AMD's Phenom X4 9850 gets pitted against Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9300

AMD's Phenom X4 9850 gets pitted against Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9300

*www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/04/phenom-x4-9850-core-2-quad-.jpg
We'd already seen a few early tests of AMD's new top-end Phenom X4 9850 processor, but the folks at Extreme Tech have now taken it upon themselves to see just how well the processor stacks up against Intel's similarly high-end offering, the Core 2 Quad Q9300. As was suggested by those other reviews, however, the AMD falls behind the (admittedly pricier) Intel processor in just about every respect, including its ability to be overclocked. On the upside, however, that lower cost will likely offset the performance issues for many users, and it does still boast "moderate overclockability" and run cooler than the Intel chip. ExtremeTech apparently isn't convinced that AMD's pricing is "sustainable over the long haul" though. For its part, the Q9300 makes the most of its four cores and 45nm manufacturing process, with the only significant downside being that it packs only have the cache of the rest of Intel's quad core line. That wasn't enough to stop it from snagging an impressive 9 out of 10 rating, however, with ExtremeTech declaring it "one of the best price/performance CPUs you can find."

Read More: ExtremeTech

Source: Engadget

emphasis mine

_

hey core 2 quad q9300 is doing job in gaming department too still behind E8500.I feel sorry for AMD

That's only cause games currently don't support multi-threading with 4 cores. Once they do, the E series is going to be left so far behind it won't know what hit it.

Please make something clear to me,
Intel's Quad's are two Dual's stitched together aint it?

And are AMD's Quad's the same?

^^^
Intels' C2Qs are not native quad cores... but AMDs are...

_

ring_wraith said:
That's only cause games currently don't support multi-threading with 4 cores. Once they do, the E series is going to be left so far behind it won't know what hit it.

thats going to be far enough in tech-time... by that time E-series would naturally become outdated...

_

H

quad 9300 wins any time against AMD's "highest-end" quad core.
Really sad.

But i think AMD Fusion would do well.

B

But I like AMD Now..........

For AMD Fusion, Intel's new processors are arriving, i think.

Why not Intel's Atom???

FYI, Intel's Atom are ULV under powered chips for notebooks and mids.

As Amd is Constantly beaten by Intel, there be a strong possibility that Processor market is heading towards Monopoly. i hate monopolies

However its still too early to say any further on this topic

SO sad for , cant they bring something innovative to beat intel like they did with Athlon 64's

here is AMDs VP claiming that AMD Phenom is 40% more efficient then Intel's *www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_n3wvsfq4Y

^^^
it was posted on January 24, 2007

and the title is "AMD's Quads to outperform Intel's by over 40%"

but it didn't.. Intel is still pwning with every new release

_

At least AMD has upper hand with ATI. I think the condition will change when AMD will finally move to 45nm.
E8500 is faster in games due to its very high clocks, which most games prefer more than number of cores.

H

dOm1naTOr said:
At least AMD has upper hand with ATI. I think the condition will change when AMD will finally move to 45nm.
E8500 is faster in games due to its very high clocks, which most games prefer more than number of cores.

Not only the clock speed(as the current amd x2 6200+ is slower than intel e6600 equivalent).I think the L2 cache plays a prominent role while gaming.Wonder how intel's nehalem processors are gonna fare now that they have substantially decreased the L2 cache(256 KB faster cache as comp to 6 MB)?

PS:Hope other factors such as the extra TLB,Branch predictor,hyperthreading,integrated memory cntrller,qpi more than makes up for it.(at least 40% improvement)

DigitalDude said:
^^^
Intels' C2Qs are not native quad cores... but AMDs are..

That is no longer the case. This was true for the Q6600 but now the platforms have changed are all are native quads.

@Hrithan2020
Q6600 is faster than 6200+ due to its architecture and better instruction sets, and its shared cache b/w cores etc

But considering E8500 and Q6600, the architecture is somewhat similar other than no. of cores. SO games prefer more clock speeds as E8500 is better for games.

Cyrus_the_virus said:
That is no longer the case. This was true for the Q6600 but now the platforms have changed are all are native quads.

I will eat my hat if you can show me a native quad core Intel processor

_

^^^
no.. nowadays its Intel for both performance and money saving

_

what is the cost of Q9300... and is it already available in India

^^^
it is listed in *www.deltapage.com/ Rs.13k

_

H

dOm1naTOr said:
@Hrithan2020
Q6600 is faster than 6200+ due to its architecture and better instruction sets, and its shared cache b/w cores etc

But considering E8500 and Q6600, the architecture is somewhat similar other than no. of cores. SO games prefer more clock speeds as E8500 is better for games.

Yeah i know abt the big architectural jump from netburst.But when u compare processors of the same architecture & clock speed having different L2 Caches(6320 beats 4400 in gaming despite lower clock speeds).

How does Phenom 9550 + Gigabyte MA78GM-S2H fair against the discussed combo?

According to Amd with Ati --- it has to say more E8500 is good but the future games are concentrating on multi cores so the future are expected the c2q & phenom X4 --- "HAPPY NEWS" FOR ALL AMD fans the bugs in the phenom X4 was cleared by the way phenom proc are shipped from last month with proc of 9550,9650,9850 these proc are bugs cleared ------ enjoy

^^ y r u bumping up half-a-year old threads!!!!!!^^^^^^

Me got q9300 a month back for abt 12k in Hyderabad.....

who's diggin up the graveyard....

Q9300 sucks in front of the Q6600 BTW^^^^^^^^^^Price-performance

this is an old thread, why dig it up?????