http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103249 Finally the chip that can keep up with Intel Q6600 is out for $243.00 but shiping is not free? come on egg.

No flame wars please.  How do you think this new chip will compare to the Q6600 or the Q9300?  Being fair to both compaines.  Say in Super pi or 3dmark06?

I would say with a mild OC it would be right up there with a stock clocked Q6600. Say maybe at OC to 2.6 or 2.8ghz . What do you think?

The 9850 clocks at 2.5ghz and the q6600 clocks at 2.4.  I would hope the the AMD would preform better at stocks speeds or somewhat under 3.0ghz.  The q6600 is well known to be a very good overclocker and has a large L2 cache.  I would be very interested to see some personal scores posted.

I was just thinking it could pass up or catch right up to it with a mild OC because doesn't the q6600 beat it clock for clock (slightly) ? or am I wrong ?

going by benchmarks, Intel at 2.4 GHz is faster than AMD at 2.5 GHz.  Intel costs less for the quad as well, but thats not to say they are not competitive or worth it.  I would buy the cheaper one.  If i had an AMD board, it would be cheaper to buy the amd processor. (no need to buy motherboard or ram)

Bothe of those are highly optimized for Intel, so I would expect the Qs to crush that BE in them.
If you take the averages of THG's benches, the BE @ stock should be just behind the Q6600.

Sharkyextreme.com got a 3DMark 06 CPU score of 3812 in their 9850 review, slightly outperforming the Q6600's score of 3761, and found the 9850 to be more or less equal to the Q6600 in the eight games they benchmarked (the 9850 was faster in five games, the Q6600 faster in three).  Here's a link to the review:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardw [...] 3737046__1

FYI, My Phenom 9600 running at 2.5GHz (same speed as the 9850) scored 11843 in 3DMark 06 (with an 8800 GT), with a CPU score of 3774, so the 3DMark scores, at least, seem to be accurate.

In Super Pi, it's no contest. Intel wins hand down. My best Super 1M Pi score is around 27 seconds, and that's at 2.8GHz.

This also makes the BE look more interesting
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=183025
I'm not saying everyone can get thier 9850 to 3.5ghz, but it looks like AMD may have found a fix for thier little gate oxide problem.

Its not stable at 3.5GHz, its more a 'showoff' shot at an extremely high voltage on water cooling... he could bench Cinebench 10 @ 3.2GHz 1.47V but that is a far cry from a suicide 3.5GHz screenshot. Considering 9850BEs can overclock to 2.8 - 2.9GHz on air regularly, an extra 300MHz from water cooling is really not that special. People are just going nuts over the 3.5GHz screenshot without taking things into context. A hypothetical Phenom @ 3.5GHz 1.5V consumes over 250W, even at 3.2GHz 1.47V it consumes ~220W, so please keep expectations realistic if you're running air cooling - most HSFs struggle to dissipate beyond 150W effectively, the high end ones can do ~200W but beyond that is watercooling territory.

If AMD had found a 'fix' they would be selling stock 3GHz chips by now. Think about it.  

well AMD only wanted to fix the TLB this time round. Don't forget that the Barcelona CPU's have less TDP. At 2.3GHz Barcelona only uses 75watts. Also with the 9850 you have to understand AMD put the North Bridge and the HT link to 2GHz instead of 1.8GHz which gives Phenom more bandwidth. The North Bridge is what governs the L3 Cache Speed. I think if AMD got the L3 cache to run with the CPU's speed I think Phenom may be better than any Q6600 and Q9300. But they could not. Give AMD Phenom ayear and we may be seeing "Return of the Jedi". lol

 
I disagree. Not sure what Barcelona TDP has to do with this, since the 9850BE has a 125W TDP at stock. With the 9850BE, AMD is simply keeping the core/L3 ratio the same as the lower end chips, for example a 9600BE is 2.3GHz/1.8GHz L3, a 9850BE @ 2.5GHz/2GHz L3 is roughly the same ratio between the clockspeed and L3. If they had kept the L3 at 1.8GHz scaling would have been worse as clockspeeds increased.
 
If the L3 was able to run at core speed, I believe Phenom would be within touching distance of a Q6600 clock for clock, but still 5 - 10% behind Penryn, depending on cache size.
 
If we give Phenom a year, it'll be competing against Nehalem, not Core 2.

Doesnt come with a fan, how lame.

 
And such demos need to be taken with a grain of salt.
The B3 Stepping from AMD does not significantly alter the manufacturing process.
No new materials.  No new Processes.  It's simply a bug fix.
 
Ergo, the OCing results will be extemely similar to the B2 steppings.
Reliable reviews show about a 100-200Mhz increase.
 
Tech Report was the only main-stream website to get their processor to 3.0 Ghz and that was on 1.6v, which is out side of spec and could easily damage the chip with extended use.
 
If AMD could produce a significant quantities of chips that ran well beyond 2.5Ghz at reasonable power/temps they would do so to try and increase their margins since they are operating at a significant loss.

rant rant rant arnt you people happy that a decent amd quad core is out that lowers the price of the intel ones for you intel fan boys

 
Big deal. I haven't used a stock fan/heatsink on any CPU for years.  

Well, since this is an OCer's chip and a 125W part, I wouldn't feel comfortable with a stock fan on it.  That's why they don't include it.

This may be a total **** post, but i have something to say to you all (i'm drunk and for some reason this topic came to my attention). When i joined i came looking for a forum full of knowledgable people. I found this, yet i didn not find any humour or entertainment. In other forums i'm members of (mainly UK motorcycle forums) we all meet up and have great laughs together, even if we're vehement fanboys that hate the others' product. I reckon what we should do as a forum is have yearly meets and gatherings in each country that has sufficient members and make friends, if you get what i mean.