If Phenom won, would anyone notice? *Updated*
From reading reviews and posts, not just on this forum but any hardware enthusiast site, I can get the impression that for building a gaming machine, the Phenom is a horrible choice. While it certainly does have its fair share of problems (clock speed, TDP, etc.), gaming is certainly not one of them.
But the question is, if AMD’s Phenom just happened to overpower Intel’s Core 2 Quad in anything clock-for-clock would anybody notice? Specifically, I'm speaking of gaming performane here. During my aimless wandering throughout the internet, I came across a set of benchmarks at OverclockersClub. While the topic of this specific review was Intel’s Q9450, there are some interesting numbers regarding the Q6600 (2.4GHz) and the Phenom 9600 (2.3GHz). These are the two processors I will be comparing.
These tests were performed with a GeForce 8800GT at settings that users would actually play at with this card. I feel that this makes these numbers valuable since they should be representative of what someone would experience with a similar system. Note that because the graphs are all in Flash rather than images, I can’t actually post the graphs here, but you can check out the review here
First up is the Crysis SP Demo, which was tested at all medium settings and 2xAA. At 1024x768, you can see that the 9600BE is really no match for the Q6600 (-8fps). But, at 1680x1050 it becomes much closer and the Q6600 only has a 4fps lead over the Phenom. Moving up to 1920x1200, the slower-clocked 9600BE actually outperforms the Q6600 by a single fps.
Crysis CPU Winner: Tie (at higher resolutions, they each win one)
Moving on to the Crysis GPU test, at both 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the Phenom 9600BE delivers higher framerates than not only the Q6600, but the QX9770 and the overclocked Q9450 as well.
Crysis GPU Winner: Phenom
The next game tested was “Knights of the Sea” (DX10, High Quality), which I don’t really know anything about, but it’s tested anyway. At both of the higher resolutions, there’s really no room for argument that the 9600BE doesn’t keep up with the Q6600.
Knights of the Sea Winner: Q6600
As for BioShock (Max Settings), the Phenom is definitely more competitive than with the previous test, but it still isn’t quite enough to gain the edge over the C2Q part.
BioShock Winner: Q6600
Call of Duty 4 is obviously a very popular game, and the results are kind of interesting (Max Settings, 4xAA, Max AF). At both of the higher resolutions, the 9600BE manages to outpace the Q6600 despite the clock speed disadvantage.
CoD 4 Winner: Phenom
World in Conflict is next, and was tested at Very High detail with 16xAF.At 1680x1050, the 9600BE barely beats the Q6600, but at 1920x1200 it again beats not only the Q6600, but the QX9770 and Q9450 as well.
WiC Winner: Phenom
Next up is Call of Juarez (High Detail, 2048x2048 Shadowmaps, Normal Shadow Q, 4xAA). Although the framerates weren’t playable, the 9600BE matches the Q6600 at 1680x1050, but at 1920x1200 it manages to best the QX9770 and Q9450 again, barely.
CoJ Winner: Phenom
The final game test was Company of Heroes which was run with max settings and 8xAA. This test is interesting because the Phenom just dominates the Q6600, QX9770, and the Q9450 at every resolution. The higher resolutions actually make the C2Q look completely uncompetitive.
CoH Winner: Phenom
Looking at the results here, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point here is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution.
UPDATE: It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's:
With an HD3870X2...
Crysis CPU & GPU:
Winner: Phenom
Supreme Commander:
Winner: Phenom
Company of Heroes:
Winner: Phenom
World in Conflict:
Winner: Core2Duo
With an 8800GT... @ 1680x1050 & 1920x1200... (Repeated tests omitted)
Knights of the Sea (DX10, High Image Quality):
Winner: Phenom
BioShock (Maxed):
Winner: Phenom
Call of Duty 4 (Max Settings, Extra Texture Q., Max AF, 4xAA):
Winner: Phenom
Call of Juarez (High Detail, 2048x2048 Shadowmaps, Normal Shadow Q., 4xAA):
Winner: Phenom
Despite a 600MHz+ clock speed disadvantage, the Phenom still comes out on top in every game tested except World in Conflict.
