I'm looking at parts for a new rig that I will build, probably sometime around September. I want to stay cheap, but have it last as long as possible. If so, should I get a Q6600, or try something like the Phenom II x4 940?
Q6600 or the Phenom II x4 series?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Either will serve you well. The Phenom II x4 940 is a bit faster at stock speeds, but the Q6600 has to potential to destroy the Phenom II if you overclock to 3.0GHz+.I'm looking at parts for a new rig that I will build, probably sometime around September. I want to stay cheap, but have it last as long as possible. If so, should I get a Q6600, or try something like the Phenom II x4 940?
ish27
That's not a good reason, even at a larger fabrication the 65nm Core 2 processors drastically outperform the Phenom II series clock for clock. A Phenom II at the low 3GHz range is needed to compete with a 65nm Core 2 at 2.4GHz. Now given you can easily overclock a Phenom II about 600-700MHz, the same is true for a Q6600 which can easily overclock 1000MHz or higher, and so if they are neck and neck to begin with, because the Q6600 is faster clock for clock, you get WAY MORE OC potential with a Q6600. With stock cooling I know you can probably get a Q6600 to 3GHz without a hitch. I'm not sure about the Phenom II. A Q6600 at 3GHz easily competes with Phenom II processors in the upper 3GHz range.Phenom 2 45NM Core 2 Quad 65 NM go with the Phenom 2
Shade340
[QUOTE="Shade340"]That's not a good reason, even at a larger fabrication the 65nm Core 2 processors drastically outperform the Phenom II series clock for clock. A Phenom II at the low 3GHz range is needed to compete with a 65nm Core 2 at 2.4GHz. Now given you can easily overclock a Phenom II about 600-700MHz, the same is true for a Q6600 which can easily overclock 1000MHz or higher, and so if they are neck and neck to begin with, because the Q6600 is faster clock for clock, you get WAY MORE OC potential with a Q6600. With stock cooling I know you can probably get a Q6600 to 3GHz without a hitch. I'm not sure about the Phenom II. A Q6600 at 3GHz easily competes with Phenom II processors in the upper 3GHz range. Why am I seeing Phenom II's beating intels lead i7 in some gaming benches? http://i43.tinypic.com/33o7jvd.jpg Look at that. At very low resolution the i7 is smoking the Phenom II but once you turn up the resolution, AA, AF look whos taking the lead? You telling me the Q6600 can take on intels newest big boys? You heard it hear folks, those i7s are a scam! Get a Core2!Phenom 2 45NM Core 2 Quad 65 NM go with the Phenom 2
Marfoo
Phenom 2 45NM Core 2 Quad 65 NM go with the Phenom 2
That's not a good reason, even at a larger fabrication the 65nm Core 2 processors drastically outperform the Phenom II series clock for clock. A Phenom II at the low 3GHz range is needed to compete with a 65nm Core 2 at 2.4GHz. Now given you can easily overclock a Phenom II about 600-700MHz, the same is true for a Q6600 which can easily overclock 1000MHz or higher, and so if they are neck and neck to begin with, because the Q6600 is faster clock for clock, you get WAY MORE OC potential with a Q6600. With stock cooling I know you can probably get a Q6600 to 3GHz without a hitch. I'm not sure about the Phenom II. A Q6600 at 3GHz easily competes with Phenom II processors in the upper 3GHz range. Why am I seeing Phenom II's beating intels lead i7 in some gaming benches? http://i43.tinypic.com/33o7jvd.jpg Look at that. At very low resolution the i7 is smoking the Phenom II but once you turn up the resolution, AA, AF look whos taking the lead? You telling me the Q6600 can take on intels newest big boys? You heard it hear folks, those i7s are a scam! Get a Core2!You picked the least CPU dependent game you could.
Look at this link here. It's a consistent setup comparing Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, Core i7, Phenom II and Phenom all with a GTX 295. The comparisons I'm using is at 2560x1600
Crysis Warhead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 23fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 2.00GHz = 24fps | Difference = 1.6GHz
Far Cry 2. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 64fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 64fps | Difference = 600MHz
Left 4 Dead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 90fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 89fps | Difference = 600MHz
World in Conflict | PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 39fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 39fps | Difference = 600MHz
Don't play me for a fool, Core 2 Quad at 3.00GHz can easily stand it's ground against a 3.6GHz Phenom II, I've got the data.. 3.0GHz is an easily achievable OC for a Q6600, and even better they are capable of even going another 600MHz if you've got the proper cooling, whereas a Phenom II won't see much past 3.7GHz realistically.
Just read the conclusion to the article
"Ideally, those planning on gaming with a $500 US graphics card capable of smooth gameplay at 2560x1600 with full in game graphics enabled, are likely going to do so. Therefore the Phenom II X4 940 does make sense, as it is able to almost match the performance of the world's fastest processors. So then rather than spending $340 US on a Core 2 Quad Q9650, or $560 US for a Core i7 940 processor, why not just buy the Phenom II X4 940 for $230 US?
The answer is simple, because you can still buy the Core 2 Duo E8400 for $160 US, and at that price it was able to match the Phenom II X4 940 every step of the way. In fact, the E8400 was faster at 2560x1600 in Company of Heroes, Crysis Warhead, Left 4 Dead, and World in Conflict, while the Unreal Tournament 3 performance was a dead heat. In fact, the E8400 was only slower than the Phenom II X4 940 in Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2."
A Core 2 Duo 8400 or Core 2 Quad you plan to overclock to 3GHz+ is easily the better deal here. Phenom II is not that phenominal IMO. Data speaks for itself
The Phenom II X4 is better than the Q6600.
Yea the Phenom II's have potential to keep up with the i7's
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Jayt/Crysisbench.jpg?t=1247393579
And if your lucky you will get a good chip:
*Note: Super pi is very bias to intel's design...just ignore the time if your used to intel time
Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
[QUOTE="SinfulPotato"][QUOTE="Marfoo"] That's not a good reason, even at a larger fabrication the 65nm Core 2 processors drastically outperform the Phenom II series clock for clock. A Phenom II at the low 3GHz range is needed to compete with a 65nm Core 2 at 2.4GHz. Now given you can easily overclock a Phenom II about 600-700MHz, the same is true for a Q6600 which can easily overclock 1000MHz or higher, and so if they are neck and neck to begin with, because the Q6600 is faster clock for clock, you get WAY MORE OC potential with a Q6600. With stock cooling I know you can probably get a Q6600 to 3GHz without a hitch. I'm not sure about the Phenom II. A Q6600 at 3GHz easily competes with Phenom II processors in the upper 3GHz range.MarfooWhy am I seeing Phenom II's beating intels lead i7 in some gaming benches? http://i43.tinypic.com/33o7jvd.jpg Look at that. At very low resolution the i7 is smoking the Phenom II but once you turn up the resolution, AA, AF look whos taking the lead? You telling me the Q6600 can take on intels newest big boys? You heard it hear folks, those i7s are a scam! Get a Core2!
You picked the least CPU dependent game you could.
Look at this link here. It's a consistent setup comparing Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, Core i7, Phenom II and Phenom all with a GTX 295. The comparisons I'm using is at 2560x1600
Crysis Warhead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 23fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 2.00GHz = 24fps | Difference = 1.6GHz
Far Cry 2. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 64fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 64fps | Difference = 600MHz
Left 4 Dead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 90fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 89fps | Difference = 600MHz
World in Conflict | PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 39fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 39fps | Difference = 600MHz
Don't play me for a fool, Core 2 Quad at 3.00GHz can easily stand it's ground against a 3.6GHz Phenom II, I've got the data.. 3.0GHz is an easily achievable OC for a Q6600, and even better they are capable of even going another 600MHz if you've got the proper cooling, whereas a Phenom II won't see much past 3.7GHz realistically.
Just read the conclusion to the article
"Ideally, those planning on gaming with a $500 US graphics card capable of smooth gameplay at 2560x1600 with full in game graphics enabled, are likely going to do so. Therefore the Phenom II X4 940 does make sense, as it is able to almost match the performance of the world's fastest processors. So then rather than spending $340 US on a Core 2 Quad Q9650, or $560 US for a Core i7 940 processor, why not just buy the Phenom II X4 940 for $230 US? The answer is simple, because you can still buy the Core 2 Duo E8400 for $160 US, and at that price it was able to match the Phenom II X4 940 every step of the way. In fact, the E8400 was faster at 2560x1600 in Company of Heroes, Crysis Warhead, Left 4 Dead, and World in Conflict, while the Unreal Tournament 3 performance was a dead heat. In fact, the E8400 was only slower than the Phenom II X4 940 in Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2."
A Core 2 Duo 8400 or Core 2 Quad you plan to overclock to 3GHz+ is easily the better deal here. Phenom II is not that phenominal IMO. Data speaks for itself
Take it easy, nobody is playing you for a fool. It is just... Just... That you are one...
[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="SinfulPotato"] Why am I seeing Phenom II's beating intels lead i7 in some gaming benches? http://i43.tinypic.com/33o7jvd.jpg Look at that. At very low resolution the i7 is smoking the Phenom II but once you turn up the resolution, AA, AF look whos taking the lead? You telling me the Q6600 can take on intels newest big boys? You heard it hear folks, those i7s are a scam! Get a Core2!Slig0
You picked the least CPU dependent game you could.
Look at this link here. It's a consistent setup comparing Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, Core i7, Phenom II and Phenom all with a GTX 295. The comparisons I'm using is at 2560x1600
Crysis Warhead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 23fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 2.00GHz = 24fps | Difference = 1.6GHz
Far Cry 2. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 64fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 64fps | Difference = 600MHz
Left 4 Dead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 90fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 89fps | Difference = 600MHz
World in Conflict | PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 39fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 39fps | Difference = 600MHz
Don't play me for a fool, Core 2 Quad at 3.00GHz can easily stand it's ground against a 3.6GHz Phenom II, I've got the data.. 3.0GHz is an easily achievable OC for a Q6600, and even better they are capable of even going another 600MHz if you've got the proper cooling, whereas a Phenom II won't see much past 3.7GHz realistically.
Just read the conclusion to the article
"Ideally, those planning on gaming with a $500 US graphics card capable of smooth gameplay at 2560x1600 with full in game graphics enabled, are likely going to do so. Therefore the Phenom II X4 940 does make sense, as it is able to almost match the performance of the world's fastest processors. So then rather than spending $340 US on a Core 2 Quad Q9650, or $560 US for a Core i7 940 processor, why not just buy the Phenom II X4 940 for $230 US? The answer is simple, because you can still buy the Core 2 Duo E8400 for $160 US, and at that price it was able to match the Phenom II X4 940 every step of the way. In fact, the E8400 was faster at 2560x1600 in Company of Heroes, Crysis Warhead, Left 4 Dead, and World in Conflict, while the Unreal Tournament 3 performance was a dead heat. In fact, the E8400 was only slower than the Phenom II X4 940 in Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2."
A Core 2 Duo 8400 or Core 2 Quad you plan to overclock to 3GHz+ is easily the better deal here. Phenom II is not that phenominal IMO. Data speaks for itself
Take it easy, nobody is playing you for a fool. It is just... Just... That you are one...
I wouldent call him a fool....most ppl are unaware of amd's Imc overclocking....which gives massive gains in performance. And most of these reviews only include clock speed which isnt all you can overclock on these.
[QUOTE="Slig0"]
[QUOTE="Marfoo"]
You picked the least CPU dependent game you could.
Look at this link here. It's a consistent setup comparing Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, Core i7, Phenom II and Phenom all with a GTX 295. The comparisons I'm using is at 2560x1600
Crysis Warhead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 23fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 2.00GHz = 24fps | Difference = 1.6GHz
Far Cry 2. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHz = 64fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 64fps | Difference = 600MHz
Left 4 Dead. PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 90fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 89fps | Difference = 600MHz
World in Conflict | PHENOM II @ 3.6GHZ = 39fps | CORE 2 QUAD @ 3GHz = 39fps | Difference = 600MHzDon't play me for a fool, Core 2 Quad at 3.00GHz can easily stand it's ground against a 3.6GHz Phenom II, I've got the data.. 3.0GHz is an easily achievable OC for a Q6600, and even better they are capable of even going another 600MHz if you've got the proper cooling, whereas a Phenom II won't see much past 3.7GHz realistically.
Just read the conclusion to the article
"Ideally, those planning on gaming with a $500 US graphics card capable of smooth gameplay at 2560x1600 with full in game graphics enabled, are likely going to do so. Therefore the Phenom II X4 940 does make sense, as it is able to almost match the performance of the world's fastest processors. So then rather than spending $340 US on a Core 2 Quad Q9650, or $560 US for a Core i7 940 processor, why not just buy the Phenom II X4 940 for $230 US?
The answer is simple, because you can still buy the Core 2 Duo E8400 for $160 US, and at that price it was able to match the Phenom II X4 940 every step of the way. In fact, the E8400 was faster at 2560x1600 in Company of Heroes, Crysis Warhead, Left 4 Dead, and World in Conflict, while the Unreal Tournament 3 performance was a dead heat. In fact, the E8400 was only slower than the Phenom II X4 940 in Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2."
A Core 2 Duo 8400 or Core 2 Quad you plan to overclock to 3GHz+ is easily the better deal here. Phenom II is not that phenominal IMO. Data speaks for itself
beefdog
Take it easy, nobody is playing you for a fool. It is just... Just... That you are one...
I wouldent call him a fool....most ppl are unaware of amd's Imc overclocking....which gives massive gains in performance. And most of these reviews only include clock speed which isnt all you can overclock on these.
I wouldn't call anyone a fool if he wasn't one. I agree with you 100%, that he is uninformed, but uninformed people like him have the tendency to inform uninformed people like the thread creator, which leads to massive public uninforming, which then leads to people making stupid choices. That is why he is a fool. And if you are a fanboy, be good in it. I say that any I7 can whoop my 955's acc in compressing, but can also be whooped in gaming. I am objective, although I am an AMD fanboy. He is... a strange phenomenon.
I wouldn't call anyone a fool if he wasn't one. I agree with you 100%, that he is uninformed, but uninformed people like him have the tendency to inform uninformed people like the thread creator, which leads to massive public uninforming, which then leads to people making stupid choices. That is why he is a fool. And if you are a fanboy, be good in it. I say that any I7 can whoop my 955's acc in compressing, but can also be whooped in gaming. I am objective, although I am an AMD fanboy. He is... a strange phenomenon.
Slig0
speaking of uninformed, you might want to consider that, amongst other things, calling someone a fool for having another opinion, ignoring benchmark data and quoting a newegg user review to back up your own claims doesn't help make you a very credible source of information. and yes, that would be an understatement back there..
as for the original topic:
if you're going to build in september, you should not make a decision on any components you will be using now. i'm sure prices will keep shifting like they have in past months (especially so close to windows 7 release) and there will probably be way better deals as the ones you are looking at now.
[QUOTE="Slig0"]
I wouldn't call anyone a fool if he wasn't one. I agree with you 100%, that he is uninformed, but uninformed people like him have the tendency to inform uninformed people like the thread creator, which leads to massive public uninforming, which then leads to people making stupid choices. That is why he is a fool. And if you are a fanboy, be good in it. I say that any I7 can whoop my 955's acc in compressing, but can also be whooped in gaming. I am objective, although I am an AMD fanboy. He is... a strange phenomenon.
BLKR4330
speaking of uninformed, you might want to consider that, amongst other things, calling someone a fool for having another opinion, ignoring benchmark data and quoting a newegg user review to back up your own claims doesn't help make you a very credible source of information. and yes, that would be an understatement back there..
as for the original topic:
if you're going to build in september, you should not make a decision on any components you will be using now. i'm sure prices will keep shifting like they have in past months (especially so close to windows 7 release) and there will probably be way better deals as the ones you are looking at now.
There goes another one... Ok, tell you what, do you believe in this Tom's Hardware article about the performance of CyberPower Dragon system??? Let me explain:
Ok, wow, I7 is neary twice as good as PII. Now look at this:
My point? You should never trust sites that are popular like these because they are payed to fake the results. End of story.
"core2 architecture sucks for gaming" LOL, my friend you have no idea what you are talking about.Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
Slig0
Not sure about that. While the Pii is indeed a good gaming series, AMD has yet to market anything comparable to the Q9650 or any of the I7s. In this comparison, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278.html, the 940 bested the Q9550 in 0/8 gaming benchmarks and the 955 in 2/8. Compared to the I920, the 955 took honers 3/8 benchmarks, and as noted in the article, results would have been vastly different if the tests would have been run with ATI cards as the I7 has issues with NIVIDA cards. Buying the AMD 940 I can understand, It's cheaper then the Q9550 and offers performance near enough that it would be hard to tell which processor was being used. The 955, however, doesn't seem like a bargin with less performance and higher cost than the 9550. The "outdated" 775 socket may be an issue for some, but my 775 system will bench higher than 95% of any AMD system for a number of years yet. Between the OP's two choices though, I'd opt for the 940.If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST.
Slig0
[QUOTE="Slig0"]Not sure about that. While the Pii is indeed a good gaming series, AMD has yet to market anything comparable to the Q9650 or any of the I7s. In this comparison, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278.html, the 940 bested the Q9550 in 0/8 gaming benchmarks and the 955 in 2/8. Compared to the I920, the 955 took honers 3/8 benchmarks, and as noted in the article, results would have been vastly different if the tests would have been run with ATI cards as the I7 has issues with NIVIDA cards. Buying the AMD 940 I can understand, It's cheaper then the Q9550 and offers performance near enough that it would be hard to tell which processor was being used. The 955, however, doesn't seem like a bargin with less performance and higher cost than the 9550. The "outdated" 775 socket may be an issue for some, but my 775 system will bench higher than 95% of any AMD system for a number of years yet. Between the OP's two choices though, I'd opt for the 940.If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST.
jevery57
Lolololol. Have you seen my post? I said, I don't believe Tom's Hardware. They are PAYED to configure the results in intel's favor. And btw, PII outperforms the Q9650. BS BS BS BS. And what do you get out of benching? You can score how much you want, AMD is still better in real world performance. I don't care about the synthetics.
[QUOTE="Slig0"]"core2 architecture sucks for gaming" LOL, my friend you have no idea what you are talking about.Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
Daytona_178
I have had both processors, more than what your nooby a8s can even imagine, and I have seen the performance, and I tell you, there is no competitor for AMD in gaming from Core2 series.
I got more replies than I was expecting from this topic, but it does seem that most people are choosing the 940 over the Q6600. I will follow this topic still, see what other replies I can get. Thanks for the help so far, and I guess I will be making a few more topics as time goes on :P
Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
1. You're right, Intel is at the end of it's life with LGA 775
2. Core 2 may have different design decisions but that doesn't make it an inferior performer. I've heard lots of people saying AMD is the superior gamer because of better designed HT, low latencies etc, but until a respected source like Anandtech specifically points it out and calls it a deal breaker I don't buy it. HT and IMC has been around since Athlon and when Core 2 Duo came out and mopping them up no one was complaining about latencies, they were simply getting performance. I wouldn't call 1 Newegg review sufficient evidence, because AMD does not outclass Core 2 when it comes to FPS
3. Of course OC is not everything, but the main concern is gaming at the moment.
4. You can use DDR3 with Intel LGA 775 if you haven't noticed.
5. All Intel chipsets since the 965 with dual PCIe support Crossfire, so actually, nearly all Intel board support Crossfire.
Why go Phenom II when you can get a cheaper Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, which is faster clock for clock and has way more OC headroom and benchmarks are clear it's an equal or faster gamer?
7. Thank you for calling me a fool, that's very professional. All I did was state my case logically while presenting evidence to show its validity.
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="Slig0"]
Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
"core2 architecture sucks for gaming" LOL, my friend you have no idea what you are talking about.I have had both processors, more than what your nooby a8s can even imagine, and I have seen the performance, and I tell you, there is no competitor for AMD in gaming from Core2 series.
You still aren't presenting any evidence other than your opinion, which is not supporting your argument. On top of that you are calling users fools and noobies, which isn't boosting your ethos at all. How do you expect to convince people like this?[QUOTE="Slig0"]Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
Marfoo
1. You're right, Intel is at the end of it's life with LGA 775
2. Core 2 may have different design decisions but that doesn't make it an inferior performer. I've hard lots of people saying AMD is the superior gamer because of better designed HT, low latencies etc, but until a respected source like Anandtech specifically points it out and calls it a deal breaker I don't buy it. HT and IMC has been around since Athlon and when Core 2 Duo came out and mopping them up no one was complaining about latencies, they were simply getting performance. I wouldn't call 1 Newegg review sufficient evidence, because AMD does not outclass Core 2 when it comes to FPS
3. Of course OC is not everything, but the main concern is gaming at the moment.
4. You can use DDR3 with Intel LGA 775 if you haven't noticed.
5. All Intel chipsets since the 965 with dual PCIe support Crossfire, so actually, nearly all Intel board support Crossfire.
Why go Phenom II when you can get a cheaper Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, which is faster clock for clock and has way more OC headroom and benchmarks are clear it's an equal or faster gamer?
7. Thank you for calling me a fool, that's very professional. All I did was state my case logically while presenting evidence to show its validity.
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
Core2 faster gamer? Boy, your condition is way worse than I thought. Nurse, hammer please!
By the way, no problem. You are one, no one is denying that, so I had to give you that compliment. Did you see the pictures I posted? That is one solid evidence that you trust a site that is clearly payed to configure the results in Intel's favor, so you must be mentally a bit off the track. I am not insulting you, I am just saying that IF you believe them, I am worried about you.
Well of course Tom's Hardware cannot be believed. Nor can these other obviously corrupt American companies http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-940-Compared-to-Phenom-X4-9950-BE-and-Intel-Core2-Q9550.html http://www.xcpus.com/reviews/117-Phenom-II-940-Review-Clock-for-clock-Deneb-vs-Yorkfield-Page-1.aspx http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1 Because as everyone knows Bulgaria is the epicenter of computer testing integrity. And 3DMark has no correlation to real world gaming, that's why everyone doesn't use it to compare their systems. Please, offer me something other than opinionsjevery57
Thank you very much.
[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Slig0"]
Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
1. You're right, Intel is at the end of it's life with LGA 775
2. Core 2 may have different design decisions but that doesn't make it an inferior performer. I've hard lots of people saying AMD is the superior gamer because of better designed HT, low latencies etc, but until a respected source like Anandtech specifically points it out and calls it a deal breaker I don't buy it. HT and IMC has been around since Athlon and when Core 2 Duo came out and mopping them up no one was complaining about latencies, they were simply getting performance. I wouldn't call 1 Newegg review sufficient evidence, because AMD does not outclass Core 2 when it comes to FPS
3. Of course OC is not everything, but the main concern is gaming at the moment.
4. You can use DDR3 with Intel LGA 775 if you haven't noticed.
5. All Intel chipsets since the 965 with dual PCIe support Crossfire, so actually, nearly all Intel board support Crossfire.
Why go Phenom II when you can get a cheaper Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, which is faster clock for clock and has way more OC headroom and benchmarks are clear it's an equal or faster gamer?
7. Thank you for calling me a fool, that's very professional. All I did was state my case logically while presenting evidence to show its validity.
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
Core2 faster gamer? Boy, your condition is way worse than I thought. Nurse, hammer please!
By the way, no problem. You are one, no one is denying that, so I had to give you that compliment. Did you see the pictures I posted? That is one solid evidence that you trust a site that is clearly payed to configure the results in Intel's favor, so you must be mentally a bit off the track. I am not insulting you, I am just saying that IF you believe them, I am worried about you.
Yet you still continue to insult me. Have you no dignity that you can't argue civily and must resort to ad hominem attack? The pictures you posted iare evidence suggesting Tomshardware has one fishy review, which hurts their validity, nothing more. I didn't even quote benchmarks from Tom's Hardware, so why are you saying I trust them? Get your fact straight. Saying Intel is paying other sites to review in their favor is a logical fallacy based on unrelated evidence.[QUOTE="jevery57"]Well of course Tom's Hardware cannot be believed. Nor can these other obviously corrupt American companies http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-940-Compared-to-Phenom-X4-9950-BE-and-Intel-Core2-Q9550.html http://www.xcpus.com/reviews/117-Phenom-II-940-Review-Clock-for-clock-Deneb-vs-Yorkfield-Page-1.aspx http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1 Because as everyone knows Bulgaria is the epicenter of computer testing integrity. And 3DMark has no correlation to real world gaming, that's why everyone doesn't use it to compare their systems. Please, offer me something other than opinionsSlig0
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much? All 3 reviews said that Phenom II is the chip to have if you're upgrading on an existing AM2+ platform. They concluded that the Phenom II can be competetive with Core 2, but is no reason to switch. If that's the case then it comes down to price, and you can get a fast Core 2 Duo for cheap, or cheap a overclockable Core 2 Quad for less money.[QUOTE="Slig0"]Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
Marfoo
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
Im looking for it, i seen a whole thread deticated to it on xs but i cant seem to find it now :/....if i cant find it, ill do it myself.
Edit: here i found it
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=224502
[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Slig0"]
Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
Im looking for it, i seen a whole thread deticated to it on xs but i cant seem to find it now :/....if i cant find it, ill do it myself.
Alright cool, I think one of the benchmarks I saw earlier showed a Phenom II with nortbridge of 1800MHz vs 21xxMhz, so I think I see what you're talking about. That does add to Phenom II overclocking a good margin. I still think Core 2 Quads have some mighty impressive OC headroom, enough to make up for it, even with an overclocked IMC involved. Then again there is ease of overclockability, which any BE Phenom II is easy to overclock. It think price is the main competetive standpoint here, and ease of getting the benefits of OC, but it's clear that Phenom II is definiitely competetive. BTW nice rig you've got there, that's pretty beastly.[QUOTE="Slig0"][QUOTE="jevery57"]Well of course Tom's Hardware cannot be believed. Nor can these other obviously corrupt American companies http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-940-Compared-to-Phenom-X4-9950-BE-and-Intel-Core2-Q9550.html http://www.xcpus.com/reviews/117-Phenom-II-940-Review-Clock-for-clock-Deneb-vs-Yorkfield-Page-1.aspx http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1 Because as everyone knows Bulgaria is the epicenter of computer testing integrity. And 3DMark has no correlation to real world gaming, that's why everyone doesn't use it to compare their systems. Please, offer me something other than opinionsMarfoo
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much? All 3 reviews said that Phenom II is the chip to have if you're upgrading on an existing AM2+ platform. They concluded that the Phenom II can be competetive with Core 2, but is no reason to switch. If that's the case then it comes down to price, and you can get a fast Core 2 Duo for cheap, or cheap a overclockable Core 2 Quad for less money. Yeah... Slig0, not sure if English isn't your first language, but the post you're thanking is mocking your choice of a Bulgarian site, and then picking 3 respected US sites that all concluded that the PII is about even with a Core 2, but the Core 2 does better with overclocking.[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Slig0"]
Sigh... How many times will I repeat? I will give you a ton of reasons not to go with Q6600 *PII 940 as well, get either 945 or 955 with AM3 support*:
1. Socket LGA775 is outdated. No new motherboards or processors are being produced for it. Your processor will get in the category ultra low segment in a few months.
2. Core2 architecture sucks in gaming. AMD simply outcases it there. Reasons: Lack of L3 cache and a horrible Front Side Bus. AMD has it all, and they replaced FSB with HT. Just read what one reviewer on newegg said (referring to E8600, $270):
Cons:I have amd 6400 dual core and this intel duo core. intel e86 is expensive compare to quad core. I dont like the architecture in intel chips because it reduce the gaming performance. The chips require to bypass the north and south bridge before they can access the ram and graphic card. This cost to slow the gaming performance. The core dont work all at the same time.While amd go directly to access on memory and graphic with all it cores. I get better hit rate and owning player in games with amd while this core; slow refresh rate in gaming for some reason. It run fast but some kind of glitching latency. I kept shooting a person and get poor hit, but it does run very cool at 45c.
All right, he is not a duke in English, but he absolutely proves my point
3. Overclock is not everything. My PII 955 compresses an archive of 315MB in 42 seconds when clocked to 3.8, and in 47 with stock clock! So, even if you get 1GHz overclock (which I believe you will because these chips overclock hella well), it is only worth in gaming (sometimes).
4. DDR3 memory uses lower voltage (1.5) compared to DDR2 ( 1.8 ), so it is both more efficient and power friendly. It's price is super cheap as of late, so you can get about 6GB of OCZ gold for only about a hundered dollars.
5. If you are using an ATI card, much less Intel mobos have Crossfire compatibility. Also, if you are by any means using onboard graphics, AMD rules there with HD3300.
6. If you are gaming, PII is the best processor, and not just bang for buck best, but BEST. Of course, it will get whooped by the newest I7's in decoding and compressing, but nearly all current I7's have similar performance in gaming. Then it will be a wash.
7. I hope I concinced you.
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
Im looking for it, i seen a whole thread deticated to it on xs but i cant seem to find it now :/....if i cant find it, ill do it myself.
Edit: here i found it
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=224502
[QUOTE="beefdog"][QUOTE="Marfoo"]
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
Marfoo
Im looking for it, i seen a whole thread deticated to it on xs but i cant seem to find it now :/....if i cant find it, ill do it myself.
Edit: here i found it
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=224502
Thats the ht link. Its completly different than the northbridge. I guess anything over 2000 is useless for ht link tho.
PII X4 940 is fine, don't listen to any of these guys useless bickering.
[QUOTE="Slig0"][QUOTE="jevery57"]Well of course Tom's Hardware cannot be believed. Nor can these other obviously corrupt American companies http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-940-Compared-to-Phenom-X4-9950-BE-and-Intel-Core2-Q9550.html http://www.xcpus.com/reviews/117-Phenom-II-940-Review-Clock-for-clock-Deneb-vs-Yorkfield-Page-1.aspx http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1 Because as everyone knows Bulgaria is the epicenter of computer testing integrity. And 3DMark has no correlation to real world gaming, that's why everyone doesn't use it to compare their systems. Please, offer me something other than opinionsMarfoo
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much? All 3 reviews said that Phenom II is the chip to have if you're upgrading on an existing AM2+ platform. They concluded that the Phenom II can be competetive with Core 2, but is no reason to switch. If that's the case then it comes down to price, and you can get a fast Core 2 Duo for cheap, or cheap a overclockable Core 2 Quad for less money.Sigh... I was being ironic. He posted something I totally agree with, so I said thank you. God damn it.... Anyway, I guess you are right. You didn't mention Tom's, but you kind of agreed with them.
[QUOTE="Marfoo"]
1. You're right, Intel is at the end of it's life with LGA 775
2. Core 2 may have different design decisions but that doesn't make it an inferior performer. I've hard lots of people saying AMD is the superior gamer because of better designed HT, low latencies etc, but until a respected source like Anandtech specifically points it out and calls it a deal breaker I don't buy it. HT and IMC has been around since Athlon and when Core 2 Duo came out and mopping them up no one was complaining about latencies, they were simply getting performance. I wouldn't call 1 Newegg review sufficient evidence, because AMD does not outclass Core 2 when it comes to FPS
3. Of course OC is not everything, but the main concern is gaming at the moment.
4. You can use DDR3 with Intel LGA 775 if you haven't noticed.
5. All Intel chipsets since the 965 with dual PCIe support Crossfire, so actually, nearly all Intel board support Crossfire.
Why go Phenom II when you can get a cheaper Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, which is faster clock for clock and has way more OC headroom and benchmarks are clear it's an equal or faster gamer?
7. Thank you for calling me a fool, that's very professional. All I did was state my case logically while presenting evidence to show its validity.
Beefdog, can you please inform me more about overclocking the IMC in Phenom II, and do you have benchmarks that are subjective to this substantial performance increase. This would be a substantial piece of data to consider
Core2 faster gamer? Boy, your condition is way worse than I thought. Nurse, hammer please!
By the way, no problem. You are one, no one is denying that, so I had to give you that compliment. Did you see the pictures I posted? That is one solid evidence that you trust a site that is clearly payed to configure the results in Intel's favor, so you must be mentally a bit off the track. I am not insulting you, I am just saying that IF you believe them, I am worried about you.
Yet you still continue to insult me. Have you no dignity that you can't argue civily and must resort to ad hominem attack? The pictures you posted iare evidence suggesting Tomshardware has one fishy review, which hurts their validity, nothing more. I didn't even quote benchmarks from Tom's Hardware, so why are you saying I trust them? Get your fact straight. Saying Intel is paying other sites to review in their favor is a logical fallacy based on unrelated evidence. He is just an ignorant fanboy, he doesent know how to look up benchmarks, he just comes here and talks ****![QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Slig0"]Yet you still continue to insult me. Have you no dignity that you can't argue civily and must resort to ad hominem attack? The pictures you posted iare evidence suggesting Tomshardware has one fishy review, which hurts their validity, nothing more. I didn't even quote benchmarks from Tom's Hardware, so why are you saying I trust them? Get your fact straight. Saying Intel is paying other sites to review in their favor is a logical fallacy based on unrelated evidence. He is just an ignorant fanboy, he doesent know how to look up benchmarks, he just comes here and talks ****!Core2 faster gamer? Boy, your condition is way worse than I thought. Nurse, hammer please!
By the way, no problem. You are one, no one is denying that, so I had to give you that compliment. Did you see the pictures I posted? That is one solid evidence that you trust a site that is clearly payed to configure the results in Intel's favor, so you must be mentally a bit off the track. I am not insulting you, I am just saying that IF you believe them, I am worried about you.
Daytona_178
Did I deny that I am a fanboy? I just don't trust a site that says that i7 and PII are evenly match in one review and that I7 is 100% faster in another, and even Intel fanboys have said it is fishy. So don't f-ing B*S.
He is just an ignorant fanboy, he doesent know how to look up benchmarks, he just comes here and talks ****![QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="Marfoo"] Yet you still continue to insult me. Have you no dignity that you can't argue civily and must resort to ad hominem attack? The pictures you posted iare evidence suggesting Tomshardware has one fishy review, which hurts their validity, nothing more. I didn't even quote benchmarks from Tom's Hardware, so why are you saying I trust them? Get your fact straight. Saying Intel is paying other sites to review in their favor is a logical fallacy based on unrelated evidence.Slig0
Did I deny that I am a fanboy? I just don't trust a site that says that i7 and PII are evenly match in one review and that I7 is 100% faster in another, and even Intel fanboys have said it is fishy. So don't f-ing B*S.
Lol, I don't think anyone here was arguing that the i7 compeletely destroys every other processor. It's the fastest, but not by that huge margin. The argument here was the Core 2 and Phenom II were very competetive products, and depending on what price point you buy in the Core 2 line, with the aid of some overclocking, you may get more performance with your money over Phenom II setup. Phenom II is a good processor, but economics demands that price be an issue.
Q6600 costs $200 still, Phernom 2 940 is $175 is alot faster then the Q6600 all at stock speeds. Right now the i7's arent a great leap over Core duo's or P2 cpu's. Even if you over clock Q6600 to 3+ghz it performs about the same not quite as fast as a stock P2 940. One of my friends had a Q6600 and Oc'ed it to 3.2 Ghz and to make a long story short he ended building a Phenom 2 940 setup and was blown away at the difference in rendering,encoding times and even in gaming without OC'ing. So why not go with a P2 setup its still cheaper then going Intel if you go the AM2+, DDR2 route. 04dcarraherYeah, I think you would need a Q6600 in the 3.4+ range to really get and edge on the Phenom II. The E8xxx series (in terms of gaming mind you), is probably a better option to save money, it outperforms or matches a Phenom II at 3.6GHz in all but 3 games where quad has an edge. (According to the review I posted eariler. It's cheaper, and Wolfdales are extremely easy to overclock, many reaching 4GHz on air realistically for most purchasers.
Either way he goes he's gonna get a good processor, I'm just arguing price now.
Got a Phenom II X2 550 unlocked to X4 and overclocked to 3.78 Ghz and it DOMINATES. :) The Q6600 is great, but the Phenom IIs have done right by me.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment