|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Serben
Banned
Posts: 1428
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2008 22:05 Post subject: |
|
|
My intel quad core cost less than that and is and has more cache. It's also originally set at 2.4Ghz but i clocked it to 3.2ghz.
Gigabyte S-Series GA-G33-DS3R, Intel C2D Quad Q6600 OC @ 3.2Ghz, 4gb Kingston PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2, Geforce 7800GTX (will get a 9800GTX when they are released), 2 x 250Gb HD's and a case with built in paper and lotion dispenser.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2008 22:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Q6600 is still an awesome processor, but kinda pointless to buy a 2006 CPU at this point. On the other hand, no other quad core CPU from Intel (or AMD) is really worth buying when compared to performance/cash value. This is what happens when there's no fucking competition, you get 2006 GPUs and CPUs that are better than the 2008 ones.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2008 22:23 Post subject: |
|
|
the quadcores arent that much more expensive , but they just came out so the "real" prices will be known in a few weeks.
im personally waiting for the 45nm revision , but that new black edition looks really really good.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2008 22:30 Post subject: |
|
|
The quad phenom's are crap. I guess they fucked something up to where the HT wouldn't work on full power without a certain bios upgrade or work around in vista sp1. GO AMD!!!.....idiots
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2008 23:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| SpykeZ wrote: | | The quad phenom's are crap. I guess they fucked something up to where the HT wouldn't work on full power without a certain bios upgrade or work around in vista sp1. GO AMD!!!.....idiots |
thats already the past with the B3 revision , they are named the 9x50 series.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Serben
Banned
Posts: 1428
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2008 13:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | | Q6600 is still an awesome processor, but kinda pointless to buy a 2006 CPU at this point. On the other hand, no other quad core CPU from Intel (or AMD) is really worth buying when compared to performance/cash value. This is what happens when there's no fucking competition, you get 2006 GPUs and CPUs that are better than the 2008 ones. |
Yeah i know. I was originally going to buy a Q9450 (back in early march) but they hadn't been released yet. And i was bored as fuck and i had nothing to play except assassin's creed, but it ran like shit even on the lowest settings due to my shitty single core AMD 3500+. So i was faced with the problem of either waiting for a month until the Q9450 came out (with nothing to play) or buy an older processor like the Q6600 so i could at least not be bored out of my skull for the rest of the month by playing AC 
But now that the Q9450 are out, i might buy one of those and clock the shit out of it (my huge ass fan and good RAM allow me to clock like hell without too much extra heat and instability). I'm probably gonna wait a few months until the next gen graphics cards come out, and then buy one of them and a Q9450. Then i'll have the best fucking computer money can buy 
Gigabyte S-Series GA-G33-DS3R, Intel C2D Quad Q6600 OC @ 3.2Ghz, 4gb Kingston PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2, Geforce 7800GTX (will get a 9800GTX when they are released), 2 x 250Gb HD's and a case with built in paper and lotion dispenser.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2008 23:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Q9450 (and Q9650 for that matter) isn't that good - it's very limited when it comes to OC. I'd stay with that Q6600, because it's much better. That's what I meant in the rant you quoted.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Serben
Banned
Posts: 1428
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2008 00:41 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2008 00:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Serben wrote: | How can it be better than a Q9450? 
The Q9450 has a 1333Mhz FSB, 12mb cache and 2.8Ghz clock speed compared to 1066, 8mb and 2.4ghz for the Q6600. So i don't get how it can be better. Besides, the Q6600 isn't even a "true" quad core. It's basically just 2 dual core processors glued together on a single chip, instead of 1 quad core processor. And the Q9450 also has the more efficient 45nm technology compared to 65nm for the Q6600 which means it generates less heat so you can clock it more. |
Don't know, I haven't tested them, just telling you what I read.
Anyway a review of AMD Phenom X3: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293&p=10
| Quote: | Final Words
If you step back and look at it, the triple-core Phenom story isn't unexpected at all. In applications where quad-core benefits, triple-core does too and in those applications where it doesn't, we don't see much from the new Phenom X3. In video encoding and 3D rendering tasks we see triple-core do quite well, but quad-core does even better. Take this train of thought one step further and you come to a very interesting conclusion: AMD's triple-core Phenom is a quick and dirty way of using Phenom to compete in the dual-core space.
AMD doesn't have the resources to spin a dual-core Phenom die, so what better way of repurposing the quad-core die (especially if one core is defective) than to make a Phenom chip with less than four cores. Sure it's not the most efficient way to manufacture, but AMD doesn't have the luxury of producing a number of different Phenom die at this point. The triple-core Phenom strategy makes perfect sense if you're AMD, the question is: does it make sense if you're an end user?
Let's start at the Phenom X3 8750; it's priced too closely to the X4 9750 to make sense, if you need more than two cores spend the extra $20 and get a quad-core (or give up 200MHz and get a quad-core X4 9550 at the same price) and if you don't need more than two cores then you're looking at the wrong CPU to begin with.
The Phenom X3 8650 manages to perform at about the level of a 2.00GHz - 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo processor in many applications, the problem is that it needs to compete with a 3.00GHz Core 2 Duo to make economic sense. In many cases, the 8650 is competitive but with higher power consumption it's hard to call it a winner here.
The Phenom X3 8450 on the other hand is a little too slow for most applications, it's often times no faster than the Athlon X2 5600+ despite a higher IPC and having a third core. AMD needs frequency; the X3s should start at 2.4GHz and then we might be having a very different discussion, but right now the best AMD can muster is to only hold on while competing with Intel.
For any sort of 3D rendering (or other application that scales well with four cores), AMD's triple-core CPUs can offer mostly competitive performance with Intel's equivalently priced dual-core CPUs. However, as we showed early on in this article, many applications don't scale well beyond two cores and thus in the rest of our tests AMD is competitive but can't clearly be recommended.
 Spoiler: | Now if we look at the platform, AMD does actually have an advantage. The AMD 780G's integrated graphics is a far better solution for the casual gamer than what Intel offers with its G35 but on top of that, 780G offers full H.264/VC-1/MPEG-2 decode acceleration making it a far better platform for watching Blu-ray movies. With the format war over and Blu-ray drives unbelievably affordable right now, this is a serious issue for Intel.
If you're building something with integrated graphics for use as a casual gaming box or HTPC, then your best bet is AMD despite the slower CPU. Intel's G45 chipset should resolve the HD movie playback issue by also accelerating H.264/VC-1/MPEG-2 and alleviate some of the integrated graphics gaming issues with a faster 3D core, but the platform isn't due out until later in Q2 so until then there's very little choice. |
The balance here is very interesting: Intel has CPU superiority with platform deficiency, and AMD has platform superiority with a serious CPU deficiency. The problem is that, in theory, G45 will fix a major issue with Intel's platforms but what will AMD do for its CPUs? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