But the question is, if AMD’s Phenom just happened to overpower Intel’s Core 2 Quad in anything clock-for-clock would anybody notice? Specifically, I'm speaking of gaming performane here. During my aimless wandering throughout the internet, I came across a set of benchmarks at OverclockersClub. While the topic of this specific review was Intel’s Q9450, there are some interesting numbers regarding the Q6600 (2.4GHz) and the Phenom 9600 (2.3GHz). These are the two processors I will be comparing.
These tests were performed with a GeForce 8800GT at settings that users would actually play at with this card. I feel that this makes these numbers valuable since they should be representative of what someone would experience with a similar system. Note that because the graphs are all in Flash rather than images, I can’t actually post the graphs here, but you can check out the review here
First up is the Crysis SP Demo, which was tested at all medium settings and 2xAA. At 1024x768, you can see that the 9600BE is really no match for the Q6600 (-8fps). But, at 1680x1050 it becomes much closer and the Q6600 only has a 4fps lead over the Phenom. Moving up to 1920x1200, the slower-clocked 9600BE actually outperforms the Q6600 by a single fps.
Crysis CPU Winner: Tie (at higher resolutions, they each win one)
Moving on to the Crysis GPU test, at both 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the Phenom 9600BE delivers higher framerates than not only the Q6600, but the QX9770 and the overclocked Q9450 as well.
Crysis GPU Winner: Phenom
The next game tested was “Knights of the Sea” (DX10, High Quality), which I don’t really know anything about, but it’s tested anyway. At both of the higher resolutions, there’s really no room for argument that the 9600BE doesn’t keep up with the Q6600.
Knights of the Sea Winner: Q6600
As for BioShock (Max Settings), the Phenom is definitely more competitive than with the previous test, but it still isn’t quite enough to gain the edge over the C2Q part.
BioShock Winner: Q6600
Call of Duty 4 is obviously a very popular game, and the results are kind of interesting (Max Settings, 4xAA, Max AF). At both of the higher resolutions, the 9600BE manages to outpace the Q6600 despite the clock speed disadvantage.
CoD 4 Winner: Phenom
World in Conflict is next, and was tested at Very High detail with 16xAF.At 1680x1050, the 9600BE barely beats the Q6600, but at 1920x1200 it again beats not only the Q6600, but the QX9770 and Q9450 as well.
WiC Winner: Phenom
Next up is Call of Juarez (High Detail, 2048x2048 Shadowmaps, Normal Shadow Q, 4xAA). Although the framerates weren’t playable, the 9600BE matches the Q6600 at 1680x1050, but at 1920x1200 it manages to best the QX9770 and Q9450 again, barely.
CoJ Winner: Phenom
The final game test was Company of Heroes which was run with max settings and 8xAA. This test is interesting because the Phenom just dominates the Q6600, QX9770, and the Q9450 at every resolution. The higher resolutions actually make the C2Q look completely uncompetitive.
CoH Winner: Phenom
Looking at the results here, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point here is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution.
UPDATE: It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's:
With an HD3870X2...
Crysis CPU & GPU:
Winner: Phenom
Supreme Commander:
Winner: Phenom
Company of Heroes:
Winner: Phenom
World in Conflict:
Winner: Core2Duo
With an 8800GT... @ 1680x1050 & 1920x1200... (Repeated tests omitted)
Knights of the Sea (DX10, High Image Quality):
Winner: Phenom
BioShock (Maxed):
Winner: Phenom
Call of Duty 4 (Max Settings, Extra Texture Q., Max AF, 4xAA):
Winner: Phenom
Call of Juarez (High Detail, 2048x2048 Shadowmaps, Normal Shadow Q., 4xAA):
Winner: Phenom
Despite a 600MHz+ clock speed disadvantage, the Phenom still comes out on top in every game tested except World in Conflict.
Total Comments 12
Comments
-
Hmm, this is interesting. If you're talking about pure mathematical performance (e.x. SuperPi), one would expect the Q9450 to outperform in games. Strange that the Phenom can match, let alone outperform, it. Perhaps there is some other variable involved than just the CPU itself, i.e. a more efficient northbridge design or specific CPU utilization in games. Something to think about when comparing CPUs, indeed.Posted 07-08-08 at 12:51 AM by game
-
SuperPI doesn't paint the whole picture.
