Would like to see this compared to the i920 and it's ilk would be intresting to see if the overclock can keep it ahead of a quad core since it destroys the tri core with so little effort
Originally Posted by rollo 4.62ghz wow on a £100 chip
Would like to see this compared to the i920 and it's ilk would be intresting to see if the overclock can keep it ahead of a quad core since it destroys the tri core with so little effort
For reference my Core i7 920 @ 4ghz scores ~ 2,000 on the overall Bit-tech media benchmark. I am held back by my ram but this would only add ~100 or so.
It looks like at 4ghz the i7 920 would be around 25-40% faster (extrapolating a rough 1400 to 1500 score for this G9650 @ 4ghz - depending on which score (base or overclocked )you use as the base).
Given the price, performance and the potential overclock this looks like a very good cpu indeed.
Would have been really nice to see this against stock and overclocked i3-530, i5-750, i7-920s. I know they're all a fair bit more expensive, but it would have been nice to see the comparison. All I can really tell at this point is that the Pentium is quicker than the Athlon when overclocked and cost is similar. When overclocked does this actually represent good value compared to the i series ships?
Originally Posted by [-Stash- ]Would have been really nice to see this against stock and overclocked i3-530, i5-750, i7-920s.
This. It seems like a bit of an oversight to miss out at least the i3 530. I mean, you're comparing it to an AMD X3 445 but with a more expensive motherboard, I reckon the i3 530 with the H55M-UD2H would be about the same price as well so why not include it?.
Good review, but I also agree it would have been nice to see a comparison with stock speed i3 530, i5 750 , i7 920 just to know what kind of price/performance ratio we are talking about here. Though a 30 quid cooler on a 70 quid CPU is a bit overkill. You can get an i3 530 for 92-93. I think when you consider that, the comparison is worthwile.
Also, since there is only a 20 quid difference between the G6950 and i3 530 CPUs, one could see which one is the price/performance sweet spot. Does a 25 % decrease in CPU price result in more than 25 % performance hit? Depending on the answer to that you will know which budget Intel CPU one should opt for.
Originally Posted by urobulos Good review, but I also agree it would have been nice to see a comparison with stock speed i3 530, i5 750 , i7 920 just to know what kind of price/performance ratio we are talking about here. Though a 30 quid cooler on a 70 quid CPU is a bit overkill. You can get an i3 530 for 92-93. I think when you consider that, the comparison is worthwile.
Also, since there is only a 20 quid difference between the G6950 and i3 530 CPUs, one could see which one is the price/performance sweet spot. Does a 25 % decrease in CPU price result in more than 25 % performance hit? Depending on the answer to that you will know which budget Intel CPU one should opt for.
Toms have been comparing this to the Phenom II 555 in a series of articles. what every they done overlclocking it tho they cooked their motherboard and didn't get anywhere near that clock in doing it. Pentiums always seem an overclockers dream.
Originally Posted by [-Stash- ]Would have been really nice to see this against stock and overclocked i3-530, i5-750, i7-920s. I know they're all a fair bit more expensive, but it would have been nice to see the comparison. All I can really tell at this point is that the Pentium is quicker than the Athlon when overclocked and cost is similar. When overclocked does this actually represent good value compared to the i series ships?
I second this, please do another with the comparrisons, pretty please.
Comments 1 to 25 of 31
ReplyWould like to see this compared to the i920 and it's ilk would be intresting to see if the overclock can keep it ahead of a quad core since it destroys the tri core with so little effort
Missed a Y there.
:D
Prefer the i3 530 but the G6950 is my second favourite CPU at the moment. :)
For reference my Core i7 920 @ 4ghz scores ~ 2,000 on the overall Bit-tech media benchmark. I am held back by my ram but this would only add ~100 or so.
It looks like at 4ghz the i7 920 would be around 25-40% faster (extrapolating a rough 1400 to 1500 score for this G9650 @ 4ghz - depending on which score (base or overclocked )you use as the base).
Given the price, performance and the potential overclock this looks like a very good cpu indeed.
This. It seems like a bit of an oversight to miss out at least the i3 530. I mean, you're comparing it to an AMD X3 445 but with a more expensive motherboard, I reckon the i3 530 with the H55M-UD2H would be about the same price as well so why not include it?.
Also, since there is only a 20 quid difference between the G6950 and i3 530 CPUs, one could see which one is the price/performance sweet spot. Does a 25 % decrease in CPU price result in more than 25 % performance hit? Depending on the answer to that you will know which budget Intel CPU one should opt for.
I agree although maybe just against the i3 530.
And is it worth the £25 extra?
The idle power consumption increased by 65% though..
Still, amazing stuff.
The frequency increased by 65% as well. Perfectly linear scaling. Under load, power consumption increased by 63%
I second this, please do another with the comparrisons, pretty please.
I may be missing something, I've had few to many shots tonight all ready.
:¬\
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums