Anandtech Phenom review is in - page 4

210 answers Last reply
  1. mimart7 said:
    I won't buy a Phenom even though I have an AM 2 mobo, I'll wait for AM 2+ or AM 3. But I would never spend $1000 on processor. Too painful, my wife just wouldn't understand. I'd rather spend that kind of money on other components, and spend at most $400 - $500 on a CPU.


    Or your wife, and family as well :D
  2. cnumartyr said:
    By the time 45nm comes out Intel will be releasing Nehalem. Then the things AMD fanbois keep spamming that makes the Phenom so much better will be done by Intel.


    Eventually AMD will catch up, that's because much of the technology that makes Intel worth it today came from AMD. What AMD did was sit on it's tucchus for two years while Intel used questionable business agreements to force 31 pipeline Netburst on the clueless masses.

    I went with an ATI X200 LGA 775 ASUS P5RD board and a P4 630 because I expected to be able to slap a C2D in when they arrived. Sadly, I could not. So, I went AMD instead. Intel has let everyone down from the Williamette to the Pentium D and only is on top because they finally went back to the drawing board and designed a good CPU.

    I guess it's the Intel fanbois who want to forget about Netburst as if it didn't happen and who want to see AMD back in the K6 days vis a vis Intel? Well, that might happen. AMD has made mistakes in business, but they haven't made mistakes in designing CPUs. They simply don't have the cash or fab capacity that Intel has, so I don't expect them to be anymore than about 25% of the market at best.

    When Intel comes out with their own HT and their own GPU on the CPU, then I guess it will be another coup for the fans of Intel who just never ask themselves who came up with, or imagined the concept first?

    I'd rather stay midrange and go AMD, at least until AMD is solvent again and when Intel finally behaves itself in the marketplace. I'd hate to see the world of CPUs with a Microsoft style monopoly.
  3. TC any reason why you have to take the piss in all of your posts?
    All I seem to read is blah blah Intel are great, blah blah AMD are ****, their chipset/CPU/GPU's are **** their performance is crappy.
    Anyhow further to my above post near the top fo the page, surely when it comes to AMD going to 45nm then they will be quicker at getting higher yield products than Intel when they move to Nehalem (which is native quad 45nm, correct me if I'm mistaken) which may give AMD a longer term benefit in going native quad on 65.
    Surely they can iron out any teething problems with the native quad on 65nm and have an impressive product with high(er) yields than Intel can make with a native 45nm quad.
    At least, thats my view on it, they'll have the experience and surely they'd use it all to take back some of the high-end market stuff.
  4. For Baron
    function9 said:


    Quote:
    I hate Intel for their FUD back in the dark days of sub 1GHz chips. I'll never let them or you live down how they SABOTAGED the Opteron launch and undercut the market by charging $183 for a chip that was as fast as some of the former high end P4s.
    Thats my opinion on the matter and it can be as fanboy as you like, that won't change the facts. Intel knew what would happen; that AMD would have to lower prices and lose money thereby causing issues with the new design.
    So how long will it take for you to wake up and stop believing AMD's FUD? Unless there's someone else using your name here, I remember you touting QFX as the second coming, treating the infamous "upto 80% increase" slide as gospel. And thinking the 40% increase was spot on. What was the phrase you were using through all of that? "I'll take AMD at their word", right? Or something pretty close. Now the phrase is what, "It's fast enough", right? Hmm.


    Quote:
    I will continue to support AMD even if they're slower because it's just not that serious.
    You sure do spend a whole lot of time pushing and defending your stance on all of this even though it doesn't mean that much.


    You know, that is an interesting question, and it never occured to me to ask. Sadly, based on past history, I already know the response...and yes Baron, before you start your "You dont know me..." I do know you...all to well.

    So Baron...you Hate Intel for the FUD....the lies. But AMD has been telling their own tall tales for over a full year now. So, how is it you still support them? Unless you are a paid shill, then they've shown you the same smoke and mirrors as everyone else, and you've bought the view hook line and sinker, up to the point of making endless excuses for them, changing tactics, evading engagements....the standard tactics....you remember...the tangential segue etc.

    Phenom does not fulfill the claims, not by any stretch of the imagination, nor by any twisting of of the data. This was not fanboy hype, as with Brisbane and AM2. AMD made the claims and failed...and please refrain from making more excuses. At this point, any excuses you make for AMD demonstrate one or both of 2 things: Guilibility and/or stuborn refusal to admit you are wrong...that you have been suckered by the clever AMD paint job hiding the bondo.

    So if you hate Intel for FUD, i.e. lies, then now, after a year of BS, i.e lies, is it safe to assume you will hate AMD as well? Of course not. Either you are a shill and will continue to 'support' AMD to get your checks or you will continue to buy the BS. But Baron, your co-fanboys are waking up from the marketing induced delusions, and begining to see that who manufactured the product doesnt matter...performance, value and truth in advertising do...not misplaced loyalties.

    I have great respect for what AMD has accomplished and their products, but lying for AMD, making excuses, and covering for them does not solve their problems. You, nor the rest of the fanboys cannot legitimately claim (though you do try) that Intel was keeping AMD 'out of the market' with illegal tactics in one breath, then tout AMDs success in claiming nearly 30% of the market in the next....the logic....it doesnt work you see..."Intel is Evil, they are crushing AMD by keeping them out of the market, but look at AMD go, they've almost acheived 30% of the market with less than 1/4 of the fabs and a contract manufacturer" AMD can't be both held out of the market yet achieve 30% of the market. K8 could not be held back by Intel, and it was not. It suceeded spectacularly. But, inevitably, it was superceded...and the result was the loss of market share. AMD worked to reclaim the lost market share, but they did so with the very same product that lost it, not with a new product. To attempt this, they had only one option--lowering ASPs and sacrificing margins, which caused the money problems they are having now. So, if your claim is that Intel caused AMDs current problems then you are correct, Intel did do so...by releasing a superior product. But that is not your claim. Your claim is that Intel caused AMDs problems by 'devaluing' the market, i.e by undercutting AMD. Not rue Baron, not by any stretch. AMD had the market momentum when C2D was released, and had C2D been unable to exceed K8s performance, the market would not have shifted regardless of how cheaply C2D was priced because the market would have seen C2D for what it would have been...another netburst. And the irony of your argument is that you blame Intel for AMDs situation because it released something better than the very crapburst you continually lament so vehemently against. Well, as Goldmember said "...then there is no pleasing you"

    Both AMDs failures and success's rest on their own shoulders. They needed to produce a platform...but they could have entered into an agreement much more cheaply with ATI rather than purchasing them outright. AMD spent that money on the purchase, not Intel... money which could have been used to speed the development of K10. They could have skipped 4x4, and directed those funds to K10 R&D, but they didnt. They felt a need to try and save face, but 4x4 failed, and not only did AMD lose face, but they lost the funds invested in the developement of 4x4....funds they could have used to speed the succesfull developement of K10. They could have skipped the paid trips to Tahoe, and Tunisia, and the expensive Henri Richard 3 ring media circus, but they didnt....more money that ultimately changed nothing but could have helped K10. Intel did not make AMD do any of those things....AMD did. And while they were misdirecting those funds, Henri Richards team did one thing, and only one thing succesfully...they misdirected a bunch of fanboys. But not the market...the market told the same tale it told during netburst....value and/or performance sells, not BS.

    Much as I hate to do this: "The circle is now complete. When AMD left Intel (literally, as you well know) AMD was but the learner; now AMD is the Master......but only a master of evil' The roles have reversed, and in its way, Phenom will become AMDs netburst...looked great on paper, but didnt live up to expectations. But go right ahead and continue to make excuses for AMD while evading the facts.
  5. I see lots of bashing going around. I would like to point out a few things though:

    - due to L3 cache, AMD processors shouldn't be as sensitive to RAM latency; as such, DDR2 or DDR3 will have less impact than it was the case for K8. I think tests done on AM2 platforms reflected that somewhat.

    - most recent power saving features are still not supported by any BIOS; as such, benching those is a bit senseless because they don't work - it's 'too new'.

    - although Intel's Q6600 came out last year, it is, indeed, not a 'native' quad core. In some (admitedly very limited) cases, performance will take a hit - mostly with games. But then, considering current consoles, I wonder why one would spend thousands of bucks on a system that can do only marginally better than a system that costs less than a thousand smackers.

    - most current games are compiled with graphics optimizations, and on either Microsoft or Intel compilers. AMD doesn't provide a compiler, but does provide optimized arithmetic libraries. As such, AMD processors usually need a longer complex instruction decompiling before they can process Intel-optimized code (this situation is similar to P3 vs. K7 in the 'old days') - a 'fairer' test should be done comparing an application compiled for Intel running on Intel hardware, and the same application compiled for AMD running on AMD hardware. The SSE4 situation seems to indicate that - and as said previously, due to AMD's ease of replacing a chip, you have Opteron servers all around the place that can get a quad dropped in - with its new libray and optimized code. It is, unfortunately, irrelevant to most benchmarks run these days - but then, you won't care about those benches if you're trying to render Lucasfilms' latest movie on a CPU farm ranging in the thousands, you'll care about how long a node needs to be down to be upgraded, and how much it costs.

    - the errata that delayed Q9700 is not something new in the CPU market, but might indicate that further chip revisions will be 'unlocked' - and Tom's O/C tests seem to indicate that AMD's quads can scale up in frequency quite well. Supplemented with the platform's ability to throttle down HT speed on low power modes, you get a system that runs damn cool when idle (90% of the time) and gets not too shabby when tasked.

    - I have yet to see a bench done on 64-bit systems, an area where the K8 didn't get such a severe trouncing, and the K10's improvements should appear too. Interestingly enough, considering previous benches done and current K8 to K10 benches, we may yet get clock for clock performance parity.
  6. Very nice Turpit, but to be honest, I really don't think Baron will take any of these words seriously. As you, and other forum members who has spent the last 3 years on THGF, know Baron all too well.

    I think the numbers and the facts speak for themselves. AMD took a shot at the moon, but instead, they land themselves in a toilet. To be honest, the phrase "colossal failure" is a pretty accurate description of what Phenom has become.

    Baron, I've been saying this from day 1, and I won't stop saying it until you get it: you don't know jack about processor architecture, and manufacturing. My suggestion: Stop taking a small segment out of a report, and interpret it however you like.

    Baron's next arguments:
    1. Benchmark not optimized.
    2. L3 cache TLB fix will yield 20%~30% performance.
    3. B3 stepping will allow Phenom to go up to 3.4Ghz.
    4. Its already been demonstrated that Phenom can run up to 4.0Ghz in lab.
    5. Intel should be punished for devaluing the market.
    6. Intel should be punished for overcharging, and rip off its customers.
    7. I am a hater of monopoly, not a specific company.
    8. I was traumatized when discovered how Intel's Pentium 3 1Ghz was so low performing.
    9. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I just don't buy Intel, ever.
  7. Here's a little information on Phenom's TDP:
    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2218304,00.asp

    Phenom 9500
    2.2 GHz 95W $251 Q4 2007
    Phenom 9600
    2.3 GHz 95W $283 Q4 2007
    Phenom 9700
    2.4 GHz 125W TBD Early Q1 2008
    Phenom 9900
    2.6 GHz 140W TBD Late Q1 2008

    yep, 140W for 2.6Ghz.

    The Q6600 @ 2.7Ghz consume about 105W. Go figure.
  8. LukeBird said:
    TC any reason why you have to take the piss in all of your posts?


    Yes. Trying to open some fanboys eyes, but they're still trying to defend AMD. AMD is a failing company. If AMD doesn't get their stuff together it will bankrupt and fail.
  9. I believe the rumors about Samsung.

    Personally I think Samsung is just sitting back taking it's time watching AMD dig itself in to a deeper and deeper hole. Once the value of the company declines to a certain point they will buy it for a bargain basement price or wait to the point where AMD will have no choice but to be aquired by them whether they want to or not due to financial reasons. Then you will begin to see real progress being made.
  10. Q6600 currently has better value/performance than the Phenoms right now based on the pricing.
    Mwave prices: Q6600 = $269; Phenom 9500 = $259
    Zipzoomfly: Q6600 = $272; Phenom 9600 = $289
    Newegg: Q6600 = $280; No Phenoms listed
  11. mitch074 said:
    I see lots of bashing going around.


    Can't argue about that. This thread is a written testament to fanboism and reminds me of fans of different sport teams yelling at each other in a stadion. What makes it especially sad is, that some of the forum members i once considered resourceful have slipped into fanatism too.
    If you're looking for a serious argument regarding your post i sincerly suggest looking elsewhere.

    mitch074 said:

    - due to L3 cache, AMD processors shouldn't be as sensitive to RAM latency; as such, DDR2 or DDR3 will have less impact than it was the case for K8. I think tests done on AM2 platforms reflected that somewhat.


    I would have liked to see some numbers on that. I agree with you that, while the L3 introduces some latencies (something that used to be quite horrible for the K8), it might improve AMDs dependence on fast memory. On the other hand the hypertransport is faster now which in turn could make K10 even more dependent on fast memory. As i said, i would really like to see some numbers.
    A decent comparision with the different HT protocols and different memory settings would help those interested in buying a new K10 setup.

    mitch074 said:

    - although Intel's Q6600 came out last year, it is, indeed, not a 'native' quad core. In some (admitedly very limited) cases, performance will take a hit - mostly with games. But then, considering current consoles, I wonder why one would spend thousands of bucks on a system that can do only marginally better than a system that costs less than a thousand smackers.

    That's a dangerous argument around here. While AMD obviously tries to offer the new processor at a very competitive price, most forum members have made it a hobby to search the web to find a cheaper Q6600 or just ask "why buy a phenim for 10% if it has 10% less performance".
    The prices AMD posted are competitive and i'm convinced that they will drop a little too. AMDs offerings are without doubt competitive, especially if the in-house chipsets (790-series) and the 38xx GPUS come into play too.

    mitch074 said:

    - most current games are compiled with graphics optimizations, and on either Microsoft or Intel compilers. AMD doesn't provide a compiler, but does provide optimized arithmetic libraries. As such, AMD processors usually need a longer complex instruction decompiling before they can process Intel-optimized code (this situation is similar to P3 vs. K7 in the 'old days') - a 'fairer' test should be done comparing an application compiled for Intel running on Intel hardware, and the same application compiled for AMD running on AMD hardware. The SSE4 situation seems to indicate that - and as said previously, due to AMD's ease of replacing a chip, you have Opteron servers all around the place that can get a quad dropped in - with its new libray and optimized code. It is, unfortunately, irrelevant to most benchmarks run these days - but then, you won't care about those benches if you're trying to render Lucasfilms' latest movie on a CPU farm ranging in the thousands, you'll care about how long a node needs to be down to be upgraded, and how much it costs.


    That would be a good idea for server software. Games tend to be optimized for the market leader and AMD should've tried to make their processor as Intel compatible as possible. Optimizing a software for two different CPU-sets adds costs a game publisher is unlikely to pay. AMD may end up without any software support here. It reminds me a little of 3dnow!.
    Contrary to what i stated above, i like AMDs move to go head to head with Intel on the SSE4 issue. The server market is AMDs homeground, a fact most people like to forget. If they manage to enforce their instruction set there, it will make its way into the mainstream sooner or later. Just like 64bit processing, multi-cores and all the other gimmicks that made their way from server-hardware to the desktop and so will the optimizations.
    Then there is the argument that, while the software can be optimized for the new K10, the K10 wasn't made for that software. AMD had a certain market target with their new hardware and those programs, that are not it, will have to run unoptimized. This sounds "unfair" but on the desktop most software is, as you said, tailored for intel hardware. A benchmark showing how the K10 will do with optimized code is worthless if that software will not come to the average desktop user. I do understand that the situation is different with most *nix enviroments and server software, but on the desktop, running the most mainstream OS, it might be more realistic to have the K10 run unoptimized code.

    mitch074 said:

    - I have yet to see a bench done on 64-bit systems, an area where the K8 didn't get such a severe trouncing, and the K10's improvements should appear too. Interestingly enough, considering previous benches done and current K8 to K10 benches, we may yet get clock for clock performance parity.

    That's where the future is anyway. Just looking at the average computers sold right now i see plenty machines sold with 2GB of RAM already. With the memory prices lower than ever more and more people will run into the limits of 32bit systems, Vista 64 bit is the most likely candidate for the most popular 64bit desktop system during the next few years. Benchmarking the K10 there would seem like a good choice.

    TechnologyCoordinator said:
    Yes. Trying to open some fanboys eyes, but they're still trying to defend AMD. AMD is a failing company. If AMD doesn't get their stuff together it will bankrupt and fail.

    That reminds me of a blog i once saw. Some nutcase was publishing his otherworldly thoughts on intel there. Creepy stuff. Really.
  12. TechnologyCoordinator said:
    Yes. Trying to open some fanboys eyes, but they're still trying to defend AMD. AMD is a failing company. If AMD doesn't get their stuff together it will bankrupt and fail.

    Fair point (and without sounding too patronising ;)) I'm glad you gave a mature response! Unfortunately it seems that more often than not you tend to get an immature response here!

    Although I would counter with there are a fair number of Intel fanboys that need their eyes opened! ;)

    Perhaps we could levae the bashing at bay and just discuss CPU's instead? :D

    And although I am an AMD chap, I just bought a couple of PC's for work which are Intel based, QX6850 :sol:
  13. LukeBird said:
    Fair point (and without sounding too patronising ;)) I'm glad you gave a mature response! Unfortunately it seems that more often than not you tend to get an immature response here!

    Although I would counter with there are a fair number of Intel fanboys that need their eyes opened! ;)

    Perhaps we could levae the bashing at bay and just discuss CPU's instead? :D

    And although I am an AMD chap, I just bought a couple of PC's for work which are Intel based, QX6850 :sol:


    Some of it comes from us trying to have conversations about technology and many of us get frustrated by the fanboys. Some may accuse me of being a fanboy, however, that's simply not the case. I'm just insanely pissed off at AMD for completely dropping the ball. I agree with the others that if AMD disappears we're in for a world of hurt. For many years AMD kept Intel in check. Both companies caused each other to innovate.

    My current and previous two processors were AMD processors. However, if I was upgrading today I would go with Intel, hands down (I'm on S939, if I was on AM2 I would heavily consider upgrading to another AMD). If I'm going to buy a new motherboard is sure as hell won't be AM2.

    But back to the topic, so we are here trying to discuss how AMD keeps f-ing up launch after launch but then fools like BaronMatrix come in and blindly defend AMD and it justs pisses some of us off. We kept telling him and several other fanboys that AMD's cloak over this launch, NDA's, the lack of any independent benchmarks, and a 10 month delay all meant that K10 was probably going to be a huge flop.

    And guess what, we were very right. So I guess some of us feel the need to tell Baron et al. that they were so full of it and biased, and now that the real launch is here we have indisputable proof, which they dispute! Already BaronFudrix is saying "but Intel has already released several revisions, it's not fair to benchmark against AMD's first revision". To that I say horseshit.

    We also try to discuss about how AMD's yield's have GOT TO BE LOW!! But Fudrix tells us that there's no way we could know. Well, judging by the fact that Dell, IBM, and HP still won't even let you ORDER let alone ship a Barcelona K10 Opteron system I'd have to say availability is pretty ****. We know it's not demand because the demand can't even reach the product at this point and time.

    When AMD paper launched the 2.0ghz Barcelona and soft launched the 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 ghz products we all said, YIELD ISSUES. But Baron came back saying that AMD would have freaking 3ghz by years end. Guess what, isn't going to happen.

    I guess we just get sick of people injecting their lies into conversations and sometimes it makes some of us (who aren't as adult like as others) to lash out. I might be nasty at times, but I base my opinions and predictions off of facts, not blind fanboy love for a company.
  14. I think there are some good points and some bad points brought forward in this topic...but mostly that a lot of people need to get in touch with rodney real. Personally i think the phenom is disappointing atm but i would still say it's competitive, if for no other reason than AMD actually has a quad core now that people can buy...this is infinitely better than not having a quad core that no-one can buy, it's also competitive in it's price/performance ratio (Trailing by 15 pct is not an ass spanking btw - a mere ear cuffing at worst) Will it be successful? I think it depends on the particular segment and also marketing, high end is obviously lost so expect a lot of people on forums like THG to be pro INTEL at this time, server i'm not sure about, there are a lot of AMD server platforms out there begging for an easy upgrade to quads and the phenoms do scale well....but the performance is still low so its wait and see atm, IF they manage to ramp the frequency quickly they could retain a good foothold there. Desktop? Could well come down to marketing in my opinion and here's why...

    We (including me), are nerds, tech geeks that 99 pct of other people in this world think of in the same way as people who collect spoons, they don't give a crap about FSB or gigahertz, they just want a pc that turns on when they press a button and allows them to collect their email, flirt on msn, play the odd game and burn the odd CD/DVD. Yes, being told it's 4 processors will impress them for about 5 minutes...it might even sway them to buy one over a dual core but talk technical at them and watch their eyes glaze over! Given that, the phenoms arn't bad at all because they provide quad core processing at a reasonable price, AMD had better spend a little of it's (already small) budget on advertising i reckon.

    Bottom line....INTELS offerings are better than AMD's at this time but most people out there simply won't care...they'll go on price. If this isn't true then how did INTEL manage to sell so many netbursts when k8 was 'spanking it's ass'? The answer is k8 didn't spank netbursts ass at all...it was a bit better and to those answering their emails, flirting on msn, playing the odd game and burning the odd CD/DVD there was no difference whatsoever...cos they'd left their PC to it and were doing the sensible thing by watching Top Gear in the meantime :D

    Peace,

    Carod
  15. Netburst sold because Intel used it's marketing to make it a household name. Period. K8 kicked it's butt in almost every aspect, but people never heard of AMD, and saw it as a cheap knock-off. Without Intel's previous marketing, Netburst CPUs would not have sold.

    Server market will not be affected by Phenom. That's Barcelona's department, and even that isn't helping gain back lost ground, with lack of availability, and lower than expected frequency.

    Trailing by 15% isn't bad? What would be? Claiming that the CPU would beat the competiton by 40% across the board? Having big name PC builders claim that "A 3.0GHz Phenom will kick butt anything Intel or AMD has out right now"? I'm sorry, losing to a competitor's slowest quad is bad.

    Yes, you're right that most people won't care if their computer can run SuperPI in under 15 seconds, but this isn't a forum for those people. It's a place for DIY builders, enthusiasts, and technology geeks. We do care if a CPU is better than the previous generation.

    I'm not here to bash you, but after hearing all the excuses being push out for Phenom's bad performance, it's getting a bit tedious. Next we'll hear that the moon was in alignment with Jupiter, and it caused a weird magnetic flux that only native quad cores can feel, which affected their benchmark performance, or something. The sad case is that AMD released a CPU that didn't feel ready to be released. It was lacking in very critical areas, and lost most benchmarks, not only to Intel's slowest quad, but to AMD's own dual core.
  16. I never said Phenom was good, in fact i said INTEL's offering was better. What i did say was that most of the public won't really care and that to them 15 pct really is nothing, they're hardly using up their current pc's processing power as it is. Yes this is a tech forum and we're all interested in new technology and i read the figures as closely as most others here...i didn't realise we had to keep comments soley within the realms of the enthusiasts? surely INTEL and AMD sells it's cpu's to people other than enthusiasts. Also where was i defending AMD? checked my post again and i still don't see it, if i was to buy a new PC for myself right now it'd be INTEL, slightly more tricky if upgrading since i currently have an AM2 board but i'd still be tempted to splash the extra dollars for INTEL anyway right now. If it was a friend asking me to reccommend one and their uses were emailing and browsing the web i'd give them the same advice i've given them for the last 3 years, make sure it has at least 1 gig of ram, has a screen you like at a price you can afford...the cpu doesn't really matter.

    To be honest NMDante, i read the forums a lot while posting little and i've always thought you seemed to give pretty good answers but your reply seemed rather like a lot of peoples on Toms these days, a bit narrow and paranoid.

    Peace,

    Carod
  17. carod said:
    I never said Phenom was good, in fact i said INTEL's offering was better. What i did say was that most of the public won't really care and that to them 15 pct really is nothing, they're hardly using up their current pc's processing power as it is. Yes this is a tech forum and we're all interested in new technology and i read the figures as closely as most others here...i didn't realise we had to keep comments soley within the realms of the enthusiasts? surely INTEL and AMD sells it's cpu's to people other than enthusiasts. Also where was i defending AMD? checked my post again and i still don't see it, if i was to buy a new PC for myself right now it'd be INTEL, slightly more tricky if upgrading since i currently have an AM2 board but i'd still be tempted to splash the extra dollars for INTEL anyway right now. If it was a friend asking me to reccommend one and their uses were emailing and browsing the web i'd give them the same advice i've given them for the last 3 years, make sure it has at least 1 gig of ram, has a screen you like at a price you can afford...the cpu doesn't really matter.

    To be honest NMDante, i read the forums a lot while posting little and i've always thought you seemed to give pretty good answers but your reply seemed rather like a lot of peoples on Toms these days, a bit narrow and paranoid.

    Peace,

    Carod


    Well, I am sorry you feel that way.
    The honest fact is that people who are defending this launch are using the same wording you used - "everyday people won't care what's in their computer", "it's fast enough to do regular tasks", or "it's not that bad, it's still competitive considering".
    Again, I was not trying to bash your points, or claim that you were defending AMD, but after reading all the excuses for AMD's Phenom, I guess the lines got a bit blurred on my part, and I do apologize, if I sounded like I was out to get you.

    I don't believe this place is for the hardcore enthusiasts, but when people like to bring up that most computers sold are pre-built, I wonder why they are even visiting places like this. Yes, we all know that the majority of computers sold are going to be pre-build, that's why Dell, HP, and others make billions a year. But that isn't a reason to claim that a disappointing launch wasn't a disappointing launch. I was upset when Intel pushed out chipset after chipset for newer CPUs coming out after I upgraded. In fact, I ranted on about how inconsiderate it was for them to do that, but they still do it (look at the P35, X38, and upcoming X48).

    I guess I just read your last post as a way to defend a crappy product launch, and again, I do apologize if I snapped at you over it. I have re-read your post, and it still seems, to me, like a way for AMD to save face in light of a disappointing product release.
  18. I wouldn't buy a Phenom right now not just because of the inferior performance, but more importantly the price is not that attractive with the lowest 2.2Ghz coming in at a higher tag than the better Q6600. To be fair to AMD it's probably good business sense to try and get away with higher prices initially. All businesses do this and when they realise it's not selling well bring the prices down.

    It's never a wise idea to buy the first revisions of any CPU type from my experience. I rushed out and bought a AMD X2 computer on their launch with the hype that it would blow single cores away, but the reality was it would be sometime until it was actually any benefit to me. From the launch of the X2 to now AMD has moved from 939 to AM2 940 screwing socket 939 owners over, which I didn't like much. AMD CPU's are now more power efficient and can be had for literally peanuts.

    My point is it's always worth waiting to see what happens
  19. No worries man...in fact looking back i think i snapped a bit in my reply, your replys were valid...i think you just mistook what i was saying in my first post. No getting around it, Phenom is a disappointment, still not sure i'd call it a failure but definately a disappointment, you could call a million reasons on why that is but the bottom line is that it's not competing with core 2 and the situation looks to get worse before it gets better, frankly i'd have been happier if AMD had just said 'listen we're tiny compared to intel, this is what we're bringing out, in performance stakes it's behind but we'll sell it at a good price ratio'....i think the fud has done more harm than the lack of performance.

    On the otherhand you yourself stated that the only reason netburst sold was market presence....i wasn't defending phenoms lack of performance to the enthusiast crowd, just that AMD should get phenoms name out in some meaningless advertising, something like 'Buy an AMD phenom, it's great' would do, get the name into the heads of people who basically don't know what their buying without actually spinning defineable fud...like those INTEL guys used to do on their advert where they had to wear suits cos they were so uber cool or something.

    Maybe a better ending line to my original post would have been

    AMD Phenom! Great for 99 pct of the people who only use 10 pct of their pc's performance (because it keeps ALL processor prices down), not so great for AMD as profit margins are slashed.

    Peace,

    Carod
  20. speedbird said:
    I wouldn't buy a Phenom right now not just because of the inferior performance, but more importantly the price is not that attractive with the lowest 2.2Ghz coming in at a higher tag than the better Q6600. To be fair to AMD it's probably good business sense to try and get away with higher prices initially. All businesses do this and when they realise it's not selling well bring the prices down.

    It's never a wise idea to buy the first revisions of any CPU type from my experience. I rushed out and bought a AMD X2 computer on their launch with the hype that it would blow single cores away, but the reality was it would be sometime until it was actually any benefit to me. From the launch of the X2 to now AMD has moved from 939 to AM2 940 screwing socket 939 owners over, which I didn't like much. AMD CPU's are now more power efficient and can be had for literally peanuts.

    My point is it's always worth waiting to see what happens


    Well, the retail prices aren't set by AMD, that's all the retailers doing. The tray prices that are shown in the THG review and others are the prices AMD sold them for, at 1k trays. What the retailers do once they get them is up to them.

    Although I would love to be an early adopter, I just don't have the cash flow to do that. Last thing I bought first time around was an Intel motherboard with the 925x chipset, and then I got burned when the next CPU I got wouldn't work, cause I needed the 955x chipset.
  21. carod said:
    No worries man...in fact looking back i think i snapped a bit in my reply, your replys were valid...i think you just mistook what i was saying in my first post. No getting around it, Phenom is a disappointment, still not sure i'd call it a failure but definately a disappointment, you could call a million reasons on why that is but the bottom line is that it's not competing with core 2 and the situation looks to get worse before it gets better, frankly i'd have been happier if AMD had just said 'listen we're tiny compared to intel, this is what we're bringing out, in performance stakes it's behind but we'll sell it at a good price ratio'....i think the fud has done more harm than the lack of performance.

    On the otherhand you yourself stated that the only reason netburst sold was market presence....i wasn't defending phenoms lack of performance to the enthusiast crowd, just that AMD should get phenoms name out in some meaningless advertising, something like 'Buy an AMD phenom, it's great' would do, get the name into the heads of people who basically don't know what their buying without actually spinning defineable fud...like those INTEL guys used to do on their advert where they had to wear suits cos they were so uber cool or something.

    Maybe a better ending line to my original post would have been

    AMD Phenom! Great for 99 pct of the people who only use 10 pct of their pc's performance (because it keeps ALL processor prices down), not so great for AMD as profit margins are slashed.

    Peace,

    Carod


    It's all good. I take nothing said here personal, so it's all just opinions, and sometimes I do get a bit aggravated at some of the stuff I read.

    Yes, AMD marketing is non-existent right now. The black posters with animals didn't work for me. I could care less if they called the next platform the Unicorn of Death (although that would be a cool name). They need to use a bit of their cash to actually push a bit more in advertising, that I do agree with you on. While I realize that it does cost a lot of money to do that sort of thing, I think they could've used the money they spent on flying out reviewers to Tahoe for a canned benchmark party on better advertising.

    LOL. I understood what you wrote after I took my time and took off my defensive glasses. Yes, Phenom, while disappointing to those who travel within the CPU upgrading circles, can be good for the average Joe Computer User. The problem is, the average Joe Computer User usually asks his tech friend for advice, and some of those tech friends might frequent these places.

    Oh, by the way - When I am in my bunny suit, we don't dance around like the commericals. We just sort of sway around the fab. :pt1cable:
  22. Fair point TC :)

    Oh well, with regard to Phenom, I'm on an AM2 mobo and I'll be going to Phenom but I'll be waiting until there are some decent AM2+ mobo's, assuming that there is some benefit which I'm sure there will be with HT3 Cool'n'quiet 2 etc.
    I only bought a cheapy gigabyte board for my 6000 anyway as I knew I'd go Phenom.
    Once a 2.6Ghz or higher is out, I think I'll pick one fo those.
    On a side note, thought I'd end up buying anew CPU today as the heatsink came away from the CPU (long story, and very much my fault! ;))and the system shutdown. When I hit BIOS the CPU was at 110C!! :ouch: :ouch:
  23. Thats where it gets interesting tho! knowing your friend has minimal computing needs what would YOU reccommend? you know the cheapeast simplest setup would last them untill it blew up for there needs...but it's so tempting to persuade them to spend that bit more and get a pc with 3X the performance (figures produced at random from my head)

    Being a geek i would of course prefer the more powerful setup....but as a friend i know that the old P3 laptop i have gathering dust in a box somewhere would do them fine and i'd part with it for 50 quid :P

    Now what AMD should do is develop an 8 core GPU but only sell it for minimal profit to people who buy the phemon FX!!! How much do advertising people get again? i'll take a curry and a pint of guiness, now there's generosity!

    Peace,

    Carod
  24. im totaly disappointed with amd for months talking about how good these
    chips are knowing there not good at all. Q6600 has beat the best they
    have to offer & that is not the 9600 were talking about the 9900 2.6
    anand has 15 tests Q6600 win s 11 out of 15 thats a clear win and that
    chip is priced higher than the Q6600 as far as im concerned amd has nothing to offer.
  25. “AMD Phenom! Great for 99 pct of the people who only use 10 pct of their pc's performance (because it keeps ALL processor prices down), not so great for AMD as profit margins are slashed.”

    Peace,

    Carod

    Good start Carod but I would change it to say, “Buy AMD, great for 99 pct of the people who only use 1 percent of the PC’s CPU performance and 5% of the graphic card performance.

    What gets discounted in this subject or simply ignored is that the “masses” is what keeps the lights on at both AMD and Intel. Not only could most of that mass not tell you the real world difference between any AMD or Intel model CPU but most of those so worked up by who’s on first today couldn’t explain the real world difference in English to most purchasers. I’m using an Intel laptop to write this, a Pent M 1.6 produced in 2002. Ancient stuff by the standards of this forum. I use a Pent 4 1.7 (last of the single core steps) at work and my home laptop beats the crap of the work laptop. The reason has nothing to do with the CPU and the work laptop is in fact faster in CPU terms. Likewise my corporation has over 120,000 employees with at least as many PC in use. We are selling off the last 3 year lease group which contains Pent 4 1.8 -2.0 desktop models and the same in laptops. Our current models are all Pent 4 2.2 – 2.6 models. The company purchasing agents can’t spell AMD nor would they understand the difference if I showed them 100 Tom’s Hardware comparisons over the last three years. Thousands of high dollar servers go grossly underutilized for reason not related to the use of the CPU in the systems. I’ve got 8 way servers running 50% utilization 24/7 and it does not matter a bit what CPU model it is and we bought a huge batch of Intel 7120’s Dual Core Netburst this year to replace older single core Netburst from 3 years ago that don’t perform a bit better and are grossly inferior to the 3.0 Ghz AMD Opterons most of you don’t think is competitive. Competitive with what? Speeding up my Internet experience? Games, and all the high end CPU/CACHE/Memory intensive benchmarks don’t represent 1% of the gets done in the market on a good day. When AMD introduced the Opterons in the spring of 2003 and the Athlon 64 in the Fall of 2003, the current Pent 4 easily beat them in such tests as shown on Tom’s hardware. I didn’t buy the Athlon 64s in 2003 because they were faster or better than the top of the line Pent 4s. I bought them because I really don’t want to face the same monopolistic situation I have to deal with at work and at home from Intel as I do with Microsoft and there is no real world performance difference between a comparable (feature set) Intel or AMD based system for 99% of the world’s users. There is a system cost difference that favors AMD and why they have more than their share of the market. I accept that a very small percentage of the market place will never have enough CPU or Graphic card power and currently Intel and Nvidia both thank you for providing the lion’s share of the RD money for their next Top Dog. If you have a “need” to always have the fastest, most powerful what ever so be it. It’s a free country where you can vote with your dollars they way you wish. I do hope you have the wallet for their next creation. I don’t really care who is on first this week, quarter, year, etc. I do care about being able to afford what I have and not be compelled to buy a new system in effect every time Intel comes out with a new Processor/chip set. What ever sins AMD has committed pail by comparison to what Intel has done since 1981.

    The thrust of the complaints about AMD seem to say, “I’m pissed they didn’t live up to their claims, they lied, didn’t knock off Intel or give me something faster than a $1000.00 QX9999 Intel rebranded 7300 Server chip. The rest of the world does not care who is on top. There is a huge glut of CPU power out there keeping all the power plants fired up just powering them at 1% use. If you are happy with your choices, be happy. If you aren’t happy maybe you should ask yourself what it is you are really chasing. I’m happy with my choices and when the times come I’ll replace what I have and be happy again. Neither Intel or AMD drive me or my happiness.

    Peace,

    Carod"
  26. rwayne said:
    I believe the rumors about Samsung.

    Personally I think Samsung is just sitting back taking it's time watching AMD dig itself in to a deeper and deeper hole. Once the value of the company declines to a certain point they will buy it for a bargain basement price or wait to the point where AMD will have no choice but to be aquired by them whether they want to or not due to financial reasons. Then you will begin to see real progress being made.



    Where did all this "Samsung is going to buy them out" stuff came from? Why not IBM, afterall doesn't IBM make most of AMD chips?
  27. Thom457 said:
    “AMD Phenom! Great for 99 pct of the people who only use 10 pct of their pc's performance (because it keeps ALL processor prices down), not so great for AMD as profit margins are slashed.”

    Peace,

    Carod

    Good start Carod but I would change it to say, “Buy AMD, great for 99 pct of the people who only use 1 percent of the PC’s CPU performance and 5% of the graphic card performance.

    What gets discounted in this subject or simply ignored is that the “masses” is what keeps the lights on at both AMD and Intel. Not only could most of that mass not tell you the real world difference between any AMD or Intel model CPU but most of those so worked up by who’s on first today couldn’t explain the real world difference in English to most purchasers. I’m using an Intel laptop to write this, a Pent M 1.6 produced in 2002. Ancient stuff by the standards of this forum. I use a Pent 4 1.7 (last of the single core steps) at work and my home laptop beats the crap of the work laptop. The reason has nothing to do with the CPU and the work laptop is in fact faster in CPU terms. Likewise my corporation has over 120,000 employees with at least as many PC in use. We are selling off the last 3 year lease group which contains Pent 4 1.8 -2.0 desktop models and the same in laptops. Our current models are all Pent 4 2.2 – 2.6 models. The company purchasing agents can’t spell AMD nor would they understand the difference if I showed them 100 Tom’s Hardware comparisons over the last three years. Thousands of high dollar servers go grossly underutilized for reason not related to the use of the CPU in the systems. I’ve got 8 way servers running 50% utilization 24/7 and it does not matter a bit what CPU model it is and we bought a huge batch of Intel 7120’s Dual Core Netburst this year to replace older single core Netburst from 3 years ago that don’t perform a bit better and are grossly inferior to the 3.0 Ghz AMD Opterons most of you don’t think is competitive. Competitive with what? Speeding up my Internet experience? Games, and all the high end CPU/CACHE/Memory intensive benchmarks don’t represent 1% of the gets done in the market on a good day. When AMD introduced the Opterons in the spring of 2003 and the Athlon 64 in the Fall of 2003, the current Pent 4 easily beat them in such tests as shown on Tom’s hardware. I didn’t buy the Athlon 64s in 2003 because they were faster or better than the top of the line Pent 4s. I bought them because I really don’t want to face the same monopolistic situation I have to deal with at work and at home from Intel as I do with Microsoft and there is no real world performance difference between a comparable (feature set) Intel or AMD based system for 99% of the world’s users. There is a system cost difference that favors AMD and why they have more than their share of the market. I accept that a very small percentage of the market place will never have enough CPU or Graphic card power and currently Intel and Nvidia both thank you for providing the lion’s share of the RD money for their next Top Dog. If you have a “need” to always have the fastest, most powerful what ever so be it. It’s a free country where you can vote with your dollars they way you wish. I do hope you have the wallet for their next creation. I don’t really care who is on first this week, quarter, year, etc. I do care about being able to afford what I have and not be compelled to buy a new system in effect every time Intel comes out with a new Processor/chip set. What ever sins AMD has committed pail by comparison to what Intel has done since 1981.

    The thrust of the complaints about AMD seem to say, “I’m pissed they didn’t live up to their claims, they lied, didn’t knock off Intel or give me something faster than a $1000.00 QX9999 Intel rebranded 7300 Server chip. The rest of the world does not care who is on top. There is a huge glut of CPU power out there keeping all the power plants fired up just powering them at 1% use. If you are happy with your choices, be happy. If you aren’t happy maybe you should ask yourself what it is you are really chasing. I’m happy with my choices and when the times come I’ll replace what I have and be happy again. Neither Intel or AMD drive me or my happiness.

    Peace,

    Carod"



    Useing your logic why get an hdtv or a whirlpool washer dryer when you can still watch tv on an anolog system and you can wash your cloths in a sink with water. the answer is progress man and women always want to move ahead not stand still. why get that nice new car when you can take the bus anywhere. I do agree with most people do not use there computer system do its fullest potential. but one of these day the web will go 3d and there will be more to computing than just useing microsoft word and emailing.Look at your computer today this same computer would take up a whole office 20 years ago. So what I'm saying is don't hate progress welcome it

    my 2 cents pease
  28. rwayne said:
    I believe the rumors about Samsung.

    Personally I think Samsung is just sitting back taking it's time watching AMD dig itself in to a deeper and deeper hole. Once the value of the company declines to a certain point they will buy it for a bargain basement price or wait to the point where AMD will have no choice but to be aquired by them whether they want to or not due to financial reasons. Then you will begin to see real progress being made.

    Just speculation here - any company scooping up AMD would walk away with piles of valuable IP but probably not the ability to produce x86 products – I suspect change-of-control clauses will invalidate agreements with AMD. Meaning a said purchaser would have to create a new platform or negotiate with Intel.

    Progress may come, but it would be born of chaos.
  29. So we are all dissapointed with AMD's latest offering. I, for one, will keep in mind the unlocked Phenom as the prices decrease. For now, my AM2 will keep on chugging with it's sub $90 processor chugging along @ 2.8.
  30. I think you miss the larger point. I’ve been moving ahead in the IT field for 35 years and I started out on stuff you’ve never seen. I was trying to get the most out of stuff with 16 KB of memory before most that read this blog were able to say Dad-da. I’m in the Progress business up to my neck. I’ve been dealing with Intel, Microsoft since 1981 and later on AMD and all the others that have come (and gone). The same story has repeated several times since I got into this business. Same game, different players.

    With age will come wisdom so that is not my job or purpose here. My problem with most BLOGs (pick a subject) is that most comments boil down to this format, “Mine is bigger than yours; Mine is better than yours; You are stupid and I am superior” Some variation of that is almost always found when you start making judgment calls about other people’s choices. We all have wants, needs and obsessions. We are all human and have weaknesses. If anyone has not experienced this in their lifetime, it has to be real rare.

    I’ll illustrate my main point with real world stuff where people’s poor decisions have impact and consequence on people’s lives. My Data Center is typical. It has about 400 X86 Servers, all Intel based, all Netburst based. We lease everything for 3 years at a time. We bought several 7120 Xeons replacements this year which we will still have in 2010. The AC system has already had to be upgraded once to handle the heat output of all these Netburst Xeons. They run hot and consume lots of electrical power even when at idle. The newer 5xxx series consume a lot more power than is typically shown on Tom’s Hardware because their special memory uses more power. Matters with 32-64 Gig in a Server, is moot in a Desktop. Like Intel, my corporation has been laying off people to save money elsewhere. They tried to put limits on new servers to save operating cost of said equipment. We’ve bought the same CPU power (per CPU) over the last three years because Intel could not deliver faster SMP 4 way and above Servers. We are not CPU bound and I doubt you will find many Data Centers that are. We could have started three years ago buying lower power Server with more powerful CPUs that would have let us reduce the number of servers in total and not have to upgrade the AC for a 20,000 sq feet building. We might not have had to lay off people and been able to invest the savings into enhancing those people’s skills. All the money on the left side of the equation comes from the same place and it is always “scarce” in economic terms. There are limits. Intel makes a killing off of people who blindly make decisions based on the same theme as I see in the BLOGs, “mine is better than yours”. The corporation has 10 Data Centers, 10,000 Servers easily, none will beat a 2.6 Ghz Opteron set up. Intel’s 73xx series is the first advancement they’ve been able to offer SMP 4 way Servers in 3 years. They are clearly superior in raw CPU performance to the AMD Quads at this point in time. Never the less, we have the 73xx series Intels now because AMD, 1/10th the size of Intel did their homework, took a risk and wasn’t rewarded by people in positions of power throughout the industry and high end PC market because of FUD. I’ve seen this a few times in my career. The good guy does not always win nor the best product. I strongly suspect that most Intel fans are mad at AMD the most simply because they don’t see AMD chasing Intel into the high end where cost and efficiencies are very high and they know that will ultimately mean high prices for Intel based systems in that range. You bet. Whether AMD chooses to or can’t chase that loss leader is moot but this is one of the downsides of not rewarding the risk takers for their effort.

    If you need a QX9770 (or overclocked equivalent), two Nvidia 8800 GTX (OC+) in SLI to play a $50.00 game then that is what you need I guess but I look upon something that requires that much power and cost as something to maybe stay away from (the game I mean). I’ve written code for 35 years and that kind of does not smell right to me. To most reading this, such a system is progress. To me it is an obsession with no end in sight but life usually shortens the path as other things become more important. It is not judgmental with me. To each his own but when you (generically speaking, not you specifically) start dumping on other people who don’t follow you down that same path then it becomes something else and anything positive that the BLOG could provide goes out the window. Happens a lot in our anonymous Blog world. A handful always dominate with “mine is bigger than yours” or something like that.

    Intel has promised those who favor the Intel products a new CPU type, Chipset, Motherboard every year as far out as they feel people will pay for it. All you have to do is make the investment. As for buying a washing machine with the money saved, my 18 year old Sears Heavy duty is doing just fine. Every now and then I go look at a replacement or even one of the new fancy ones and decide a washing machine is a washing machine and all things in due time.

    Just think about where aren’t going with all the money you spend on the top end stuff every year or so. In time you’ll have a better appreciation for what I’m saying. If it were free, I’d have a 2P system with 2 QX9770, 4 8800 GTX in SLI if someone would build it but then I realize there will be something better the next year, the year after that, the decade after that… That’s the point Xrider. Enjoy it, don’t obsess over it.

    Take care.
  31. Valid points raised in Thom457's post, there are.
  32. Thom457, please stick around and post. You make some really great points and you have a lot of knowledge and experience that a lot of us don't(especially me)!
  33. Very nice posts Thom457, just suggestion - make your posts shorter, or simply brake into different posts according to subject. Walls of texts isnt the best choice if you would like your thoughts to be read. Still I like your style and keep posting :)
  34. onestar said:
    Valid points raised in Thom457's post, there are.



    TechnologyCoordinator said:
    Thom457, please stick around and post. You make some really great points and you have a lot of knowledge and experience that a lot of us don't(especially me)!



    Anonymous said:
    Very nice posts Thom457, I like your style and keep posting :)


    agreed
  35. We have new JJack now??
  36. To answer Spaztic7's question:
    spaztic7 said:
    Where did all this "Samsung is going to buy them out" stuff came from? Why not IBM, afterall doesn't IBM make most of AMD chips?

    Here are some of my sources:

    Samsung may be eyeing up AMD
    Quote:
    So it is with the greatest diffidence that I pass on the two rumours I've heard - one that Samsung may snap up AMD
    http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/07/16/samsung-may-be-eyeing-up-amd


    Analysis: AMD's technology opiate
    Quote:
    In another version, they could also continue on as they have and bleed (cash) to death. After going belly-up, a company like IBM or Samsung would come in. They'd pick up AMD for a song, take their advanced IP and begin moving forward with real R&D and manufacturing resources. In my opinion, this would be the best thing that could happen to AMD.
    http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33122/137/

    If either Samsung or IBM bought out AMD I think would be a good thing for them. I am all for it.
  37. If a wild pack of baboons came in and bought AMD it would be a good thing for them.
  38. epsilon84 said:
    $266 Q9300 and $316 Q9450 to be precise... street prices will probably be a little higher of course.

    These are going to lay a real smackdown on AMD, as if the current situation is not bad enough.

    AMD will need to price their 2.6GHz FX @ $250 to compete, and their 2.2GHz quad at $200...

    Hold on if I can get 2 2.6GHz FX on the 4X4 at $500 with 8 cores that should beat any Intel. I don't see how even Intel's top CPU would have a chance give that price disadvantage. Do understand come January its not 2 dual cores against a C2Q. Even given the low showing of Phenom its right up to the low end C2Q's performance so unless Intel can bring an affordable dual socket mobo for C2Q's its going to be AMD month come January. If its a 4X4 spider mobo even many games will give AMD a major boost.

    Maybe you meant black Edition? I have seen nothing to ensure an FX version Phenom for the AM2+.

    In the 2 reviews did crysis under Phenom get a big performance boost on the Anandtech reveiw? The AnandTech review had the Phenom at 2.3GHz beating Q6600 in Crysis but the Enthusiast shows the 2.3GHz Phenom getting beat by a small amount. I would think that the DDR3 memory is causing the Intel system to suffer a bit here.
  39. elbert said:
    Hold on if I can get 2 2.6GHz FX on the 4X4 at $500 with 8 cores that should beat any Intel.


    I just don't see the need for 8 cores from either company. Let software catch up with 4 cores. Anyone who needs eight cores probably isn't in the consumer arena. Business get server level hardware, not consumer wannabe stuff.
  40. TechnologyCoordinator said:
    I just don't see the need for 8 cores from either company. Let software catch up with 4 cores. Anyone who needs eight cores probably isn't in the consumer arena. Business get server level hardware, not consumer wannabe stuff.

    I would agree but at that price ill get 1 and upgrade later to 2. Software is already using 4 cores and I like running more than 1 program at a time. That being said if you get 4 GPU's the drivers may get a big boost from 4 free cores.

    I would guess playing crysis and its server for multiplayer at the same time would use more than 4 cores. My video editing and photoshop can always use the extra cores.
  41. OUCH!!!!!
  42. I'm not going to quote anyone on this thread, I've read through most of the pages. There are some good points, and quite a few bad points, also a lot of Fud.

    I work in retail for the time being, I work at Wally world after all, lets just say black friday sucked... I kinda get a chuckle when I read on forums here and other places how AMD's processors are the suck or the phenom is a huge failure. They aren't really, they did manage to close the performance gap by a quite a bit. Which when it comes down to it, is an improvement over their old k8 architecture. It's definitely not a c2d or penryn killer though, like us fanbois hoped it would be ;). I also agree that AMD is screwing the pooch right now, with all its delaying and such, their being in the red probably doesn't help.

    But here's what it comes down to. AMD's real biggest issue with making money, is lack of mainstream advertising. They haven't gone out of their way to get their name into the average household. Where as Intel has spent money to advertise almost every one of their processor lines since back in the Pentium Intel Inside days. The only places you see Ads for AMD are in gaming or computer magazines, or online rarely. Average Joe consumer doesn't usually read or buy computer tech mags or gaming mags, and gets most of their info by word of mouth or TV. Then they walk into Walmart, Best Buy, Circuit City, or any other computer retailer and say I want the one I heard about on TV. Or most of the time they just tell you I want a computer I can do these things with. Most real world, mainstream consumers don't give 2 **** about the technology, or whether this processor here outperforms this other one in a benchmark they've never seen or heard of. But after that, ultimately price is what dictates whether or not they'll buy a computer. Working at Walmart, I can tell you that, most people end up being a low end computer around 4 or 500 hundred dollars. And you know what kind of processor these usually have? AMD Sempron 3800+ or Intel Celerons. But, thats in an area like the one where I work. You get into the higher technology area's like Dallas, New York, Detroit, or LA for example, and you'll see people start to buy More Athlon X2's or Pentium Dual cores, and even possibly the more mainstream C2d's. People on these forums need to realize that us fanboy's and computer geeks/Enthusiasts that are well informed actually account for a fairly small percentage of processor sales. Especially when it comes to low end or mainstream parts. Though, we're the main supporters of the enthusiast level parts.

    Back to the real argument here, working retail I can tell you it's common practice for any retailer, online or Brick and Mortar, to charge a fair site more than the MSRP of a product for the first week or two after it comes out. Some places do so for far longer than others. Right now, NewEgg is charging $279.99 for the Core2 quad q6600, which is right about where Intel has it's current MSRP at. TigerDirect.ca is charging $353 for the retail part. These are prices I just grabbed while posting. NewEgg is currently charging $259.99 for the Phenom 9500, but I expect that to drop closer to what it should be within a couple weeks, as right now it's too close to the Q6600 without performing as good as it needs to. And to add a further Note, the Core2Quad q6700 is still at $539.99 on NewEgg.com.

    I see a lot of people going, but you have to compare the 9500 to the q6600 since they're the low end parts. To that I say, no you don't They 9500 is a 2.2Ghz proc where as the q6600 is a 2.4Ghz proc. You compare the 9700 to the Q6600 to get proper clock for clock numbers. Also, the q6600 is not Intel's low end quad, it's their mainstream quad for the time being. Just as the 9500, 9600, and 9700 are more or less AMD's current mainstream quad core parts. You have to compare the Phenom FX to the Extreme procs for a proper comparison, on the enthusiast level. I honest to god wish that Tomshardware and others that use similar charts would remove the enthusiast level procs from the main charts and put them on a chart specifically for enthusiast platforms. They're enthusiast for a reason, we know they peform better, and for the extra high price I'd damn well expect them to be able to outperform anything that cost less, thats a given. If you do that you see that AMD's even current generation of procs aren't as bad off as you might be lead to believe. They don't hold the performance crown anymore, that I'll give ya. But, I've watched that flip flop back and forth for a looong time.

    We all know what is causing the higher power usage on the Phenom, and that would be current leakage. I doubt they'll be able to pull past 2.5 or 2.6 with any head room on the current Phenom build regardless of stepping. Intel was correct on the native quad on 65nm process thing. And there is no way in hell it will make it to 45nm, without huge losses in die output. The only way they're going to be able to fix the phenom is to A.) Give up Silicon on insulater technology, and implement their HiK Germanium gate, and then use that to implement the die shrink to 45nm. At the very least they'll need to switch to what ever version of High K they plan on using soonish. Or they're gonna be in a lot more trouble than they are now.

    Lost my train of thought, and decided this post was getting to long, so I'll cut off here for the time being.
  43. Welcome to capitalism 101.
  44. To those that thought I added some value thanks a bunch. Positive feed back is rare. I’ll make this shorter.

    I’m a professional Software engineer by trade, 28 years on mainframe, the rest on Client PC stuff. Back when I got into PCs, say around early 1980s, the Apple II and Commodore 64 were the standard 6502 based home PCs. My watch is more powerful. My game back then (and now) was Flight Simulator (before MS bought into it). I’ve had every version of FS since except FS X 2007. Any guesses why I haven’t got that version? The benchmarks I’ve seen for FS X 2007 makes Crysis’s benchmarks look pretty good by comparison. In fact it would be difficult to buy enough hardware to run the new version full out with all the options and capabilities set to max. I A.S.S.U.M.E that MS put Vista’s Aero engine inside or something worse. Either way, the current FS has a lot to be desired in terms of visual smoothness, etc. As a professional, my gut feeling is that the project got out of scope and was pushed out the door in order to help pay for its development cost. Not the first time I’ve seen that.

    The 6502 8 bit CPU ran at 2 Mhz and the screen was mapped at 320 x 200 with 8 bit color depth. Do the math on a QX9xxx and a couple of 8800 GTXs for pixel manipulations as compared to the original version of FS. Some times the software is the problem, not the hardware.

    A company named Matrox used to be top dog in video cards, particularly 2D image quality. They were one of the first to put their finger in the 3D market and established what is now the floor for 3D smoothness, 30 fps. If it won’t play at 30 FPS at a nominal res and color depth with a single mid line 3D cards, it is probably something to avoid. It is bad business to try to sell software that requires more hardware than most people bought in the last two-three years. These top games price themselves out of the mainstream market often times and by the time hardware catches up with the software no one plays or buys it any more. Its fine to have the extra’s require more hardware performance for those that want to spend money on that but some reasonable level of performance should exist down where ASP (average selling price) is. The more people that buy and enjoy the game the more successful it will be long term and everybody wins that way. Some of the top titles in the gaming arena may not be around or have follow ups because it takes a super computer to get adequate performance out of them.

    Make sense? Sometimes it would be better served to rage on the game company rather than the hardware guys. CFP (Crap for Performance) software exists. I know.

    Thom
  45. BaronMatrix said:
    I hate Intel for their FUD back in the dark days of sub 1GHz chips. I'll never let them or you live down how they SABOTAGED the Opteron launch and undercut the market by charging $183 for a chip that was as fast as some of the former high end P4s.
    Thats my opinion on the matter and it can be as fanboy as you like, that won't change the facts. Intel knew what would happen; that AMD would have to lower prices and lose money thereby causing issues with the new design.


    I couldn't help but chime in. Baron is dead on about Intel's constant chipset changes and shady dealings. The Dell scandal to name just one. The market will dictate pricing but it doesn't justify Intel's constant changing chipsets.

    Anonymous said:
    the only problem is for price you talk about the penryn when in reality these chip only match up to the old intel Quads. and also my 1year old nvida board will let me drop a penryn cpu in it. It's crazy how people cherry pick information. My 775 based mobo will run a penryn chip just like phenom will run on older AMD boards.



    Wow, Intel manages to keep a board alive for a WHOLE year! My system is a Shuttle 939 SN95G5. I'd say it is almost three years old now (roundabouts). My 3800+ Toledo with E6 stepping runs @ 2.6ghz UNDERVOLTED(1.25v)! The X2 only cost me 50 bucks as well. Three years and it is still fast as all get out.

    When I purchased this system no one had dual core CPU's. Not to forget the socket 478 (what Intel was pimping at the time) is still bone dry...

    Sure you can drop an Intel Quad into some of the older boards, but there are performance penalties. And don't forget it is the board (bios) manufactures that provide the bios updates to make this possible. I'm sure if Intel had a say in it it wouldn't be possible.

    I guess my point is when AMD announced the 939 socket they also said that it would support next generation dualcore CPU's. Where as Intel made the switch to socket 775 not because of any next generation CPU's (Prescott's ran the same with either socket)but to force upgrades and make mobo manufacture's eat RMA costs.
  46. I'm not professing to be as involved or as informed as you guys, but what's stopping AMD from taking their native quad core Phenom and and making an Intel Style octo-core processor?

    I think the trick at this point is to do what they are doing. Kick out a decent (not a new King of all) processor, get it running good and stable for a bargain bin price until they can get their tech to the point to where they can "stack" the cores and beat people to death with it.

    Seriously, the price alone is good enough reason to buy one. I'm upgrading soon and I love the prospect of getting a nice core for a non-ball breaking price.
  47. Wow this one has gone on for a while. All I can say is that Toms may not have used a AM2+ board with a 790xx chipset due to availability. Even to this day there are only 2 at newegg. But what Toms did was what everyday users would do. AMD boasts about being able to throw a Phenom into a AM2 board but what good is it if it doesn't perform better?

    Toms basically tested the Phenom as a normal user would. Not every AMD user is going to go out and buy a new AM2+ board for a Phenom that even with the 790xx chipset doesn't keep up with a Q6600.

    As for MrsBych or whatever your name is stop it. You are making people question it when you are wrong. There are P965(2+ year old chipset) that can and will support the Penryns with no problems. The3 series is for those who want certain features depending on the PC they build/have. I am pretty sure that a P35/X38 will be able to support a QX9770 it just wont be an official support.
  48. BigsmellyFart said:
    Intel's constant changing chipsets.


    AMD does have an advantage here. Their best socket was either Socket A or 939. AM2 didn't last that long. AMD does make people upgrade mobos a lot.

    However, the vast, vast, overwhelming number of computers made in this world will never see a new processor but will instead reach the dumpster first.
  49. OOOwatah said:
    I think the trick at this point is to do what they are doing. Kick out a decent (not a new King of all) processor, get it running good and stable for a bargain bin price until they can get their tech to the point to where they can "stack" the cores and beat people to death with it.


    How do you fund R&D by selling chips at a 'bargain bin price'? I think you can bet that AMD didn't make those chips with a 'bargain bin' R&D team; I'm sure they need to sell at a decent price to cover their costs, let alone pay for the next generation.
  50. jimmysmitty said:
    Wow this one has gone on for a while. All I can say is that Toms may not have used a AM2+ board with a 790xx chipset due to availability. Even to this day there are only 2 at newegg. But what Toms did was what everyday users would do. AMD boasts about being able to throw a Phenom into a AM2 board but what good is it if it doesn't perform better?

    Toms basically tested the Phenom as a normal user would. Not every AMD user is going to go out and buy a new AM2+ board for a Phenom that even with the 790xx chipset doesn't keep up with a Q6600.

    As for MrsBych or whatever your name is stop it. You are making people question it when you are wrong. There are P965(2+ year old chipset) that can and will support the Penryns with no problems. The3 series is for those who want certain features depending on the PC they build/have. I am pretty sure that a P35/X38 will be able to support a QX9770 it just wont be an official support.

    I would agree but AMD only promised drop in compatibility not same performance. They stated that high versions would see bottlenecks on the old AM2. Don't forget the 4 way GPU on the 790 could mean more gaming performance than anything you could get on Intel. 4 3870's would beat any SLI performance wise and not a CPU on the market could make up that difference.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Phenom Product