Go AMD woot!Posted 07-08-08 at 01:36 AM by Kamikaze127
-
Wow! at last some comfort
I've built 2 Phenom based gaming rig in last two months for me and for my friend. Guess i was not going wrong.Posted 07-08-08 at 09:12 AM by sweet_3025
-
Can you explain why other reviews are showing different results ?
There is no doubt that the one who made this review is a biased AMD fanboyPosted 07-08-08 at 11:54 AM by TheWay
-
Good question. Are these results reproducible? Is this the only review that show such results?Posted 07-08-08 at 08:44 PM by pauldovi
-
Most of the reviews that I have seen will either test at low resolutions/settings so that the GPU isn't loaded or use built in CPU benchmarks. To me, these kinds of benchmarks are meaningless because you aren't going to be playing with those settings. I find these benchmarks interesting because they were run at settings that somebody would actually play at if they had a 9600BE and 8800GT. I'm trying to find a review that tests the gameplay in a comparable way to compare the results.Quote:Originally Posted by TheWayCan you explain why other reviews are showing different results ?
At this point, I'm guessing that it has to do with the IMC and HT link providing lower latency communications than the FSB on the Intel systems. If this is the case, than you will not see the Intel-based offerings drop off as much when going from lower resolutions to higher ones with Nehalem. However, I would still like to see a similar test done somewhere else.
I don't think this is the case at all. First of all, it's a review for an Intel CPU, so nobody is really looking here to see what numbers Phenom is getting. It wouldn't make sense to choose this review to inflate the numbers. Secondly, even when AMD is mentioned in the commentary it's carefully crafted so that it doesn't put Intel's processors in a negative light (except the CoH one, but it's hard to hide that). For example in the WiC benchmark it simply says "Framerates of the AMD offering were a constant 28FPS" rather than pointing out that it was beating the Q6600, etc.Quote:Originally Posted by TheWayThere is no doubt that the one who made this review is a biased AMD fanboyPosted 07-08-08 at 08:52 PM by darkcloud89
Updated 07-08-08 at 08:54 PM by darkcloud89 -
I think architecture of the chip has more affect on computing tasks than people realize. While the Core 2 Quad is a great chip (I own one) the Phenom is AMDs hope of regaining some of its lost marketshare and I am sure AMD is pouring as much of its r&d resources at it that it can spare. Its true quad core design and high HT link speeds should have some benefits over Intels older across the FSB approach, even against the newer 45nm chips. The sad thing is is that Intel will be adopting alot of the same architectural design AMD used first (with Athlon 64) in Nehalem; plus they are obviously testing and reverse engineering anything that AMD is releasing now and can still adopt these features in later cpu design. AMD may never again have a performance lead like it had temporarily with Athlon 64 but that doesn't mean it cant compete at a different market segment than Intel. Like its ATI division does against Nvidia, the 4800 series is shaping up nicely. CPU/gpu integration may change the whole ballgame down the road and if AMD/ATI get their first it may help them dominate that market for awhile. AMD shouldn't try to be parallel to Intel but fight with new and innovative designs.Posted 07-11-08 at 02:11 AM by noneed4me2
-
nice blog suscribed now I may want to go Phenom + new chipsets more for multitasking and gaming.Posted 07-11-08 at 03:07 AM by VinhDiezel
-
"UPDATE: It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's:"
Why compare a tri core to a dual core and NOT expect the extra core to help? That's dumb IMHO.Posted 07-12-08 at 07:12 AM by gillbot
-
Because they're the same price?Quote:Originally Posted by gillbot"UPDATE: It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's:"
Why compare a tri core to a dual core and NOT expect the extra core to help? That's dumb IMHO.Posted 07-12-08 at 03:40 PM by darkcloud89
-
Also because most people think that Intel stomps all over AMD on every front... This is a great post thanks for making it!Posted 07-12-08 at 07:59 PM by Knuxr
-
YES! very interesting facts!! amd needs to take a lead again. and this maybe a hint. =] and its true "even if phenom does beat c2dq's" will anyone ever notice it? its very true because 90% of todays pc users are all c2d based now, so claiming the other 10% to be AMD BIASED isn't very helping the "3rd persons POV" now.Posted 07-13-08 at 01:47 AM by elito
