AMD Phenom 9500 and 9600 tasted, not a match for Intel!

Today Tom's Hardware Guide had tested the New Phenom Quad cores from AMD stable. These new quad cores are slated to release in first quarter of 2008.

The benchmark shows that, Phenom 9500 is almost 13.5% less performer than Intel Q6600. So intel lovers, u need not to worry. AMD cannot take over us, at least for the next year.

SOURCE

Also check that article

Originally Edited and snipped by Shantanu:
thanks for the info ?

@ shantanu.. as u r a mod, u are welcomed to edit the posts if u find some thing thats not good or whatever.. but i think the editing u did to this reply is not meaningless..... (i'm not saying about URL snip)

CHEERS!

What happ? did we technologist go blind again?? You call this superior performance? Maybe you guys are just looking at the graphs and drooling over the difference when you don't realise the 2 main points here which is performance per watt and performance per dollar!!

Look at the difference in power consumption and price!!

The top models which hardly have 20-30% in performance difference costs almost 4 times as much!! The least price so far for the QX9770 is $1500 which is more than 4 times as costly as the Phenom 9900 which costs less than a mere $350!! What's wrong with you guys? Open your eyes and look who is winning!

Hell, you can get 4 AMD 9900 for that price and make them run paralelly and beat the sh1t out of the QX9770 3 times over!!

And also look at the power consumption almost 1.5 times more! Guys, don't just be blinded by those graphs showing all nos. Look at the bigger picture. The QX9770, QX9650 etc are entusiast procs. The AMD phenoms are mainstream procs!

I dont' think so this is a good enough review or comparison. Please look at this for a review of the AMD 9900 as well : *www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=483 Here, you'll find the comparison with all the forthcoming Intel CPU's as well.

Thats very sad..
Expected more of this series of procys from AMD..
Well.. AMD will have to shut down their company if they wont release something good

A

ya ...i agree with cyrus....

guys we ve to get the value for our money.....

i think Amd is the winner here[

]

Amd rocks

They are defaming my name. I will sue them. Long Live Intel.

Cyrus_the_virus said:
What happ? did we technologist go blind again?? You call this superior performance? Maybe you guys are just looking at the graphs and drooling over the difference when you don't realise the 2 main points here which is performance per watt and performance per dollar!!

Look at the difference in power consumption and price!!

The top models which hardly have 20-30% in performance difference costs almost 4 times as much!! The least price so far for the QX9770 is $1400 which is more than 4 times as costly as the Phenom 9900 which costs less than a mere $350!! What's wrong with you guys? Open your eyes and look who is winning!

Hell, you can get 4 AMD 9900 for that price and make them run paralelly and beat the sh1t out of the QX9770 3 times over!!

And also look at the power consumption almost 1.5 times more! Guys, don't just be blinded by those graphs showing all nos. Look at the bigger picture. The QX9770, QX9650 etc are entusiast procs. The AMD phenoms are mainstream procs!

First of all intel QX 9770 just consumes 268 Watts at full speed, (SOURCE) and the AMD 9900 needs 345 Watts. Show from where did u got the idea of

"And also look at the power consumption almost 1.5 times more!"

? You should say that AMD needs 1.5x more power.

Code:

345/268= 1.287

And second, 1 year old Intel's Q6600 beats even the AMD's 9600 and 9500, and those are newer!! Both in pricing and power consumption, intel Q6600 is ahead off 9600 & 9500.

The yet to be released Intel QX9770 is a bit overpriced now, but it's price will fall over time as the Q6600 was 45k at 2006 and now is available @ 10750 in Kolkata!!

i agree... cost is truly a major factor now... its true that amd's processors arent matching up to intel's great processor line-up... but then, feasibility is when both meet on a level ground, and pitching intel's ridiculously priced processors with super performance against amd's affordable processors isnt quite fair... i guess competition happens when similar products that are competitively priced are put head to head, that seems fair enough... cause everyone wants a super processor, but everyone cant afford to spend 15-20k on the processor itself... thats why ferraris are compared to lamborghinis, cause i dont think they'd come close to the modest maruti 800 when it comes to fuel efficiency...
so after reading cyrus's argument, i think intel's processor line's becoming more and more elitist, and amd is becoming the common man's performance thirst buster...

debsuvra said:
First of all intel QX 9770 just consumes 268 Watts at full speed, (SOURCE) and the AMD 9900 needs 345 Watts. Show from where did u got the idea of "And also look at the power consumption almost 1.5 times more!"?

Read this review plz.
*www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=483

AMD 9900 on idle consumes 164 and on load 259 while the QX9770 consmes 191 on idle and 283 on load. This is tested with "CineBench 10" which i think is more of a standard that what legitreviews used.

debsuvra said:
The yet to be released Intel QX9770 is a bit overpriced now, but it's price will fall over time as the Q6600 was 45k at 2006 and now is available @ 10750 in Kolkata!!

Everything in the world will have it's price reduced by time. Same way, you can expect the AMD procs prices to fall as well. The AMD prices are pre-release prices. AMD 9900 on under $350 while the QX9770 over $1500. Now tell me if there is no difference in those prices.

debsuvra said:
And second, 1 year old Intel's Q6600 beats even the AMD's 9600 and 9500, and those are newer!! Both in pricing and power consumption, intel Q6600 is ahead off 9600 & 9500.

I'm really not sure about this review as it's not comprehensive enough.

Cyrus_the_virus said:
Read this review plz.
*www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=483

So you said mine is fake? And also from ur quoted review, there is no indication of intel being 1.5 times more power eater then AMD.

And once u said u compared AMD 9900 with intel QX9770 and when comes to power segment u compared Intel with 9650!! It's a pity

What about my other statements, dude?

Whatever.. Intel ll definitely win.. Just see the power consumption of the upcoming 45nm intel native quads.. Nehalem may kick Amd out of business.

R

i'm with intel AMD has to atleast beat any one of penryn proccy. otherwise the proccy. battle will turn out to be like onboard vs discrete graphic solution.
AMD for the regulars and Intel for those who know how to push their proccy to the limit

debsuvra said:
So you said mine is fake? And also from ur quoted review, there is no indication of intel being 1.5 times more power eater then AMD.

I wonder why they call it 'legit' reviews. Maybe it aint that legit after all. But again, I'm not the one to judge. All I said was that the other review was done with the Cinebench10 sofware which is mroe standardised in the Industry. Please look at the second last page of that review for the power consumption.

almost 1.5times is what i mentioned

debsuvra said:
And once u said u compared AMD 9900 with intel QX9770 and when comes to power segment u compared Intel with 9650!! It's a pity

That was a typo, it's corrected now.

debsuvra said:
What about my other statements, dude?

All answered above.

However I have to say that I'm not an AMD spokesperson or a promotion agent. The reviews themselves give you the stats but we shouldn't overlook the main aspects which determine performance. Performance should never come at the cost of affordability. The reason the PS3 sales are sluggish although it's the most powerful console in the market is due to it's affordability constrains. So you can never truly say it's performance is way better because then people will start arguing about the price. The same holds good here as well.

@ Cyrus, Now AMD proves a point that it is creating processors those are best in price/performance ratio, at least for upcoming processors, but for now their best X2 6400's Pr/Per is less than that of Intel Q6600's. AMD only wins in memory bandwidth division, due to their better memory architecture, but Intel rocks through real world applications. Check Digit Nov for various benchmark results.

According to the review u gave,

*img158.imageshack.us/img158/5076/reportxd7.th.png
We have to notice that in the 1st chart the comparison factor is 1.16

Code:

191/164 = 1.16

and in the 2nd chart that is 1.09

Code:

283/259 = 1.09

So, there is no point of declaring Intel as 1.5x power hungry.

debsuvra said:
So, there is no point of declaring Intel as 1.5x power hungry.

Are yaar, please don't overstress on the wrong thing. I said 'almost'

From what I've read from the reviews from Tom's Hardware and Anandtech, the 9500, 9600, and 9700 aren't aimed to take the performance crown from Intel. For that they would have carried a higher price tag. AMD is again going in for the low- mid end market to offer cheap Quad core soulutions. And apart from that I expect to see some price cuts very soon.

Also look at it this way, this is AMD's first attempt at a quad-core in the desktop segment. I think its fair to say that the first that come out aren't going to be top notch competitors against Intel who has had quite some experience so far in making their quad-cores high performers. In due time, AMD will get it right. But it better be quick :))

Also the four cores are on the same die, unlike the available Intel solutions which are interconnected dual cores :))