

All I'm doing is quoting other websites that are reviewing Phenom B3's. If they don't OC the Q6600s in their reviews, then a comparison between the two chips overclocked is not a possibility. I can't just alter the reviews...

 

[Albuquerque]

This is the second time someone has said that I need to compare overclocked chips to overclocked chips.

Who said my response was directed at you? You are certainly "guilty" of that which I posted, as the review mentioned nowhere that "$230 > $1000" that you felt needed to be pointed out.

Nevertheless, mine is a response to the overclocking community as a whole, reviewers and participants alike: just as it's pointless to say a turbocharged Civic > a Porsche Carrera 911GT, it is also pointless to say an overclocked casually-priced processor > a stock-clocked botique-priced processor. They are purchased for two very different reasons, and their target audience overlap by only a tiny percentage at best.

 

[juane414]

I understand your argument. All reviews are biased to some degree, and so comparisons are usually not fair. I agree with you. I also understand that the QX6850 and phenom 9850 have different target audiences and are built for different purposes, and it was a bit pointless of me to mention the price difference. You're right in saying that the QX6850 is in a completely different league. AMD processors are low/mid-end solutions, not high-end, and I shouldn't be making that comparison

 

[Albuquerque]

I think we all understand where some of the grief was coming from now, so no worries.

The real story is the AMD x4 3Ghz at relative parity with the Intel 65nm Quad 3Ghz parts; nothing to scoff at there. Keep it up AMD...

 

[juane414]

Yea, the fact that AMD's 65nm quads are pretty darn close to Intel's 65nm quads is a good thing. From what I've seen so far about the Q9300 and the "non-extreme" 45nm Yorkfields is that they are better then the 65nm versions, but they don't blow them away. Also, I've seen mixed reviews about the Q9300's overclocking abilities. Sure, they OC better then the Phenoms, but they don't really do any better then the Q6600.

IF the 45nm Phenoms are significantly better then the 65nm Phenoms, then the 45nm Phenoms might be able to surpass the 45nm Yorkfields clock-for-clock. The Q9300 doesn't have much improved speed or overclockability over the Q6600. Who knows? If the 45nm Phenoms are a large improvement that would be awesome, but with the stuff AMD has been producing over the past year I won't expect that. I will hope though