My Q6600 is considerably quicker than my Phenom II 955

Final8y · 8 Oct 2009 at 21:52

marscay said:
It is something that makes me chuckle really, it's maybe a bit harsh to call P2 a complete failure but apart from brand loyalty i don't know why anyone goes P2 over a Yorkfield......the Intel is a monster clocker and has a much greater selection of top line motherboards.

i was @ 3.85ghz 24/7 on my q6600 (under water) 2 years ago, well done AMD.

You don't know a reason why besides brand loyalty does not mean one does not exist.
I will give you a reason why i choose AMD or Intel.
Crossfire has been more reliable for me on AMD setups.

gurusan · 8 Oct 2009 at 21:55

Not ever had an issue with crossfire on my intel setups....

Final8y · 8 Oct 2009 at 21:57

gurusan said:
Not ever had an issue with crossfire on my intel setups....

The biggest CF horror stories come from Intel users.

gurusan · 8 Oct 2009 at 22:03

biggest horror stories...sounds like you are reaching.

Final8y · 8 Oct 2009 at 22:20

gurusan said:
biggest horror stories...sounds like you are reaching.

Im not reaching some of the very vocal on this forum who put down CF has being very unreliable are Intel users.
Even Anandtech noticed the issue with its i7 Phenom 2 review.

AMD optimizes for there own platform first as that makes the most sense.

At the end of the day why should i change when my experience has been pretty much flawless & i see many Intel users having many issues.

Your experience does not change anything unless your saying that from what you have seen more AMD users have more issues with CF on average.

Until i see a change im not going to gamble.

whether people think that's a worthy enough reason does not matter as it mine.

gurusan · 8 Oct 2009 at 22:28

That's a bit odd then as anandtech also found that ATI performs better on Intel and Nvidia better on ATI.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3640

Also the majority of users are Intel, so reported problems will most likely be on Intel setups. In my experience CF has been flawless on X38/X48/P45, even P35 with the bottlenecked x4 slot.

Final8y · 8 Oct 2009 at 22:39

gurusan said:
That's a bit odd then as anandtech also found that ATI performs better on Intel and Nvidia better on ATI.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3640

Also the majority of users are Intel, so reported problems will most likely be on Intel setups. In my experience CF has been flawless on X38/X48/P45, even P35 with the bottlenecked x4 slot.

You do understand that performance & problems are 2 totally different things.

Originally Posted by anand
During testing, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates at this resolutions about 23~24fps on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results on the others. We noticed this in game play also; the Intel systems would hitch and pause at times. We would shutdown the game, clear the prefetch folder, and reboot. The game would operate fine in the next series of testing although we still had stuttering in intensive ground scenes at times. We tried new images, different CPUs, memory changes, and the Sapphire HD 4870 cards with the same results. The Phenom II 940 had extremely stable frame rates in each test and action was very fluid during game play.

Originally Posted by anand
After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise. Of course, if you have the funds, we would recommend the i7 platform for best possible performance.

Originally Posted by anand
The Phenom II is slightly ahead of the Q9550 when overclocked although it is at a 7% clock speed disadvantage. We have noticed the CryEngine 2 will respond to improved memory bandwidth and latencies as we clock up the processors. The i7 holds a 14% advantage in average frame rates while the Phenom II once again impresses us with the best minimum frame rates when overclocked. However, not having a 20fps minimum frame rate is a disappointment with our multi-GPU setups. The NVIDIA 260/285 solutions scale better in SLI than the ATI HD 4870 products. We hope that ATI can improve their drivers for this game.

Originally Posted by anand
Now that we have discussed the numbers, what about game play experience? As we alluded to earlier, the Intel platforms had problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing, not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and on-line. We have not nailed it down yet, but we have noticed this problem consistently. In the meantime, the Phenom II X4 940 had rock solid frame rates and offered the smoothest game play experience.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1

And if you look through my post history you will see that i was set to buy an i7 system.

gurusan · 8 Oct 2009 at 22:42

hmm fail reading on my part.

Never had any of those issues myself though.

Final8y · 8 Oct 2009 at 22:49

gurusan said:
hmm fail reading on my part.

Never had any of those issues myself though.

I don't want to take the chance at this time.

kylew · 8 Oct 2009 at 22:57

Rroff said:
Main problem with the Q6600 not hitting the higher overclocks is a lot of motherboards just aren't designed to supply the current for a 65nm quad - get it on a good P45 board or similiar and 3.6+ should be easy.

The G0s are 45nm aren't they? I can't remember what they were.

My Q6600 hits 4Ghz on air though and with relatively low temps too.

My Q6700 on the otherhand struggles to hit 3.5.

setter · 8 Oct 2009 at 23:04

GO stepping was the newer q6600 65nm cpus, B3 was the older chips, the 45nm cpu's such as q9550 were initially C1 steppings, later replaced with the EO stepping.

Rroff · 8 Oct 2009 at 23:07

G0 are still 65nm... 45nm Q6600 would be well nice, tho I guess the Q9550 with 12Mb cache would trump it.

I never found the Q6700 to clock as well as the 6600 in my own testing but I don't know if that was representative of those CPUs as a whole. The 10 multi should be better really.

gurusan · 8 Oct 2009 at 23:29

I've only had 1 q6700 and it did 4050mhz on water with 1.57V. Stupid crazy voltage....in fact it was on a P5B deluxe, old school 965P chipset

Funny thing is when people say Phenom 2 is a good overclocker and struggle to hit 3.9GHz with 1.5+V

~>Dg<~ · 8 Oct 2009 at 23:33

at end of day depends on what platform your on beforehand. maks sense to go newer platforms first.

Pendu · 9 Oct 2009 at 00:45

gurusan said:
No he didn't.....he has the NB running @ 2.2ghz and ram timings at a nice 7,7,7,20

AMD 3.2Ghz 955 @ 3.5Ghz (200x17.5)
Asus M4A785TD-M Evo
8GB OCZ Platinum 1600 DDR3 RAM
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit

I thought the 200 in 200*17.5 was the NB speed.

marscay · 9 Oct 2009 at 22:42

Final8y said:
You don't know a reason why besides brand loyalty does not mean one does not exist.
I will give you a reason why i choose AMD or Intel.
Crossfire has been more reliable for me on AMD setups.

Well i can't get in the ring about that i've only ever used crossfire on Intel machines but i've heard similar so guess i have to give you that one

The other thing AMD did have was the IMC and i agree that it made AMD chips a bit snappier on the desktop, but of course i5-7 has caught up with that.

Rroff · 9 Oct 2009 at 22:46

gurusan said:
I've only had 1 q6700 and it did 4050mhz on water with 1.57V. Stupid crazy voltage....in fact it was on a P5B deluxe, old school 965P chipset

Funny thing is when people say Phenom 2 is a good overclocker and struggle to hit 3.9GHz with 1.5+V

I'm impressed if you got a Q6700 to 4gig on a 965 - generally they don't take more than 3.5gig tops (on a quad), quite a few won't even go above 3gig.

setter · 10 Oct 2009 at 01:43

I had a q6600 at 3.8ghz on good air, true black with 2000 rpm fans, cpu and cooler were both lapped to a very high standard, 3.6ghz on 1.4v. 3.8ghz came with 1.512vcore, the system at 3.8ghz made no difference in gaming whatsoever, got a q9550, 3.8ghz with ease as well (silly upgrade) ive since went i7, but ill say this, the q6600 is the best cpu ive ever used.

setter · 10 Oct 2009 at 02:03

gurusan said:
I've only had 1 q6700 and it did 4050mhz on water with 1.57V. Stupid crazy voltage....in fact it was on a P5B deluxe, old school 965P chipset

Funny thing is when people say Phenom 2 is a good overclocker and struggle to hit 3.9GHz with 1.5+V

Yep, 1.5v+, phenom 2 cant compare in this respect, i had a 1.200 vid q9550 that ran at 3.8ghz using 1.21875 vcore in bios, it was so easy to cool and clock, my 3.8ghz q6600 was more difficult to clock, and i found it a breeeze, my nephwew owns a phenom 2 setup, ive used it, and my old q6600 would have done better, never mind my q9550, im now on i7, different league altogether, i now have sli/xfire for graphics.

Final8y · 10 Oct 2009 at 04:19

marscay said:
Well i can't get in the ring about that i've only ever used crossfire on Intel machines but i've heard similar so guess i have to give you that one

The other thing AMD did have was the IMC and i agree that it made AMD chips a bit snappier on the desktop, but of course i5-7 has caught up with that.

Indeed & the i7 has IMC & seems the right time for me to switch.
Also i have gotten used to unlocked multi now & don't want to go without again if i can help it.