• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***Detailed Penryn Benchmarks...***

weescott said:
I have to say the Asus Maximus Formula is top quality board. I get the cold boot issue that I had with the P5k Deluxe now and again. The bios still needs some work done to it, it overvolts the ram by .004 / .008v, there is a little Vrop and V droop, even with loadline calibration on. But apart from that its been a great board so far.
Click to expand...

Have to agree.

I eat my words w3bbo this asus rocks.
 
Im building a new pc when either the new GTS or GTX comes out. I really dont want to have to wait to january. DO you really think these will show any benefit over a q6600 in games. Not benchmarks. Games are gpu limited now days anyway.
 
so do you guys think there will be any benefit between the q6600 and its new equivilant in games which is worth waiting for? Considering most games are GPU limited and an overclocked q6600 shouldn't hold it back at all.... right?
 
Well a 7% speed increase would mean that if your Q6600 is clocked 7% higher then the penryn it will be equal in performance.

And it's probably clocked higher then that so you'll be fine i'd imagine./..
 
"Currently, AMD is completely unable to respond; the IT world is still waiting with bated breath for AMD's first quad-core desktop part, the Phenom, which is slated for release in December. Meanwhile, Intel is already waving goodbye to its first generation of quad-core parts and launching the next. AMD has to achieve nothing short of a technological miracle if it wants draw level with Intel in only one step."

I doubt AMD will catch up to Intel at all unless they do something totally amazing soon.
 
mishima said:
"Currently, AMD is completely unable to respond; the IT world is still waiting with bated breath for AMD's first quad-core desktop part, the Phenom, which is slated for release in December. Meanwhile, Intel is already waving goodbye to its first generation of quad-core parts and launching the next. AMD has to achieve nothing short of a technological miracle if it wants draw level with Intel in only one step."

I doubt AMD will catch up to Intel at all unless they do something totally amazing soon.
Click to expand...

I think AMD have taken their quad in a different direction, they can reduce the power requirements quite substantially over an intel chip due to the individual clocking of cores, this makes a huge difference in places that have lots of pc's (and the server market). And AMD if they really wanted to could release a eight core chip quite easily if they take the intel approach of bolting two chips together.

And I'll still wait for all the real benchmarks to come out, Tom's hardware is very much biased towards intel in my view, considering they compare a quad core to a dual core, the extra 2 cores (even if disabled in a program) could still give a subtle boost as the rest of the os could use them where as the dual core would have everything running on them.
 
Cr0fty said:
Well a 7% speed increase would mean that if your Q6600 is clocked 7% higher then the penryn it will be equal in performance.

And it's probably clocked higher then that so you'll be fine i'd imagine./..
Click to expand...

But i wonder if i had two new GTS's in SLI and a q6600 at 3.4ghz that it could hold back my graphics cards in future games or even games right now. a badly optimized quad core game could mean that id be runnign 2 cores at 3.4ghz against others who would be running theirs at 4ghz and flying past mine.


Then again games have to be made to run on current pc specs not overclocked ones. So i gues at 3.4ghz im above all current spec quads and duals and therefore should not hold me back in any game... mmm i hope.
 
Glad I'm not hungry!

lsg1r said:
And AMD if they really wanted to could release a eight core chip quite easily if they take the intel approach of bolting two chips together.
Click to expand...

All I say is "Its a good job Amd's Qcores aren't food are we would all be starving to death"
 
Last edited:
lsg1r said:
I think AMD have taken their quad in a different direction, they can reduce the power requirements quite substantially over an intel chip due to the individual clocking of cores, this makes a huge difference in places that have lots of pc's (and the server market).
Click to expand...

have you read page 13 in that article? if true i dont think it can get much lower.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
Looks like its going to be when i upgrade my computer ill get one of these.

Anyone have an estimate or rough guess of a price for this cpu?
Click to expand...

it was quoted on the review about $1300 roughly per 1000 chips. so its top of the range at 3Ghz Quad Core - 12Mb Cache (2x6MB)
certainly not cheap :eek:
 
Hobgoblin said:
have you read page 13 in that article? if true i dont think it can get much lower.
Click to expand...

the question is how true is that result - I'm not so sure that its accurate, its a hell of a drop from basically just a die shrink (and maybe some transistor changes).

But it's not just the cpu that takes power, amd have a lead with the rest of the motherboard power consumption too :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom