OK, so here we have a test of the two current models plus two that won't be released till next year.
The 2.6 Phenom 9900 (top of the current pile) is nearly as fast as Intel's Q6600, which runs 200MHz slower. Most of the time its a bit behind, it actually passes it in one test I think, but the handwaving suummary is that they're about the same.
But, as the review later says, the Q6600 can be had for £160, which will get you the Phenom 9500 that runs at 2.3Ghz and is substantially slower. They carefully point out that there is no point buying one at the moment, then give it 7/10 for value. I don't get it.
OK, granted, their Intel testbed used DDR3, which is really quite expensive at the moment (we're in the DDR2->DDR3 transition, Intel wise, at the moment) but the same motherboards are available with DDR2 slots which offer only slightly lower performance. Perhaps by the amount the Q6600 beat the 9900 by.
And the latter is probably about as fast or faster than a 2.6Ghz Phenom.
If you're not overclocking, buying Phenom at this point is probably a bit silly. If you are overclocking, buying Phenom at this point is insane. There is very little overclocking headroom, if any in them. Conversely the Q6600 regularly gets a 50% overclock with the stock Intel Cooler and has been seen to get to over 100% overclock with high end air or midrange water.
If you have an AM2 motherboard that you can flash to support the Phenom, its probably fairly good value as a short term upgrade. If not, I'd stay away. When they work the bugs out things might change, but I'd keep a safe distance from these for now...
Submitted by byrn on Thu, 2007-12-13 10:46
Thanks for the deconfuzzlefication.
Do you agree that it might break AMD, they have been lagging behind for a long time. What's the feel? I know there are a fair number of us that have gone AMD for some time now because they've been better in price/performance value argument but does that still hold? Are Intel stretching away?
I certainly hope not. No competition is bad for the consumer whichever way you look at it.
(as an aside, it made me laugh that my first PC in 1996 was 200Mhz, the difference between these two processors listed! :))
Submitted by brainwipe on Thu, 2007-12-13 10:58
AMD aren't in the best place in the world. They're in some trouble, but I don't think they're going to dissapear in the next 12 months, short of major scandal.
They are seriously behind now though. They're in a similar place to where Intel was in the early P4 days, or the same place where they used to live. But they're bigger than they were when they were the value option, and they have more debt.
I'd expect them to become competitive in the midrange sometime in the next year. I don't think they'll be fighting over the top spot until something major happens, possibly their transition to 45nm in the next couple of years.
Intel has done very well recently. The 65nm Core chips were good. The 45nm are even better. They could be selling much faster chips given the overclocking headroom they have, but they aren't. They're back to optimally extracting money instead of pushing performance. Not good for non-overclocking consumers, but they are a business. Its quite good for enthusiasts though, as there is much overclocking to be had.
AMD have been mid to low end competitive for a while... Phenom was supposed to bring home the bacon, but they haven't got all the bugs worked out yet. They were going to discontinue their Athlon64 line, but they just gave it a stay of execution...
I'd be more worried that I can remember the spec of it:
Dell Dimension
P200 MMX
128Mb SDRAM
Matrox Millenium 2
Voodoo 2
SCSI CD drive/burner?
I forget the hard drive capacity ;)
Comments
Cheers for the link mate, interesting stuff.
OK, so here we have a test of the two current models plus two that won't be released till next year.
The 2.6 Phenom 9900 (top of the current pile) is nearly as fast as Intel's Q6600, which runs 200MHz slower. Most of the time its a bit behind, it actually passes it in one test I think, but the handwaving suummary is that they're about the same.
But, as the review later says, the Q6600 can be had for £160, which will get you the Phenom 9500 that runs at 2.3Ghz and is substantially slower. They carefully point out that there is no point buying one at the moment, then give it 7/10 for value. I don't get it.
OK, granted, their Intel testbed used DDR3, which is really quite expensive at the moment (we're in the DDR2->DDR3 transition, Intel wise, at the moment) but the same motherboards are available with DDR2 slots which offer only slightly lower performance. Perhaps by the amount the Q6600 beat the 9900 by.
A mobo, processor and 2gb of memory set for the two come out as:
Phenom 9500 (2.3Ghz), mobo, 2gb DDR2 bundle: £393
Q6600 (2.4GHz), mobo, 2Gb DDR2 bundle:£397
And the latter is probably about as fast or faster than a 2.6Ghz Phenom.
If you're not overclocking, buying Phenom at this point is probably a bit silly. If you are overclocking, buying Phenom at this point is insane. There is very little overclocking headroom, if any in them. Conversely the Q6600 regularly gets a 50% overclock with the stock Intel Cooler and has been seen to get to over 100% overclock with high end air or midrange water.
If you have an AM2 motherboard that you can flash to support the Phenom, its probably fairly good value as a short term upgrade. If not, I'd stay away. When they work the bugs out things might change, but I'd keep a safe distance from these for now...
Thanks for the deconfuzzlefication.
Do you agree that it might break AMD, they have been lagging behind for a long time. What's the feel? I know there are a fair number of us that have gone AMD for some time now because they've been better in price/performance value argument but does that still hold? Are Intel stretching away?
I certainly hope not. No competition is bad for the consumer whichever way you look at it.
(as an aside, it made me laugh that my first PC in 1996 was 200Mhz, the difference between these two processors listed! :))
AMD aren't in the best place in the world. They're in some trouble, but I don't think they're going to dissapear in the next 12 months, short of major scandal.
They are seriously behind now though. They're in a similar place to where Intel was in the early P4 days, or the same place where they used to live. But they're bigger than they were when they were the value option, and they have more debt.
I'd expect them to become competitive in the midrange sometime in the next year. I don't think they'll be fighting over the top spot until something major happens, possibly their transition to 45nm in the next couple of years.
Intel has done very well recently. The 65nm Core chips were good. The 45nm are even better. They could be selling much faster chips given the overclocking headroom they have, but they aren't. They're back to optimally extracting money instead of pushing performance. Not good for non-overclocking consumers, but they are a business. Its quite good for enthusiasts though, as there is much overclocking to be had.
AMD have been mid to low end competitive for a while... Phenom was supposed to bring home the bacon, but they haven't got all the bugs worked out yet. They were going to discontinue their Athlon64 line, but they just gave it a stay of execution...
I'd be more worried that I can remember the spec of it:
Dell Dimension
P200 MMX
128Mb SDRAM
Matrox Millenium 2
Voodoo 2
SCSI CD drive/burner?
I forget the hard drive capacity ;)