Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How will "Phenom" change the CPU Market?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

How will "Phenom" change the CPU Market?

Total: 144 votes (14 blank votes)

  • This is AMD's salvation - good times are here again!
  • 2 %
  • A strong step forward for AMD
  • 12 %
  • A small step forward for AMD, may not be enough
  • 25 %
  • Overall situation is basically unchanged
  • 10 %
  • A decent CPU, but AMD is still in trouble
  • 19 %
  • Disappointing CPU, AMD is in trouble,
  • 29 %
  • Disappointing CPU, AMD is still doomed
  • 6 %
November 19, 2007 11:10:07 PM

7 choices here folks.. comment if you like, but mostly, just vote!
November 19, 2007 11:22:23 PM

I voted for "A small step forward for AMD, may not be enough"

It may not be the fastest CPU, it's not even the cheapest, but it does finally bring consumers a CHOICE in terms of quad core. Sure, Intel is still the better choice IMO, but that won't stop many people buying Phenom. You have your existing AM2 users, your diehard AMD fanboys, and just plain Joes that have no idea about CPUs whatsover and will inevitably get a few buying Phenom just for the simple fact that it's on the market.
Related resources
November 20, 2007 5:29:30 AM

Not bad new CPUs but not worth the wait. Intel already has a bunch of chips that stomp the crap out of AMD's newest. Disappointing, I think AMD/ATI is going to be in trouble, which sucks cause somebody needs to keep nVidia and Intel honest and competitive. With all the talk about how the new AMD chips were going to be the first "true" 4 core CPUs I expected more. Must suck to get your butt kicked by an "un-true" chip.....
November 20, 2007 5:41:25 AM

hmmm i think AMD should have kept quiet when criticizing Intel's "quad core" which is essentially two dual cores on the same chip.
AMD was all hoohaa about their "native quad core design" and how all 4 cores can exchange data without leaving the die.. but seriously
its top of the range isn't beating the 6600.
November 20, 2007 4:03:36 PM

jamesro said:
hmmm i think AMD should have kept quiet when criticizing Intel's "quad core" which is essentially two dual cores on the same chip.
AMD was all hoohaa about their "native quad core design" and how all 4 cores can exchange data without leaving the die.. but seriously
its top of the range isn't beating the 6600.



Put four of em in a server vs. four Penryns and you'll see.
November 20, 2007 4:12:31 PM

Hold on now Baron, I'm one of your supporters, but Phenom is the desktop quad. You shouldn't have to stack 4 of them in a system to get comparable performance.
November 20, 2007 4:59:20 PM

I am still curious how they will do once they test them on the 790 chipset that supports the H3. Also, if vista is the last Windows OS to support 32 bit, then I would also like to see how it does with a 64 bit OS. I don't think things look good for the phenom, but I don't think we have a complete picture either.
a c 172 à CPUs
November 20, 2007 5:02:48 PM

This from the December issue of PC Pro - a British computer magazine:

From Greg White, AMD vice president of the desktop division: "This innovation is a direct result of the industry's first true, native quad-core design, coupled with AMD's manufacturing flexibility, to create multicore processors in two, three, or four core configurations on a single die of silicon."

And from Paul Ottelini, Intel CEO: "We see a distinct advantage in having all the cores on our die work."
November 20, 2007 5:09:24 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Put four of em in a server vs. four Penryns and you'll see.


You mean 4 Barcelona and 4 6-core native Penryn? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

I'm pretty sure Barcelona will be slaughtered.
November 20, 2007 5:14:59 PM

Not really. The Barcelona chips scale beyond belief. I would wager that 4 Penryn quads would have a hard time keeping up with 4 Barcys clock for clock. But, that's a different arguement. Phenom is a desktop chip. Noone can expect typical gamers to buy SMP boards just to get equal performance to Intel.
November 20, 2007 5:34:41 PM

Not....unless the price is sufficiently low.
November 20, 2007 5:35:01 PM

Well, when you have a 6 core "native" Penryn, things are going to be a little different :D ....
November 20, 2007 6:29:52 PM

I think it's big dissapointment, phenom is like this canadian chick i dated, she looked like tyra banks(b4 she became a pig), had a sinfully hot body, and danced like a superfreak, so i anticipated getting this poon for a month thinking it was gonna be the bomb, when i finally got it, not only was it lame, but it was the lamest pussy i ever had. I see phenom as that lame pussy that i waited for for nothing.
November 20, 2007 6:53:07 PM

The biggest issue with this CPU is that it's 6-12months late.

If it had come out before all of the C2D G0 steppings, it would have faired better in comparison.

However, now that the G0s out and only 2months until the Penryn ships, AMD has not really gained any ground.

Due to the larger Die Size, the Phenom will be even more expensive to produce which will make rock bottom pricing a little more difficult.

With Intel moving to the 45nm process, they could likely even hurt AMD even more in the price department.
November 20, 2007 7:30:59 PM

reconviperone1 said:
I think it's big dissapointment, phenom is like this canadian chick i dated, she looked like tyra banks(b4 she became a pig), had a sinfully hot body, and danced like a superfreak, so i anticipated getting this poon for a month thinking it was gonna be the bomb, when i finally got it, not only was it lame, but it was the lamest pussy i ever had. I see phenom as that lame pussy that i waited for for nothing.


That relation is uncanny and I feel much smarter knowing ;) 
November 20, 2007 7:51:03 PM

How will "Phenom" change the CPU Market? I think the answer is pretty darn clear. It won't change it because it's a paper launch. Where does one buy these? Usually, at least the big retailers would have them from pre-order if not already in stock at launch. Where are these chips?
November 20, 2007 7:57:15 PM

hairycat101 said:
How will "Phenom" change the CPU Market? I think the answer is pretty darn clear. It won't change it because it's a paper launch. Where does one buy these? Usually, at least the big retailers would have them from pre-order if not already in stock at launch. Where are these chips?


You can say the same for the QX9650 CPU, although about 6x more expensive. It's been released for some time, and availability is crap.

I think both AMD and Intel are just releasing so limited a quantity, to validate that it wasn't a vapor launch, so they can claim they did have it ready, and all it a limited launch.
November 20, 2007 8:05:54 PM

If Q6600 offers better TDP, performance (/ per clock, /per watt/ per dollar) and better OC capabilitys I'd say AMD is still in trouble
November 20, 2007 8:10:03 PM

The QX9650 isnt supposed to sell, its supposed to just be there.
Plus AMD is trailing its own roadmap by A LOT of months, so it can be expected that they got some inventory, but they dont.
November 20, 2007 8:15:40 PM

im guessing the 1 vote for:

"This is AMD's salvation - good times are here again!"

is Baron?
a b à CPUs
November 20, 2007 8:28:43 PM

SirCrono said:
If Q6600 offers better TDP, performance (/ per clock, /per watt/ per dollar) and better OC capabilitys I'd say AMD is still in trouble


I think that says it all. Pretty bad when my overclocked 4000+ beats the snot out of a Phenom. Really sucks not having any option for upgrading, unless I get the 6400+ which is far superior then the Phenom as well (unless you can get the Phenom up to 3ghz).
Maybe AMD will improve the cpus, but it's looking like if I upgrade, it's going to be a Intel cpu instead.
November 20, 2007 8:43:16 PM

the_vorlon said:
7 choices here folks.. comment if you like, but mostly, just vote!

I vote a strong step forward but not because of the Phenom. The Phenom is only a small step forward at best the real strong forward step was spider. Having 4 GPU's with a 9600 should over come a 2 GPU setup with Penryn in gaming. In gaming the GPU is king and AMD is hitting hard on Intels biggest weakness.

This isn't a done deal as AMD will have to get a lot of games working on 4X HD 3800's. No matter tho as it will push Intel and Nvidia to come out with competing mobos and GPU's. I think it will take Intel about 8 months to challenge spider in games mobo wise. Nvidia should come back fast as they only need a GPU refresh for their GPU's to work on spider.
a b à CPUs
November 20, 2007 8:48:13 PM

You guys are forgetting one IMPORTANT fact, which is that many server/office programs do not have multi threaded ability except things like Photoshop, etc.
November 20, 2007 9:05:07 PM

It may come in to it's own as time goes by, eg. more multi thread programs and such. (We hope) :??: 
November 20, 2007 9:13:16 PM

wow i am in the 26 vote group! i am in the 34% group! nice thread!


is this ileagle? above ---> oboy i am introuble again? i asked first!
November 20, 2007 9:32:58 PM

Shadow703793 said:
You guys are forgetting one IMPORTANT fact, which is that many server/office programs do not have multi threaded ability except things like Photoshop, etc.


Thats why virtualization came along.
November 20, 2007 9:33:07 PM

elbert said:
I vote a strong step forward but not because of the Phenom. The Phenom is only a small step forward at best the real strong forward step was spider. Having 4 GPU's with a 9600 should over come a 2 GPU setup with Penryn in gaming. In gaming the GPU is king and AMD is hitting hard on Intels biggest weakness.

This isn't a done deal as AMD will have to get a lot of games working on 4X HD 3800's. No matter tho as it will push Intel and Nvidia to come out with competing mobos and GPU's. I think it will take Intel about 8 months to challenge spider in games mobo wise. Nvidia should come back fast as they only need a GPU refresh for their GPU's to work on spider.


I don't see how you are coming to those conclusions.

Can you point out what performance gains come from using a 4 GPU vs. 2 or even single card? Then you have to consider power usage for those 4 GPUs, along with all the other components, which in turn will create more heat throughout the system. And how is AMD hitting Intel's weakness hard? If more people buy Intel systems, then ATI/AMD will be hurting themselves on sales.

Also, I think a multi-core GPU will be more a viable solution, than slapping 4 separate cards onto a board. Same performance, with a lower power/thermal envelope would be a much better solution.

So far, the Quad GPU setup is a niche thing, that I haven't heard much anticipation for, personally. I'm sure a few will get that setup, same as QFX, but again, it won't be a viable solution for most builders, imo.
November 20, 2007 9:52:30 PM

elbert said:
I vote a strong step forward but not because of the Phenom. The Phenom is only a small step forward at best the real strong forward step was spider. Having 4 GPU's with a 9600 should over come a 2 GPU setup with Penryn in gaming. In gaming the GPU is king and AMD is hitting hard on Intels biggest weakness.

This isn't a done deal as AMD will have to get a lot of games working on 4X HD 3800's. No matter tho as it will push Intel and Nvidia to come out with competing mobos and GPU's. I think it will take Intel about 8 months to challenge spider in games mobo wise. Nvidia should come back fast as they only need a GPU refresh for their GPU's to work on spider.


I would reserve judgement until I see actual benchmarks of scaling from CF-X, because I am yet to be convinced, with 512MB VRAM, that 3870 has what it takes to scale to high resolutions without hitting a VRAM wall.

Let's face it, the ONLY real reason for someone to choose CF-X over regular CF would be for high resolution gaming, at 1920x1200 or above. Otherwise you would just be CPU limited at the lower resolutions, especially with a Phenom 9600.

November 20, 2007 9:54:38 PM

mustardman24 said:
That relation is uncanny and I feel much smarter knowing ;) 
LOL, take the knowledge i feed you, butter it up and swallow it whole, knowlegde is food, and i am kroger.
November 20, 2007 10:01:57 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Put four of em in a server vs. four Penryns and you'll see.



My guess here is that they will probably be about similar in performance. The only reason Intel would lag behind a bit is going to be the Front-Side Bus being a bottleneck. The Hyper-Transport approach is a much better idea for multi-processor computing. However, that has nothing to do with Phenom or a Q6600, because Barcelona is for servers and a Q6600 is for desktops. Perhaps the 1600Mhz FSB might even help to alleviate Intel's bus speed issues. Only time will tell, however I will say Phenom will use less power in servers due to not having to use FB-DIMMs which use much more power then normal ECC DDR2.
November 20, 2007 10:24:37 PM

Actually, Intel has not has a BUS speed issue.
Repeated tests have shown that increasing the FSB has had little impact on real world tests.

For some server functions, VMWARE ESX in particular, AMDs HT does play a big role. However, it's never really been an issue for Intel on the desktop.

November 20, 2007 10:55:56 PM

for me it's decent step and we(my class) are going to benchmark the phenom and an intel processor that can be matched up with that phenom
November 20, 2007 11:02:03 PM

boner said:
for me it's decent step and we(my class) are going to benchmark the phenom and an intel processor that can be matched up with that phenom
Um, what?
November 20, 2007 11:45:56 PM

zenmaster said:
Actually, Intel has not has a BUS speed issue.
Repeated tests have shown that increasing the FSB has had little impact on real world tests.

For some server functions, VMWARE ESX in particular, AMDs HT does play a big role. However, it's never really been an issue for Intel on the desktop.


I was making the comment for quad-processor and up servers, the HT is an advantage in server related apps in that environment, but unlucky for AMD, FSB is more then enough bandwidth for a single and from what I've seen in dual-processor servers, the FSB is fine there also.
November 21, 2007 12:22:17 AM

This was in the Baltimore Examiner today.

And I quote:

"Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) fell more than 6.5 percent by the close of trading Tuesday, the largest drop seen among local stocks tracked by The Examiner"

Not good........
November 21, 2007 1:13:24 AM

BaronMatrix said:
Put four of em in a server vs. four Penryns and you'll see.
Sorry but even if you are correct your comment is not very relevant. The real world is where we live and it does not matter on little bit what a product might do in a different or unusual circumstance. Not too many of us are going to be running 4x4core CPUs, at least in the near term. I really am sorry that the chip you have had as as your avatar is not more impressive, truly. I wish AMD stomped the crap out of Intel so that Intel would be motivated be better/faster/cheaper, but unfortunately such is not the case.

I wonder what technical issues AMD is having so much trouble with? Anybody got insider info?
November 21, 2007 1:24:42 AM

Phenom will change the market by forcing Intel to create a new benchmark: LPM..Laughs Per Microsecend
a c 126 à CPUs
November 21, 2007 2:08:55 AM

BaronMatrix yes 4 quad core Barcys vs 4 dual core Penryns would be slaughter for the Penryns. It would be 16 cores vs 8. Now you put 4 Barcys vs 4 Yorkfeilds and you will be able to consider it.

Either way all the reviews I saw on Barcelona were pretty much the same. They were on par with Kentsfeild and kept up with Yorkfeild but didn't stomp it like Conroe did K8.

Now back to Phenom. The chip itself is very dissapointing. All of their boasting and hype build up for nothing.

Now they may get Phenom to work better with B3 but I think that Nehalem will stop that. Intel seems to have a warpath on the maps not just a plan. Of course I think they are holding back since they want AMD to be around for innovation.
November 21, 2007 2:26:46 AM

lol turpit. I agree.

Overall though, sorry to say I skipped almost all the posts. Too lazy to read. But want to get my 2 cents in.

Regarding phenom, nice to see that they accomplished their monolithic quad core claims. But personally, it was too much of a gamble that has really hurt AMD. I blame mostly Mr. Ruiz for not stopping this ideal. They seemed to focus on offering something intel doesn't have while ignoring other important factors...But I don't want to point the finger at anyone really. It was an ambitious goal but it seems they focused too much on the monolithic quad core aspect instead of a top notch architecture to take the crown. Having a monolithic quad core is nice and all. They can do a lot with their breakthrough and we've seen that with their overdrive utility. But it still doesn't make up for the lack of the architectures ability. After all..It performs slightly behind a matching clocked quad core from intel. I believe they should of focused on an architecture to drive the performance bar...not this "we have a real quad core" rubbish that's been stated over and over.

Once again, I do believe AMD to be the best in terms of innovation compared to intel. They really push the envelope when it comes to innovating. But they focused too much on that aspect and ignored the performance of their architecture. Having a monolithic quad core isn't going to give you a great performance if the architecture isn't raising the bar as well. Although with their fabs/staff/r&d funding, I wasn't expecting a miracle....but I was at least expecting them to focus more on the aspect that matters then this "native quad core" subject.

Overall it's a decent cpu...It's not great. But amd is in ENORMOUS trouble. From what?...Not penryn, that's for damn sure. But with Nehalem coming around at years end in 2008...Also, with the statement during the intel keynote that we will see a similiar performance jump like the netburst to core architecture shift, it really makes one think. Nehalem is really gonna push amd up against the edge. It took them way too long to get this architecture out. By the time nehalem comes out...A shrink of the barcelona architecture really isn't going to give much performance gains. Considering how late barcelona is, kinda hard to imagine how their next architecture will be coming along in terms of development/time frame. With Nehalem due at the end of 2008. Also, with the bold claims of a similar performance jump from netburst to core, I truly fear for AMD. They already have a inferior processor in performance. To think that a new architecture will be released from intel with such bold claims only spells disaster for AMD. Cause after all, who knows how far these delays of barcelona have pushed back their development of their next architecture. They can handle penryn....Phenom may not be a fantastic chip, but it has its own merits and a alternative cheaper solution. Once penryn yorkfield based processors come out though, expect the price of phenom to drop, with a 2.4 quad penryn priced at around 275...phenom will have to drop around the 220-250 range.

This is definitely not a good situation for AMD.

p.s. I didn't have time to re-read the post, so if some parts don't make sense, my bad. >_<
November 21, 2007 2:31:48 AM

AMD is still not able or unwilling to spend more money on development. It seems that no matter how much in funds they have to spend on development that there is no way to ever catch up with what Intel is able to spend on development. As soon as the 45nm processors come out from Intel AMD will be falling a little further behind.

I tend not to trust AMD. I tried two different XP processors and both of them wore out too quickly. That is my opinion.

November 21, 2007 12:02:21 PM

Jimmy.... Penryn is the processor series. There will be dual and quad core Penryns. Yorkfield is the desktop variety, and Harpertown is the server variety. The statement is 4 Barcy's vs 4 Yorkfield/Harpertown Quads in an SMP environment isn't a challenge. While the Intel chips may be faster in a single chip setup, the Barcelonas are going to scale much better in an SMP setup and take the lead substantially. Like I said, this is a different arguement completely from the OP's thread, but right now, AMD will own the SMP server market.

That may be their last bit of rope that they can hang onto some market share with.
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2007 1:22:33 PM

reconviperone1 said:
I think it's big dissapointment, phenom is like this canadian chick i dated, she looked like tyra banks(b4 she became a pig), had a sinfully hot body, and danced like a superfreak, so i anticipated getting this poon for a month thinking it was gonna be the bomb, when i finally got it, not only was it lame, but it was the lamest pussy i ever had. I see phenom as that lame pussy that i waited for for nothing.


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Good story :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

But much like your story, the reality usually does not live up to the hype. And, rather than taking a wait-and-see approach or re-evaluating how people assess what is important and accepting some responsibility for their choices, people tend more to blame the very thing they had hyped.

Allegory aside, doesn't matter how hot the chick is, it's all pink on the inside. As the song goes, "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty girl your wife, go from my point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you." Some of the best "lovin" I ever got was from the "ugly friend", perferably with slight self-esteem issues. WOOHOO!
November 21, 2007 2:28:20 PM

chunkymonster said:
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Good story :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

But much like your story, the reality usually does not live up to the hype. And, rather than taking a wait-and-see approach or re-evaluating how people assess what is important and accepting some responsibility for their choices, people tend more to blame the very thing they had hyped.

Allegory aside, doesn't matter how hot the chick is, it's all pink on the inside. As the song goes, "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty girl your wife, go from my point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you." Some of the best "lovin" I ever got was from the "ugly friend", perferably with slight self-esteem issues. WOOHOO!

LOL, that was worst than my alleged reality, pick out the low self esteem ones, very very bad.
November 21, 2007 2:48:32 PM

Chunky,

The difference here, unlike Brisbane and AM2, which the fanboys hyped, K10 was hyped by AMD itself. On this one, the fanboys just jumped on Henri Richards bandwagon. AMD didnt just need to deliver a competitive product here, they needed to deliver on the claims they made.

The chip isnt that great, but it isnt that bad. Looking at the current benches, it seems very similar to Intels fisrt quad...a quad core that provides no significant improvement clock for clock over dual or single core performance....and thats ok. Looking at it soley as AMDs first desktop quad, (L3 cache thrashing aside) it accomplishes what it needs to...puts 4 cores in one socket on a consumers rig. Looking at it as a competitive product...its not very competitive in new systems builds unless AMD lowers the prices...immediatly. It is cheap enough (if AMD can in fact supply enough of them) to probably keep existing AM2 sockets on the market...but at its current pricing, its not to put many new ones out there or be replacing 775s. The B3 revision????? The boy who cried wolf...to many people, both corporate and fanboy have been making excuses and 'but when' statements. AMD needed to deliver on thier claims...they didnt, now they further erroded their reputation and the customer trust they built. The "B3 will solve all problems" comes off as just so much more excuse making and rhetoric..:

'Yeah, Yeah, B3 will make it a super chip...just like AM2 was going to beat C2D by 5%, Then brisbane was going to rule the world, then 4x4 was going to be the ultimate enthusiast machine, then Barcelona was going to smoke C2D by 40%, Then Phenom was going to smoke C2D....now its B3...tell me another one'

This was the battle AMD needed to win outright, without smoke and mirrors or excuses.....

It does not bode well
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2007 3:30:07 PM

turpit said:
Chunky,

The difference here, unlike Brisbane and AM2, which the fanboys hyped, K10 was hyped by AMD itself. On this one, the fanboys just jumped on Henri Richards bandwagon. AMD didnt just need to deliver a competitive product here, they needed to deliver on the claims they made.

The chip isnt that great, but it isnt that bad. Looking at the current benches, it seems very similar to Intels fisrt quad...a quad core that provides no significant improvement clock for clock over dual or single core performance....and thats ok. Looking at it soley as AMDs first desktop quad, (L3 cache thrashing aside) it accomplishes what it needs to...puts 4 cores in one socket on a consumers rig. Looking at it as a competitive product...its not very competitive in new systems builds unless AMD lowers the prices...immediatly. It is cheap enough (if AMD can in fact supply enough of them) to probably keep existing AM2 sockets on the market...but at its current pricing, its not to put many new ones out there or be replacing 775s. The B3 revision????? The boy who cried wolf...to many people, both corporate and fanboy have been making excuses and 'but when' statements. AMD needed to deliver on thier claims...they didnt, now they further erroded their reputation and the customer trust they built. The "B3 will solve all problems" comes off as just so much more excuse making and rhetoric..:

'Yeah, Yeah, B3 will make it a super chip...just like AM2 was going to beat C2D by 5%, Then brisbane was going to rule the world, then 4x4 was going to be the ultimate enthusiast machine, then Barcelona was going to smoke C2D by 40%, Then Phenom was going to smoke C2D....now its B3...tell me another one'

This was the battle AMD needed to win outright, without smoke and mirrors or excuses.....

It does not bode well


Well put. As a consumer, I can forgive AMD's hype as I expect a company to be their own best cheerleader. But as a technology enthusiast, the delays have been very disappointing, especially with not releasing the 2.4GHz Phenom with the 2.2 and 2.3GHz parts. Fanboys are, well, fanboys...

B3 stepping or not, it seems to me that Phenom needs to clock over 3GHz to truly give C2D a run for its money and sadly there has been no indication of any Phenom over 2.8GHz.

Intel has been making their own chipsets all these years for a reason. So, with that said, I am interested in the "Spider" platform and agree with AMD in that matching a chipset, with a cpu, and some gpus is what makes a great computer. Let's see if the ATI merger pays off with creating a nice mid-range gaming machine.

AMD truly does need to deliver, but I think they can go as far as 2H08 before it really becomes "$hit of get off the pot" time.
November 21, 2007 4:34:47 PM

Chunky, I think both you and turpit make some good points. At the same time, while I would expect AMD to be cheerleading its own product, I don't accept the outright lying. I think Phenom shows some promise, having various bugs that need to be fixed, but the larger problem here is the early claims of a 40% improvement, rather than a reality that it would provide nearly equal performance, and that being with Intel chips that were out a year ago. Henri and Hector kept feeding the lie, knowing that Phenom wasn't performing as advertised, and that led to a great deal of the disappointment. So what does a loyal AMD user do, where does he turn? If he can't trust AMD to deliver what it promised, all that's left is Intel.

A second problem is the lack of product, the paper launch if you will. If I decided to go ahead and buy Phenom, no, I'm not that in need of a psychiatrist's couch, where would I get one? How many motherboard's are even available? The nice Spider platform not withstanding, if it can't be bought, it may as well not exist even as an idea. I don't think the lack of product is because the stores are selling out as fast as they can stock the shelves. Or maybe they are, but the shelf only got two items instead of two thousand.

Seeing the lack of performance from Phenom, which I had expected, I had a second thought. Buy a performance motherboard and ram and stick a 5000+ Black Edition in it, then wait for the B3 stepping or whatever fix is needed for Phenom to perform. But I've seen only a couple motherboards at Newegg, and they don't seem to be the Spider platform or high performance oriented. Of course, this may change quickly, but for the moment, I'm left out of luck. So, its back to considering Intel, or just keep plodding along on my old 939. Chunky, part of your last sentence couldn't be better, "AMD truly does need to deliver", and it needs to deliver now, or there might not be any future for it.
November 22, 2007 3:09:22 PM

SirCrono said:
If Q6600 offers better TDP, performance (/ per clock, /per watt/ per dollar) and better OC capabilitys I'd say AMD is still in trouble


The Q6600 is clesrly abetter deal at $280 or so.

I just hope Phenom is good enough so Intel still charges $280 and not 400 or 450....
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2007 7:19:56 PM



So why would I put 4 Phenoms in a server when i woudnt even buy one.........

Im sticking with Intel for the time being.......

AMD are starting to suck at the moment................. and wont have to much to suck any longer if they keep up the progress theyre on at the moment


Ok so the ATI 3800 or what ever is available - big deal....

Im sticking with my maturer 8800gtx which has my stamp of approval on it......

I am sick of hearing of desperate AMD supporters when clearly theyre in the losing race................




!