Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom Vs Q6600 Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2007 5:20:22 AM

For everyone to know.. Firingsquad and everyone else has these processors real benchmarks under real conditions.


No one plays as 1200 resolution anymore.. I play at 1600 or 1900 on my Hdtv . if I do play at 1280 its because of low. The phenom gives the same performance as the top of the line 9770 from intel .


intel does beat amd in Valves multicore particle simulation by 20fps wich makes me wana buy a q6600. apperantly true quadcore didnt help amd oh well .

15% slower but 15% less expensive .. hhmmm the particle simulation was run at lower res though so at 1600 they will probably even out even though it cost less and I dont have to buy new Motherboard wich is the upside.

amd also has to release its quadcore driver for windows and no ones knows if thats going to boost the performance to what it was ment to be. wich was 25% faster than intel . on apps ya but not on fps.


Maybe amd should stop playing kids games and just go for 2mb of l2 cache and then it can compete


for crysis benchmakrs high and low res hardocp.com
valves multicore firingsquad


remember that if amd goes bankrupt intel wont have any competition and therefore take years for cpu advancement . the reason we are here now is because amds low priced athlon series that gave us great fps . and when atlon 64 came out intel was sweating it big time so they worked hard and the the core2 duos at low price.. if it was not for amd intel would not be at this point.. Amd has to surpas intel inorder for us to get better technology
November 19, 2007 5:31:22 AM

master9716 said:
For everyone to know.. Firingsquad and everyone else has these processors real benchmarks under real conditions.


No one plays as 1200 resolution anymore.. I play at 1600 or 1900 on my Hdtv . if I do play at 1280 its because of low. The phenom gives the same performance as the top of the line 9770 from intel .

Push up the resolution and even a Sempron won't be far off. Making these gaming tests more CPU-limited tells people that even the Q6600 will be faster than a Phenom 9600; regardless of the GPU used and will benefit more from a future video card upgrade.

15% slower but 15% less expensive .. hhmmm the particle simulation was run at lower res though so at 1600 they will probably even out even though it cost less and I dont have to buy new Motherboard wich is the upside. said:
15% slower but 15% less expensive .. hhmmm the particle simulation was run at lower res though so at 1600 they will probably even out even though it cost less and I dont have to buy new Motherboard wich is the upside.

The Q6600 also uses less power and overclocks more.


amd also has to release its quadcore driver for windows and no ones knows if thats going to boost the performance to what it was ment to be. wich was 25% faster than intel . on apps ya but not on fps. said:

amd also has to release its quadcore driver for windows and no ones knows if thats going to boost the performance to what it was ment to be. wich was 25% faster than intel . on apps ya but not on fps.

Doubt drivers will have any impact. And it was obvious from early on, when AMD refused to release relevant benchmarks that Barcelona didn't have the core power to take on Conroe/Kentsfield.
November 19, 2007 5:36:38 AM

From the FiringSquad review:
Quote:
AMD’s current Phenom prices are a bit out of line with reality as well: Intel’s Core 2 Q6600 officially lists for $266 in quantities of 1,000 CPUs. That’s $17 less than the Phenom 9600, and the Core 2 Q6600 is clearly the faster CPU overall.


And like accord99, once you start pushing the resolution on games, it becomes more a bottleneck at the GPU, than the CPU.

None of the reviews I have seen has shown the Phenom being the close competitor to Intel's current offering of the Q6600, not to even mention the upcoming Yorksfield/Penryn based CPUs, which is supposedly faster than Intel's current Quads.
Related resources
November 19, 2007 11:42:55 AM

Quote:
No one plays as 1200 resolution anymore.. I play at 1600 or 1900 on my Hdtv . if I do play at 1280 its because of low. The phenom gives the same performance as the top of the line 9770 from intel .

That gives rise to the converse argument: Why get a $300 Phenom at all when a $100 x2 4800+ or dual-core E2180 gives you the same frame rates at that kind of resolution? (Change to $200 chip if you do use heavyweight GPUs.)
November 19, 2007 11:49:57 AM

WR said:
Quote:
No one plays as 1200 resolution anymore.. I play at 1600 or 1900 on my Hdtv . if I do play at 1280 its because of low. The phenom gives the same performance as the top of the line 9770 from intel .

That gives rise to the converse argument: Why get a $300 Phenom at all when a $100 x2 4800+ or dual-core E2180 gives you the same frame rates at that kind of resolution? (Change to $200 chip if you do use heavyweight GPUs.)



Agree 100%

For GAMING at high res's you are better off with a good graphics card than a good processor to begin with.

I'd rather compare WinRARs, Encodes, and Render benchmarks.

Kind of pointless to compare it in an arena that 90% of the people who would use it will be bottlenecked by the GPU.
November 19, 2007 7:35:55 PM

Pretty sure Phenom will overclock higher then Q6600
November 19, 2007 7:48:35 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
Pretty sure Phenom will overclock higher then Q6600


Wanna bet?

Anand couldn't overclock it pass 2.6GHz without losing stablilty.
Quote:
Given the launch frequencies, you can expect that Phenom isn't a tremendously overclockable chip.

While we were able to run our 2.4GHz chip at 3.0GHz, we couldn't get it stable. Even 2.8GHz wasn't entirely stable, but 2.6GHz was attainable for benchmarks.

Yes, there has been reports of the 9700 being pushed to 3.2 on air, but the Q6600 has hit 3.6 on air. And, the 9700 has been delayed until Q1'08, so you lose that "extra" 100MHz starting point.
I haven't heard or seen how far the 9600 has been overclocked too, but I doubt it will surpass the Q6600.
November 19, 2007 7:48:46 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
Pretty sure Phenom will overclock higher then Q6600


B3 Phenom vs G0 Q6600 will be a fun showdown.

B3 Phenom vs Penryn will be another story.
November 19, 2007 7:48:48 PM

Ummm a X4 goes from 2.4 up to a 3.0 for "select" chips while a G0 Q6600 can go from 2.4 to 3.6 on air.
November 19, 2007 9:08:15 PM

Don't know about you guys, but it looks to me like AMD is still being pwnd by intel. Phenom was supposed to be thier saving grace, but its just a mid range processor with a mid range price.
November 19, 2007 10:19:15 PM

bfellow said:
Ummm a X4 goes from 2.4 up to a 3.0 for "select" chips while a G0 Q6600 can go from 2.4 to 3.6 on air.


Amd said they will release a black edition of the phenom...That will OC really far. What you didn't seem to get is anandtech OC'd by fsb. With unlocked multiplier; Phenom will get to 3.0Ghz all day long, on air too, no doubt about it. But it will not go as high as Q6600 quiet yet; however with new stepping, that may not be the case...
November 19, 2007 10:24:04 PM

tkpb938 said:
Don't know about you guys, but it looks to me like AMD is still being pwnd by intel. Phenom was supposed to be thier saving grace, but its just a mid range processor with a mid range price.


Apparently you don't understand economics....creating an ultra high-end product that hardly anyone will buy would hardly save them. No, midrange is right where they need to be if they want to survive long enough to even come close to the top. Look at the HD 3870. It is selling out like crazy on every major retailer; but it get restocked almost every day, sometimes more than once a day. 8800gt beats it, but it sells out, and 5 weeks later, it's back in stock. The ATi chip is a little slower, a TON cheaper, and has high availability. So ATi is slaughtering nVidia in sales this holiday season. And yet it is a midrange card....just might be AMD's "saving grace". Think about it...
November 19, 2007 10:25:41 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
AMD's secret weapon the Black Edition


No messing around with fsb to get the best RAM divider and no upping the voltage to OC. I am NOT saying it will beat the q6600, but think about it; it is pretty dang easy to OC. So why not?
November 19, 2007 10:57:31 PM

dude you cant compare the phenom to a Q6600
November 19, 2007 11:03:09 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
AMD's secret weapon the Black Edition


You mean Phenom with an unlocked multiplier? Some people can get their Phenom 9700 to 3.0Ghz with 1.5V.

I can get a G0 Q6600 to 4.x Ghz with 1.5V.
November 19, 2007 11:09:02 PM

Wait until it's released. Then judge it.
November 19, 2007 11:31:04 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
Pretty sure Phenom will overclock higher then Q6600


You're really not serious, are you?

monsterrocks said:
Amd said they will release a black edition of the phenom...That will OC really far. What you didn't seem to get is anandtech OC'd by fsb. With unlocked multiplier; Phenom will get to 3.0Ghz all day long, on air too, no doubt about it. But it will not go as high as Q6600 quiet yet; however with new stepping, that may not be the case...


It will be a long time before joe average will be overclocking his Phenom to 3.0Ghz

Remember,
-AMD was supposedly going to release the 3.0 GHz parts this year, but scrapped that plan because of stability problems.
-AMD was set to release the 2.4 GHz parts today, but due to the cache locking problems, they scrapped that plan.
<<<<<<Ironic, isnt it? The Phanboys have been crying 'cache thrashing' on the Intel Core2s for 20 months now, even though its been proven time and time again not to be anything other than their own sour grape spitefull thinking, yet now the K10s are having issues with their own form of 'cache thrashing'>>>>>>
-The parts that were successfully overclocked to 3.0GHz have been accepted to be cherry picked examples


Dont confuse AMD making it easy to overclock the Phenom with the Phenom being a succesfull overclocker. A few lucky folks will get upto 3.0GHz, but from all the information available (Fanboy wishful thinking/false hype aside) the vast majority of purchasers/overclockers are not going to get anywhere near 3.0GHz. Not on this stepping, and, contrary to certain phanboys hopefull hype, I doubt with the B3 stepping either.
November 20, 2007 12:16:00 AM

btw the phenom chip has b2 stepping
its in the article
November 20, 2007 12:17:55 AM

turpit said:

-AMD was set to release the 2.4 GHz parts today, but due to the cache locking problems, they scrapped that plan.
<<<<<<Ironic, isnt it? The Phanboys have been crying 'cache thrashing' on the Intel Core2s for 20 months now, even though its been proven time and time again not to be anything other than their own sour grape spitefull thinking, yet now the K10s are having issues with their own form of 'cache thrashing'>>>>>>


From what I have read, they have only been able to make the error occur in labs, but not in actual computing (a.k.a. Video games, 3d encoding, and basically anything that uses a ton of CPU and RAM to run.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weave...

This bug can only be reproduced in the lab but does not occur under normal, real-world conditions. said:
This bug can only be reproduced in the lab but does not occur under normal, real-world conditions.


Of course then again, AMD said that themselves and with the record they have been building up...
November 20, 2007 12:19:14 AM

turpit said:

-The parts that were successfully overclocked to 3.0GHz have been accepted to be cherry picked examples


Weren't the Phenoms that actually worked cherry picked?
:lol:  Sorry, couldn't help myself...
November 20, 2007 12:43:31 AM

monsterrocks said:
Amd said they will release a black edition of the phenom...That will OC really far. What you didn't seem to get is anandtech OC'd by fsb. With unlocked multiplier; Phenom will get to 3.0Ghz all day long, on air too, no doubt about it. But it will not go as high as Q6600 quiet yet; however with new stepping, that may not be the case...


You also know that those cherry picked ones that can get to 3.0Ghz require 1.5V?
November 20, 2007 1:18:18 AM

monsterrocks said:
From what I have read, they have only been able to make the error occur in labs, but not in actual computing (a.k.a. Video games, 3d encoding, and basically anything that uses a ton of CPU and RAM to run.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weave...



Of course then again, AMD said that themselves and with the record they have been building up...


That is correct, the THG article stated that, however, here:

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13639
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/18/amd-delays-phenom-ghz-due-tlb

you will note:

Quote:
"The Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) errata is an L3 protocol issue causing a system hang when running certain client workload applications independent of platform. AMD is immediately introducing an updated BIOS which will correct the TLB errata".


Meaning this is not a developemental bug, but an application bug. i.e it is something the consumer may encounter. While the typical consumer would never see this, those who load all four cores (enthusiasts, video editors/renderers) might, which in turn would be very bad PR for AMD....far worse than pulling the units from the shelves.

That this occurs at 100% workload, above 2.3GHz indicates there may be more to this problem than the L3 TLB.


November 20, 2007 1:25:54 AM

deleting my threads won't change the fact your review sucks and the biased THG opinions
November 20, 2007 1:28:00 AM

THG says: "AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors"


is this a joke?

a 7 year old could price match a q6600 at $279
November 20, 2007 1:29:13 AM

thg says: "constant chipset introductions have also made Intel upgrades a costly affair that went hand in hand with time consuming configuration ."


my 975x runs a quad core fine try that in a 939

what is this bs?



this is so rediculus only some one really high or in love with amd could write this:

THG says: "Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money."

November 20, 2007 1:46:37 AM

Don't worry about it. THG review was probably using tray pricing, and not actual retail pricing in its article.
Hexus did a revised "bang for buck" when the price of the Phemon went from up in retail compared to tray.
Quote:
Benchmark HEXUS.PiFast Quake 4 Megatasking Review price Online price now
AMD Phenom 9600 78.7 88.5 88.7 £159 £180*
Athlon 64 X2 6400+ 99.8 95.3 58.6 £115 No change
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 100 100 100 £165 No change


They ended their revised review with this simple statement:
Quote:
Quite simply, the Phenom 9600's HEXUS.bang4buck decreases due to the inflated price. What we see is that the Phenom 9600 becomes less attractive, as not only is it slower than the Intel Core 2 Quad in a straight-line fight, it's also now more expensive.
December 2, 2007 8:42:36 AM

Still dont know who's going to come out on top here and am still unsure which chip to purchase for my next build. However, I'd like to point out that Phenoms have all four cores running at 64 bit and that Intels are only at 32 bit and not even on the same die. It will be interesting to see which chip performs better when software catches up to 64 bit.
December 2, 2007 9:11:29 AM

HEXEN said:
Still dont know who's going to come out on top here and am still unsure which chip to purchase for my next build. However, I'd like to point out that Phenoms have all four cores running at 64 bit and that Intels are only at 32 bit and not even on the same die. It will be interesting to see which chip performs better when software catches up to 64 bit.


LOL really? I wonder how people are running 64bit OS on Intel CPUs then... must be the magic 64bit fairy dust sprinkled on top! :sarcastic: 

Dude, if you STILL don't know which chip comes out on top, nothing we can do is going to help you. There are about 20 reviews on the net, all pointing to the same conclusion.
December 2, 2007 9:54:53 AM

I remember reading it somewhere. And of course I cant find it in my history now so I look like an idiot. The guy was explaining that Intels use somewhat of a piggyback system to replicate 64 bit processing with their quads. Of course I could have misread, or it could have been from an older article, I'm not really sure. I'll continue to search for it and post it if it's valid.

I guess I'll go for an entirely new system using Intels Q6600. Such a pity though. I have always used AMD in all of my previous builds. Sucks the bastards went for economy as opposed to a comparible product.
December 2, 2007 10:50:26 AM

WR said:
Quote:
No one plays as 1200 resolution anymore.. I play at 1600 or 1900 on my Hdtv . if I do play at 1280 its because of low. The phenom gives the same performance as the top of the line 9770 from intel .

That gives rise to the converse argument: Why get a $300 Phenom at all when a $100 x2 4800+ or dual-core E2180 gives you the same frame rates at that kind of resolution? (Change to $200 chip if you do use heavyweight GPUs.)



Well, that pretty much ends this thread in my books too. AMD sharpens the price/performance cost edge, I'll grab an AMD on my next box too.

Intel just makes my sphincter twitch, I hate the feeling of being treated well, to only get f*cked royally in the ass till the end of time if little AMD goes under.

I mean, AMD with performance per watt, cool 'n quiet, killing Intel for 3 years. I'll tell you what. I'll buy their slower, but completely adequate processor and live with it now, rather than put them under by buying Intel, to have to deal with Prescotts out of Intel 'till I am an old man. Remember, it was AMD that pushed the whole 64 bit thing until Intel followed suit.

Intel was always, "the consumer doesn't need it, the consumer doesn't need it" Meanwhile, EVERYONE on Toms either NEEDED it or WANTED IT REALLY BAD. I personally didn't need it, but heck, imagine Crysis on Vista without 4 gigs of RAM? What about Crysis 2???

AMD has just brought us 10 years closer to "lifelike" gaming, NO thanks to Intel. AMD is really on the verge of being bought by IBM or getting absorbed overseas by foreign interest.

Do yourself a favor, even if you LOVE Intel, next box get an AMD and loose the 1 FPS, or wait 4 seconds more to encode a movie.

Lets keep up this unprecedented progress we have enjoyed over the past 4 years going!!! It has been a great ride, let's not see it end.
December 2, 2007 11:53:31 AM

boner said:
dude you cant compare the phenom to a Q6600

Uh, yes you can. Look around the thread, we are.
December 2, 2007 3:36:52 PM

starcraftfanatic said:
Uh, yes you can. Look around the thread, we are.



:lol:  Sorry I couldn't help but laugh. And this is the facts people: Phenom is higher priced, and slower. Can't deny that.
December 2, 2007 3:48:56 PM

K10 vs K8 Benchmarks

Found this over at Xtremesystems. I think it's a pretty good telling comparison between K10 and K8.

