Whats the deal I just read the review from Toms about the 3 Phenom CPUs coming soon. Even with the 9700 I see no real world boost in performance from my Oced 6000+ at 3.2 Ghz. Gaming seems to run slower than mine and every day apps. So what is the big deal with these other than being native Quad core? Even with a overclocked 9700 at 3 Ghz I dont see it beating my cpu. Heck I may just change sides as much as I dislike Intel and would have to get a new board as well. They seem to be on the ball with their new quad 45 nm cpus. Right now I can play Crysis and Cod 4 at 1920 x 1200 all high settings but only avg 20 fps and I know its my Cpu holding me back somewhat. (I have a GTS 640 Oced,2 Gb DDR2 Mem). Thinking by next spring if Amd dont have a superior Cpu to mine in benchmarks I see no reason to stay with my tried and true brand any longer...Thoughts...

Thanks for the input for those interested in leaving a comment..

The big deal is the 45nm and it's ability to overclock. I love the green coolant but no way I can sleep with it on.

A case of slower quad core vs faster dual core. Only in heavily threaded applications will the Phenom be faster than an X2 6000+.

Unless you plan on running such software, stick with your X2 6000+ until the next stepping, which is supposed to come out late Q1 08. This is supposed to enable scaling to higher clockspeeds, which should finally enable Phenom to overtake X2.

The big deal is that clock speed does matter. It always has. During the P4/Netburst days when AMD was outperforming Intel with lower clockspeeds, it was due to Intels inferior design. Even though the design looked great on paper it its effieceincy was poor enogh that clock for clock, it couldnt touch AMD.

If you take a dual core and a quad core based on the same tech, that perfrom equal IPC, the higher clocked unit will out perform the slower unit, regardless of the cores available if the app its running is only optimized for single or dual thread. Its just that simple. Add a 3rd or 4rth thread, and that will change. The vast majority of software out there (regardless of the big eyed kiddies who believe Crysis/Supreme Comander are the only 2 apps on the planet) is still single threaded and will remain so for a long time to come. So a quad will see no advantage in single threaded apps over a dual core.

Remember, K10 is an updated K8 Uarch. That it cant beat higher clocked varients of K8 in single of dual threaded apps is not suprising, upsetting or even abnormal. Its actually annoyning since several here, myself included, have been telling people that all the kiddies running around crying "quad iz faster than everything...it rulz" are basically talking out their arses. Clockspeed does, and will continue to matter for quite some time, Until every single app uses more than 2 threads.

What you should be more concerned with is the clock for clock comparison between Intel and AMD. Based on the benches released today, it does not appear as if Phenom raises the old K8 IPC or Uarch effieciency enough to compete with Intel clock for clock. Except in a few synthetinc benchmarks. So, when the software indsutry replaces 'real' applications with synthetic applications, the current stepping of Phenom will see an advantage over Core2. Until then....well, it is what it is, so you have a choice to make...buy based on performance, value, or misplaced ideologies. Will you be a smart consumer, or a fanboy?

Is there a basic Instruction per Clock comparison between Core 2 and Phenom? Or does it depend on the application that are being used to bench mark the processor to determine IPC?

It varies with applications, but Core2 is generally 10 - 15% faster clock for clock.

I certainly see no point of jumping ship just yet. My AM2 6000+ has plenty of life left in it. If I want better fps I will get a new video card not a new cpu. I still game at 1280X1024 and what I have is more than enough power for the games I play. We shall see what happens in the next year.