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



## DigitalDude (Apr 10, 2008)

*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

_


----------



## ancientrites (Apr 10, 2008)

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


----------



## ring_wraith (Apr 10, 2008)

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.


----------



## ray|raven (Apr 10, 2008)

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?


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 10, 2008)

^^^
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 by that time E-series would naturally become outdated...


_


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Apr 18, 2008)

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

But i think AMD Fusion would do well.


----------



## bigdaddy486 (Apr 19, 2008)

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

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

Why not Intel's Atom???


----------



## Pathik (Apr 19, 2008)

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


----------



## gary4gar (Apr 19, 2008)

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


----------



## ssdivisiongermany1933 (Apr 19, 2008)

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


----------



## motobuntu (Apr 19, 2008)

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


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 19, 2008)

^^^
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 


_


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Apr 19, 2008)

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.


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Apr 20, 2008)

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)


----------



## Cyrus_the_virus (Apr 20, 2008)

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.


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Apr 20, 2008)

@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.


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 21, 2008)

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 


_


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 22, 2008)

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


_


----------



## ajayashish (Apr 22, 2008)

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


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 23, 2008)

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


_


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Apr 24, 2008)

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).


----------



## lywyre (Apr 25, 2008)

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


----------



## ultimategpu (Oct 11, 2008)

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


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 12, 2008)

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


----------



## cyborg47 (Oct 13, 2008)

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


----------



## JAK (Oct 13, 2008)

who's diggin up the graveyard....


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 14, 2008)

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


----------



## x3060 (Oct 14, 2008)

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


----------