K10 won't be bad once the clocks are able to get up to around 2.8-3.0 GHz. It will be a good upgrade path for current K8 owners.
December 2, 2007 4:41:17 PM

Once the K10 gets up to speed it will be a good upgrade for those with AM2 boards that will take them. It looks like far fewer boards than expected are going to support the K10.
December 2, 2007 5:01:48 PM

HEXEN said:
However, I'd like to point out that Phenoms have all four cores running at 64 bit and that Intels are only at 32 bit and not even on the same die.


HA, since when does this matter? Your letting your self get suckered into AMDs marketing crap.


HEXEN said:
I remember reading it somewhere. And of course I cant find it in my history now so I look like an idiot. The guy was explaining that Intels use somewhat of a piggyback system to replicate 64 bit processing with their quads. Of course I could have misread, or it could have been from an older article, I'm not really sure. I'll continue to search for it and post it if it's valid.


Amd and Intel use the same x64 technology, Intel licensed it from AMD. It is simply a superset of the X86 instruction set (Thus its proper name x86-64).
December 2, 2007 5:08:43 PM

yomamafor1 said:
You mean Phenom with an unlocked multiplier? Some people can get their Phenom 9700 to 3.0Ghz with 1.5V.

I can get a G0 Q6600 to 4.x Ghz with 1.5V.


How about a screen shot of your processor going this fast and what kind of cooling system did you use?

Tweaktown did this but they has to use a $150.00 liquid cooling system.


http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/8/page_8_g0ing_f...
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 2, 2007 5:36:12 PM

itotallybelieveyou, No way will Phenom OC better right now especially since the thermals on a Phenom run higher stock than a QX9650 running at 3GHz compared to a 2.4GHz Phenom. Also you can get a Penryn/Yorkfeild to 4GHz on air and still run it at a lower voltage than compared to even a Conroe/Kentsfeild. ANd it ran 15-20c cooler than the Kentsfeild.

And skittle Thanks for saying that. Also I don't see a real reason why Intel would have had to licsense X86-64 from AMD considering Intel had 64bit architecture back way before AMD released A64. Either way Intels CPUs are fully 64bit capable.

I also wish people would stop bringing up the whole "not naitve quad" crap as obviously it didn't change a thing for AMD.

Right now for people looking to build a brand new PC a Q6600 is the best bet. And in January I am sure a Q9350/Q9450 would be the best bet. For those who have AM2 board I feel sorry that they have to wait longer to upgrade to a quad core that will be any good. Plus if you want anything nice a new (other than CPU wise) such as HT3(for Phenom) or anything else new that will come out then you will need a new mobo with the 790xx+ chipset to run it.
December 2, 2007 5:43:59 PM

jimmysmitty said:
..Also I don't see a real reason why Intel would have had to licsense X86-64 from AMD considering Intel had 64bit architecture back way before AMD released A64...


Basically, AMDs instruction set gained popularity first. And as to not have two competing insctruction sets, intel adopted AMDs implementation. I think that worked out pretty well for us all!
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 2, 2007 5:51:06 PM

That is tru skittle. Unlike right now AMD is using their own SSE4 instruction set. I wounder how that will effect us since both Intel and AMD will have their own version of SSE4.1.
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2007 6:59:37 PM



skittle said:
Basically, AMDs instruction set gained popularity first. And as to not have two competing insctruction sets, intel adopted AMDs implementation. I think that worked out pretty well for us all!

Intel wasn't interested in developing 64 bit instructions as there were/are very few 64bit consumer applications. Heck, it's only been a few years since M$ released XP64! Having 64bit instructions made good advertising for AMD which caused Intel to jump on the bandwagon.

AMD implemented the x86-64 instructions to promote 64bit desktop development and extend the x86 architecture. There are other advantages to the 64bit instructions aside from using more than 4GB RAM.

x86-64 is also one of the reasons why Opteron took a lot of market share away from the Xeons. Intel was pushing the Itanium as the solution but along came the cheaper/faster/easier to implement Opterons.

AMD worked with M$ on getting XP64 production ready. It is a shame XP64 did/does not get the attention or support it deserves.


December 2, 2007 9:37:36 PM

chunkymonster said:
Intel wasn't interested in developing 64 bit instructions as there were/are very few 64bit consumer applications.


Yes, in the consumer market. However, Intel was developing IA-64 years before A64 was announced... x86-64 was AMDs alternative, and a good one at that.
December 3, 2007 12:01:21 PM

skittle said:
HA, since when does this matter? Your letting your self get suckered into AMDs marketing crap.




Amd and Intel use the same x64 technology, Intel licensed it from AMD. It is simply a superset of the X86 instruction set (Thus its proper name x86-64).


I'm still seeing people claim that the 6600 is 4 32 bit processors while the Phenom is 4 64 bit processors. A couple reviews on Newegg state this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N...

Is this correct or do people just not know what their talking about?
December 3, 2007 12:38:19 PM

Both are 64-bit processors.

People simply either do not know what they are talking about or simply like to make stuff up.

Just like Skittle stated, the AMD/Intel 64-bit code are identical for all practical matters.
December 3, 2007 5:31:19 PM

HEXEN said:
I'm still seeing people claim that the 6600 is 4 32 bit processors while the Phenom is 4 64 bit processors. A couple reviews on Newegg state this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N...

Is this correct or do people just not know what their talking about?


Most of Newegg reviewers are clueless. I've seen a person claiming a pair of FX-74 outrunning a QX6850, which is simply not the case in reality.

The reason most people believe AMD's CPU are 64bit capable is because AMD advertised its AMD64 instruction since the early days of K8.
December 3, 2007 5:34:50 PM

I was reading through some of those reviews... Oh man it's hilarious.

It's like BM just posted 50 reviews.
December 5, 2007 11:56:33 PM

cnumartyr said:
I was reading through some of those reviews... Oh man it's hilarious.

It's like BM just posted 50 reviews.


I was thinking the same thing actually....him and sharikou... :lol: 
December 6, 2007 12:11:08 PM

AMD's is using a subset of Intel's SSE4 instructions. Or Intel's SSE4 instructions are a superset of what AMD provides on K10.
December 6, 2007 1:34:53 PM

Falken699 said:
Well, that pretty much ends this thread in my books too. AMD sharpens the price/performance cost edge, I'll grab an AMD on my next box too.

Intel just makes my sphincter twitch, I hate the feeling of being treated well, to only get f*cked royally in the ass till the end of time if little AMD goes under.

I mean, AMD with performance per watt, cool 'n quiet, killing Intel for 3 years. I'll tell you what. I'll buy their slower, but completely adequate processor and live with it now, rather than put them under by buying Intel, to have to deal with Prescotts out of Intel 'till I am an old man. Remember, it was AMD that pushed the whole 64 bit thing until Intel followed suit.

Intel was always, "the consumer doesn't need it, the consumer doesn't need it" Meanwhile, EVERYONE on Toms either NEEDED it or WANTED IT REALLY BAD. I personally didn't need it, but heck, imagine Crysis on Vista without 4 gigs of RAM? What about Crysis 2???

AMD has just brought us 10 years closer to "lifelike" gaming, NO thanks to Intel. AMD is really on the verge of being bought by IBM or getting absorbed overseas by foreign interest.

Do yourself a favor, even if you LOVE Intel, next box get an AMD and loose the 1 FPS, or wait 4 seconds more to encode a movie.

Lets keep up this unprecedented progress we have enjoyed over the past 4 years going!!! It has been a great ride, let's not see it end.



It is amazing to me how people do not understand how a free market works. Hey everyone, lets buy the lesser product. That will drive innovation! No it won't. The reason why A64 was so good was because it had to be to compete. The reason C2D/Q is so good is because it had to be to compete. A free market is driven by competition. Showing a company that consumers are ok buying an inferior product is just going to show them it is ok not to improve. However, I also hope AMD stays in the game, because I hope they will provide some competition for Intel, but I am not going to buy an inferior product to keep them in the ring. It goes directly against how a free market works.

BTW, I am not an Intel fanboy. Over 80% of the systems I have ever built have used AMD chips.
December 11, 2007 5:11:34 AM

A 600mhz overclock is usually fairly easy for todays processors, I have a 900mhz on mine right now. My old 2600xp would do a 400mhz easily. To each his own, You can go out and buy that brand new intel at almost a thousand dollars and I'll wait a year or so and buy a processor I can clock to the same performance for fifty to one hundred dollars. Plus with the advent of some great heatpipe coolong, on air doesn't mean what it used to??
!