Quad-Core AMD Processor Equal to an Intel Q6600?

E

EGS

banned
Is there a quad-core AMD processor that is equal in performance etc to an Intel quad-core processor, most notably the Q6600 model? :)

Am really looking into AMD right now because the processors seem significantly cheaper and really am wondering if there are any processors in the line which actually compete to Intel right now.. :p
 
A Q6600 and a 9950 is pretty much equal at stock. Both the Phenom II 920/940 are faster than the Q6600. The Q6600 will overclock better than the 9950. But not better than the Phenom II 920/940.
 
65nm C2Qs (Q6xxx series) perform about 10% faster than Phenom I clock-for-clock, so the 9950 will perform about as good as the Q6600. Intel decided to make slight changes to the manufacturing process ot make those CPUs cheaper, and the recent batches (just about every new Q6600) are crappy OCers; they OC about as good as Phenoms (hit their ceiling around 3.2-3.4GHz), but being slightly more efficient beat them at those clocks. Phenom II CPUs beat Kentsfield (Q6xxx) clock-for-clock, and since all Phenoms IIs currently out have higher stock clocks, they will outperform the Q6600 by a significant margin.
 
StrangleHold said:
A Q6600 and a 9950 is pretty much equal at stock. Both the Phenom II 920/940 are faster than the Q6600. The Q6600 will overclock better than the 9950. But not better than the Phenom II 920/940.
Click to expand...
Hmm...it's only like $30 cheaper than the Intel...but it's equal huh?
Surprising how Intel are easier to overclock nowadays over AMD...a real change in the industry.
 
Surprising how Intel are easier to overclock nowadays over AMD...a real change in the industry.
Click to expand...
Bah. You seen the Phenom II OC? An OC'ed 940 just beat world's 3Dmark05 record.

Those things OC about as good as Yorkfields, even better with exotic cooling since they don't seem to have the cold bug and they take volts that would make even a 65nm Intel chip shudder in fear.
 
2048Megabytes said:
Wow, the Phenom II 920/940 processors are faster than an Intel Q6600? I did not know that. That is good news to hear.
Click to expand...

Why would they not be. A 9950 is pretty much equal to a Q6600 at stock. The Phenom II 920 and the unlocked 940 run at 2.8/3.0 ghz. with 6mbs of L3 and are faster then the Phenom I clock for clock. And they both overclock close to 4ghz. with air cooling.
 
you can buy a good amd motherbored for like 70 bucks

but if you buy a socket 775 motherbored for 70 bucks it will have 2 dimm slots, and be really crappy 5.1 audio no on bored,

also amd motherboreds now also except the new amd proccessers so there way easyer on the wallet, i love amd
 
I hate to disagree with hackapelite, but the only reason why phenom II outperform Q6600 is because Phenom II has higher clock

Clock-for-clock, Kentsfield (Q6xxx) outperform Phenom II

Check this review (Which has a QX6850 benchmarked)
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-ii-940,review-31485-19.html

QX6850 (which is a Kentsfield clocked at 3GHz) outperforms Phenom II 940 which has clock speed of 3.0GHz
 
Last edited:
maroon1 said:
I hate to disagree with hackapelite, but the only reason why phenom II outperform Q6600 is because Phenom II has higher clock

Clock-for-clock, Kentsfield (Q6xxx) outperform Phenom II

Check this review (Which has a QX6850 benchmarked)
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-ii-940,review-31485-19.html

QX6850 (which is a Kentsfield clocked at 3GHz) outperforms Phenom II 940 which has clock speed of 3.0GHz
Click to expand...

Would really like to know if you work for Intel, or did somebody that worked at AMD run over your dog?
 
I hate to disagree with hackapelite, but the only reason why phenom II outperform Q6600 is because Phenom II has higher clock

Clock-for-clock, Kentsfield (Q6xxx) outperform Phenom II
Click to expand...
Thenagain, Tom's are some of the most incompetent reviewers I've ever come across. They can't even OC AMD CPUs properly... and those benchmarks are so biased it ain't even funny. And using games to measure CPU peformance is generally considered a bad practice, as they rely so heavily on other factors as well, such as GPU and RAM; even synthetic benchies (not SuperPi) are more accurate when measuring CPU performance.
 
according to current price, Q8200 vs phenom x4 9950, and Q8300 vs phenom II x 4 920.
Anyone see any benchmarks?
 
Last edited:
according to current price, Q8200 vs phenom x4 9950, and Q8300 vs phenom II x 4 920.
Anyone see any benchmarks?
Click to expand...
Q8200 < Q6600 = 9950
P2 920 is definitely faster than the 8300, 8-series Intel quads are pretty much crippled; they're great for low-power consumption scenarios (HTPC, quiet computing, what have you).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top