Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumDelta
* QX9775 - 800MHz @ 5-5-5-15 (FB-DIMM)
* QX9770 - 1600MHz @ 7-7-7-20 (DDR3)
* QX6850 - 1333MHz @ 7-7-7-20 (DDR3)
* Q6600 - 1066MHz @ 7-7-7-20 (DDR3)
* E8500 - 1333MHz @ 7-7-7-20 (DDR3)
* E6750 - 1333MHz @ 7-7-7-20 (DDR3)
* Phenom 9850 - 800MHz @ 5-5-5-15 (DDR2)
* Phenom 9600 - 800MHz @ 5-5-5-15 (DDR2)
With less cache and therefore even more need to access the (slower, and on a slower FSB) RAM the Phenom suffers problems the Intel chips don't have to worry about.
|
Not to be "that guy" but, OMG!!! AMD DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFIN FSB!!! You sir are making us AMD enthusiasts look bad (I mean come on, not knowing your own architecture?)
But I do agree that the added cache will significantly help game performance. This does not mean that they will be able to catch up to Nehalem (unless Intel made another P4)
I also agree that Intel does "brute force" a lot, just look at their so called quad core, can you say "cheap shortcut"? AMDs memory performance is still legendary, all they need is a die shrink, some tweaking, more cache (for the love of god!) and a DDR3 memory controller and they will be much more competitive (Hypertransport 3.0 would really come in handy with the DDR3 controller)
AMD CPUs can take advantage of much more memory bandwidth because of their very efficient on-die memory controllers, and no, FSB and HyperTransport are RIDICULOUSLY different. You do not OC a "FSB" on an AMD Mobo, you OC the NB (which can get ludicrously high clocks because it is much more simple than the Intel NBs)
DDR3 would make a difference with AMD CPUs, as long as the latency is not so bad (so if it comes out, don't get cheapo DDR3 RAM for your AMD CPU)
__________________
One civilized reader is worth a thousand boneheads - Smart Set magazine, 1914
CPU: AMD 4600+ 2.41Ghz
RAM: 2Gb of Corsair DDR2 4-4-4-12 800Mhz
Graphics Card: ATI X1900XT
OS: Windows XP SP2 FTW
Last edited by Glaedrin; July 30th, 2008 at 06:33..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost