AMD Phenom X4 9850

Anyone have any comments about the AMD Phenom X4 9850 Quad Core Processor?

I think it should be available in red (cuz everywun knowz red wuns go fastah!)

dont like it, i'll take an intel instead. more overclock friendly and consumes less power.

Don't know about the overclock-part, but you're wrong about the power part...

Unless you're talking about idle power, which is a bit silly if you plan on overclocking the thing (cause then you'll be folding and it'll never be in idle...)

well according to websites like these:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=735&p=6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/20...9550_b3_cpus/14

the two processors seem equal enough at stock speeds, but the power consumption of the phenom is slightly higher - which is expected since it is clocked higher.

Of course, it also depends on the different hardware, mainly such as motherboard. (which chipsets have differnt power consumption levels as well)

I own a q6600 and i know that i can do 3.2 ghz and its practically guaranteed to do 3.2 ghz. people haev done 3.6 ghz on it. on phenoms, its harder to get clocks in the 3 ghz range IIRC.

most reviews i've read seem to agree on these points as well, so i cant really recomend a phenom unless you already own a AM2 board compatible with phenom (usually after a firmware update) or a AM2+ board.

I'd prefer a Phenom because all 4 cores can communicate without using the FSB. For truly multithreaded applications, that'll give some real performance gain, as they can share each others' cache...

its a sound idea on the part of amd, and i give them kudos on that one. Intel will be redesigning their processors with the release of nehalem because of AMD's great innovations.

However, for the present, the benchmarks tell me that it is a very negligible performance gain, as the phenom, clocked higher than the q6600, is just about only on par.

As for the power consumption, AMD rates the phenom as a 125W part, whereas Intel rates just about all of their quads (except the extreme editions perhaps) as max 95W parts. my Q6600 itself is actually a 70W part.

Overclocking wise, i constantly find people with phenoms fighting with high voltages (1.5v+, stock is ~ 1.3v) to break the 3ghz barrier, whereas 3ghz on stock volts (~1.25v) for the q6600 is practically expected, if not guaranteed.

The only advantage i can find for AMD's 9850 is the fact that it has unlocked multiplier. I sort of wonder if it is that much of an advantage though since it is so hard to clock up the chip in the first place though. AMD processors should be kings in memory based applications though, since they are not limited by a FSB, and they have onboard memory controllers (which intel will implement in nehalem)

I just set my 9850 rig up last week and have been messing with OCing it for a few days now. I like it a lot so far. It seems to be kind of hit and miss on OCing though, lot of luck getting a good processor. I have read posts of people getting to 2.7 and being stuck and others at 3.2. I can personally get mine up to just over 3ghz stable. After that it seems to hate me know matter what I do. Either way for the price I don't think you will be disappointed. Heres the best I can do so far, 54 celsius under load after 20 minutes of torture tests.

i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk118/paaco1981/newOC.jpg

I'm thinking about making a new computer this year as mine is nearing 5 years and was crappy back then. I'm desperately trying to decide which processor to get.

I'm stuck between the subject of the thread and something that intel may have. I want something good and am not afraid of shelling out a little extra. I have always really liked amd/ati and would prefer to stick with them.

Also, I am planning on running Linux on it as well as playing a monster amount of games, especially steam games and MMO's. Any advice?

intel q6600 or if you have more cash intel q9450

especially if you are thinking of overclocking