Well if you had an 790FX mobo then you probably already have a quadcore AMD so why would you be in here asking whether to buy a AMD or Intel quadcore? The OP wanted to know whether to go the Intel or AMD route and the call isn't that hard to make. Intel are cheaper, faster, cooler and use less power.
-
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.
Q6600 or Phenom 9850 for gaming
- Thread starter thedoc46
- Start date
Well if you had an 790FX mobo then you probably already have a quadcore AMD so why would you be in here asking whether to buy a AMD or Intel quadcore? The OP wanted to know whether to go the Intel or AMD route and the call isn't that hard to make. Intel are cheaper, faster, cooler and use less power.
I was not in here asking, nore would i have commented if it were not for the fact that you said Q6600 is the way to go. Phenom isn't a horrible chip, but there isn't a single reason to buy it.
I can think of many reasons to get an AMD cpu.
me too. some reasons are personly. e.g before amd bringed the 7x0fx chipset out i could not overclock via bios myself (it isn't because i don't how to overclick via bios, it just because i can't use the keyboard.) but since amd amd bringed this wonderful 7x0fx chipsets out, i can now overclock by myself within windows..
Last edited:
You are just choosing to misinterrupt what i am saying. Let me rephrase it.
"Well if *one* had an 790FX mobo then *one* would probably already have a quadcore AMD so why would *one* be in here asking whether to buy a AMD or Intel quadcore? The OP wanted to know whether to go the Intel or AMD route and the call isn't that hard to make. Intel are cheaper, faster, cooler and use less power."
And i will rephase this as well-"but there isn't a single *practical* reason to buy an AMD quadcore over a Q6600". Any none fanboy will admit that.
No you just don't have to say that there is not a reason to buy one in the first place
call isn't that hard to make. Intel are cheaper, faster, cooler and use less power." cant disagree with that & that's all that is needed, as soon as you start saying no reason then your asking for other to give you some.
Last edited:
lol faster? how can u say that. they performance about the same clock for clock. also clock a phenom to 3.2ghz will beat the intel quad at 3.2ghz
cooler? how says?
have u owned a phenom? if no then i can't really see how u can comment on this.
Last edited:
The benchies speak for themselves:
There is no reason to buy a AMD chip in todays market if overclocking.
Your post is mis-information.
Anantech: "AMD needs clock speed to compete in most games and it's something that is just not there, although the 9950 BE gets close. For the most part, Intel continues to be the better choice for gaming."
Anantech: "No surprises here, Intel's gaming performance is solid.
The Phenom X4 9950 BE and 9850 BE are reasonably competitive with the Q9300 and Q6600, although we would still opt for the Intel solutions thanks to lower power consumption and significantly better overclocking potential. Gaming performance continues to be a strength of Intel's as well.
End of thread.
No you just don't have to say that there is not a reason to buy one in the first place
call isn't that hard to make. Intel are cheaper, faster, cooler and use less power." cant disagree with that & that's all that is needed, as soon as you start saying no reason then your asking for other to give you some.
Playing Unreal Engine 3.0-based games will benefit more from Phenom than Core 2... even the mighty QX9770.
lol people love benchmark sites and review sites. anybody could do one and put whatever they want, doesn't mean it's true.. i don't believe benchmark sites and review sites, never have and never well.
most of u guys easyly believe/trust benchmark sites and review sites
most of u guys easyly believe/trust benchmark sites and review sites
Last edited:
Its a known fact that AMD cannot compete with Intel at this moment in time.
If you want to post guff about AMD 's lower power consumption and same clock for clock speed as C2D then back it up.
You can't back it up as its not true.
Your reply is pathetic based on nothing to backup your false claims.
The OP wants the truth.
Unfortuately you can't handle the truth.
no one in their right mind would buy a AMD cpu when building a gaming rig when a CD2 is faster cheaper uses less power clocks better.
Intel's competing chips draw less power at idle than even the new energy efficient AMD chips.
Last edited:
hmmmmm where did i say AMD as lower power consumption? and where did i say they are same clock for clock ? if u read want i i said fully, u will see i said ABOUT the same clock for clock..
read peoples posts fully before posting..
your forgetting one other thing. the features , it isn't all about speed. yes you can have a super fast cpu but if it hasn't got good features then whats the point..
Last edited:
Well you didn't say they are the same clock for clock you say the AMD is faster clock for clock.
lol,
I have heard it all now!
Talking about clutching at straws.
I have destroyed your arguement with facts to back it up.
You are sadly suffering from purchase justification complex.
Looking at your sig: You should have gone with C2D.
You would have have a faster system that :
a: Runs cooler
b: Uses less power
c: Clocks Better
d: Is faster
e: Has more cache
I could gone on!
Last edited:
Well you didn't say they are the same clock for clock you say the AMD is faster clock for clock.
lol,
I have heard it all now!
Talking about clutching at straws.
I have destroyed your arguement with facts to back it up.
You are sadly suffering from purchase justification complex.
Looking at your sig: You should have gone with C2D.
You would have have a faster system that :
a: Runs cooler
b: Uses less power
c: Clocks Better
d: Is faster
e: Has more cache
I could gone on!
but it true at 3.2 the phemon is faster. something to do with the cache..
Its not:
The AMD Quad needs 200mhz over the Q6600 to compete:
So at 3.2ghz the AMD chip would be slower than a 3.2ghz Q6600.
Hell a Q9300 running 100mhz slower is faster than AMD's Flagship Chip
Its not:
The AMD Quad needs 200mhz over the Q6600 to compete:
So at 3.2ghz the AMD chip would be slower than a 3.2ghz Q6600.
Hell a Q9300 running 100mhz slower is faster than AMD's Flagship Chip
nooo u don't understand what im saying.
phenom at 3.2ghz basiclty unlocks the cache speed.... thats putting it simple
This thred makes me lolz
Right ok I get the argument from both ends but what some people seem to not be understanding is the fact that the Core 2 Quad and the x4 are both completely different chips. Who gives a toss if one is clocked at XGhz and the other at YGhz, comparing clock speeds on two completely different architectures is just idiotic.
Gareth I would be interested to see some reviews/evidence showing the x4 and the benefits at 3.2Ghz and how it unlocks the cache etc. I am just quite curious of this myself.
Anyways it definately is interesting times at the minute in terms of AMD since they are seemingly getting their act together though at the moment it does seem a bit late.
I think there are compelling arguments to go either way.
As for the OP just go whichever way is most cost effective for you and im sure you'll be happy
Right ok I get the argument from both ends but what some people seem to not be understanding is the fact that the Core 2 Quad and the x4 are both completely different chips. Who gives a toss if one is clocked at XGhz and the other at YGhz, comparing clock speeds on two completely different architectures is just idiotic.
Gareth I would be interested to see some reviews/evidence showing the x4 and the benefits at 3.2Ghz and how it unlocks the cache etc. I am just quite curious of this myself.
Anyways it definately is interesting times at the minute in terms of AMD since they are seemingly getting their act together though at the moment it does seem a bit late.
I think there are compelling arguments to go either way.
As for the OP just go whichever way is most cost effective for you and im sure you'll be happy
This thred makes me lolz
Right ok I get the argument from both ends but what some people seem to not be understanding is the fact that the Core 2 Quad and the x4 are both completely different chips. Who gives a toss if one is clocked at XGhz and the other at YGhz, comparing clock speeds on two completely different architectures is just idiotic.
Not when someone is making false claims.
C2D is faster period.
The facts are out there for all to see.
Buying an AMD based sustem now is a waste of money as you will have a slower PC all round. With less overclocking potential.
This is not rocket science; It's FACT.
As for the OP just go whichever way is most cost effective for you and im sure you'll be happy
The most cost effective way is C2D You get more bang for buck.
in XS the best clock I have seen for phenom is 3.1ghz in the phenom overclocking database.
A Q6600 running at 3ghz (Something all Q6600's will do) would beat it in every benchmark.