• 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.

lookie at what i found

Wow the phenom performs better than the intel Q6600 on the pcmark and crysis test. I think they clocked the Q6600 to 2.2gh though :/
 
Apples to Bannas if you ask me.
Nowhere does it say what FSB or memory timeings there using.
Looks to me the only reason the Intel is loseing on some benches is down to lower FSB speed, which would meen less memory bandwith.
There also compareing DDR2 to DD3, a little unfair methinks.
 
Last edited:
Its well known AMD64's all do better in Memory Bandwidth Tests, they have the Memory Controler in the CPU and until Intel do the same (next Gen) it will always be that way.
 
Last edited:
So Phenom according to them are actually faster when using all the cores, but slower when only using 1 or maybe 2, hence why its slower in games as many don't take advantage of Quad cores.
 
I think it's perfectly valid to underclock a CPU if you are trying to do a bang for buck calculation so you can actually see what the clock/clock equivalency is - now, all AMD have to do is reduce the price of the Phenom by more than the amount the Q6600 was underclocked by and they'll have a cost-competitive product. And then we'll still all buy the Q6600 and overclock the bits off it.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom