Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Newegg has the Phenom!!!! let it begin

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 22, 2007 2:04:08 AM

OK... yes you didn't expect newegg to get it?
November 22, 2007 2:07:13 AM

B4 i knew how much it sucked i would have been happy, but now my eyes are fixed on a q6600, only thing i love those new 790fx boards(especially the price) and the 3870 video card, maybe i will keep my 5600(whick hauls ass) and maybe take a wait and see for the pphenom.
Related resources
November 22, 2007 2:07:43 AM

B4 i knew how much it sucked i would have been happy, but now my eyes are fixed on a q6600, only thing i love those new 790fx boards(especially the price) and the 3870 video card, maybe i will keep my 5600(whick hauls ass) and maybe take a wait and see for the pphenom.
November 22, 2007 2:18:35 AM

O... M... G. Newegg is selling new computer components. These are crazy times we're living in.
November 22, 2007 11:33:46 AM

The intel fanboys are crying because they have no upgrade path with their dead-end LGA 775 boards. Nehalem will cost a bomb by the looks of things and you can bet inhell will inflate the price of compatible motherboards.

AMD has a clear upgrade path with its AM2/AM2+/AM3 architecture.

November 22, 2007 12:14:41 PM

Heh... Nehalem... Hmmm lets see, it has 8 cores with intergrated memory controller. Yep, I'd say it will need a different chipset. As far as the other Penryn support, its too soon to really say if it will work or not, not to mention it really isn't available to buy yet (Yorkfield/Wolfdale). Cause all I see is Kentsfield versions on NewEgg. And still leaves me the option to go to a quad.

Although its nice to finally see a Phenom chip at NewEgg.
November 22, 2007 12:25:00 PM

AMD chipset is probably the best thing about this launch, although I would not get a Phenom for gaming, too many cheaper better choices.
November 22, 2007 12:44:58 PM

function9 said:
O... M... G. Newegg is selling new computer components. These are crazy times we're living in.


That is exactly why I'm a member of a doomsday cult. THE END IS NEAR!!!
November 22, 2007 12:46:38 PM

So?
November 22, 2007 12:50:01 PM

bitrate said:
The intel fanboys are crying because they have no upgrade path with their dead-end LGA 775 boards. Nehalem will cost a bomb by the looks of things and you can bet inhell will inflate the price of compatible motherboards.

AMD has a clear upgrade path with its AM2/AM2+/AM3 architecture.


AMD Fanboys are mad because the best AMD quad core processor, which has been RECALLED, is still beat by Intel's worst quad core. AMD has a clear upgrade path so you can continue to upgrade to lackluster performance.

Nice try Fanboy. Why don't you go buy some AMD stock?
November 22, 2007 1:06:29 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
AMD Fanboys are mad because the best AMD quad core processor, which has been RECALLED, is still beat by Intel's worst quad core. AMD has a clear upgrade path so you can continue to upgrade to lackluster performance.

Nice try Fanboy. Why don't you go buy some AMD stock?



Dude, you should really step back and take a deep breath. Or two.

Phenom FTW.
November 22, 2007 1:33:50 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
259 USD for a processor that is 25-30% slower than a Q6600 that costs 265 USD?

Hell no.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



Correction its not 25-30% slower you exagerate things here.

Quoted from tom's review
AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors. The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks. On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor. Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money.

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

Price/performance still the same. Plus the advantage of better technology than Q6600 like SSE4a, advance powersaving feature by having independent core clock speeds when not needed and so many... You dont really use 4 cores in most cases anyway. So having a PC running on 24/7 basis makes it the best combo.

And do not pull down AMD if there is no AMD you will be using your Pentium 3 or 4 right now or the worst case Pentium 1. That would not be fun, so games will be like mario on 8-bit nintendo games.
a c 159 à CPUs
November 22, 2007 1:53:14 PM

I'd just like to try it for a short time for everyday tasks. I'll bet few people can tell the difference over a dual core or the q6600.
November 22, 2007 2:02:52 PM

pogsnet said:
Correction its not 25-30% slower you exagerate things here.

Quoted from tom's review
AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors. The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks. On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor. Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money.

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

Price/performance still the same. Plus the advantage of better technology than Q6600 like SSE4a, advance powersaving feature by having independent core clock speeds when not needed and so many... You dont really use 4 cores in most cases anyway. So having a PC running on 24/7 basis makes it the best combo.

And do not pull down AMD if there is no AMD you will be using your Pentium 3 or 4 right now or the worst case Pentium 1. That would not be fun, so games will be like mario on 8-bit nintendo games.


I dont believe that, you think other companies are gonna sit by and let intel make billions? A new company would arise or IBM would probably compete.
November 22, 2007 2:05:22 PM

pogsnet said:

Price/performance still the same. Plus the advantage of better technology than Q6600 like SSE4a, advance powersaving feature by having independent core clock speeds when not needed and so many... You dont really use 4 cores in most cases anyway. So having a PC running on 24/7 basis makes it the best combo.


*sigh* Classic example of why people shouldn't post on things they have absolutely NO IDEA about. Do you even know what SSE4a is? Clearly you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be sprouting your mouth about it's 'advantages' over SSE4.

Price/performance still the same? You gotta be kidding me. Quoting THGs conclusion as proof? When they claim a Q6600 costs $330 when you can get one for $270?

Besides, reviews show Phenom still has higher power consumption compared to a Q6600 (at IDLE *and* LOAD), let alone 45nm quads.

November 22, 2007 2:13:46 PM

pogsnet said:
Correction its not 25-30% slower you exagerate things here.

Quoted from tom's review
AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors. The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks. On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor. Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money.

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

Price/performance still the same. Plus the advantage of better technology than Q6600 like SSE4a, advance powersaving feature by having independent core clock speeds when not needed and so many... You dont really use 4 cores in most cases anyway. So having a PC running on 24/7 basis makes it the best combo.

And do not pull down AMD if there is no AMD you will be using your Pentium 3 or 4 right now or the worst case Pentium 1. That would not be fun, so games will be like mario on 8-bit nintendo games.


So your taking into consideration of that article:

"On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor."

Lets do the math on the current price of right now:

13.6%x$265(q6600)=$36.04
265-36.04=$228.96

The price on the 9500:

$259

I don't see the savings there. Obviously NewEgg didn't read that article.

If you really don't use all 4 cores, and if your concerned about power savings (running it 24/7), then why bother to buy one?

And why are you bringing up P3's, P4's, P1's. There not the same as C2D ffs.
November 22, 2007 2:21:54 PM

bitrate said:
The intel fanboys are crying because they have no upgrade path with their dead-end LGA 775 boards. Nehalem will cost a bomb by the looks of things and you can bet inhell will inflate the price of compatible motherboards.

AMD has a clear upgrade path with its AM2/AM2+/AM3 architecture.


Wow... are you slow?

AM3 is a new motherboard. Nehalem will be a new motherboard. I don't see the difference there. Both have clear upgrade paths.. new socket with a new motherboard.

By the looks of things it will cost a bomb? Would you mind directing me to where you got this information? Q9450s will be in the $300-400 range when they release. That's not bad. If anything AM2 is a dead motherboard the same way LGA775 is.
November 22, 2007 2:37:37 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Dude, you should really step back and take a deep breath. Or two.

Phenom FTW.



Dude, you really should stop being a little phenom phanboy. Phenom loses all benchmarks, it even loses some to K8. PHAILURE.


13% figure refers to the recalled processor, not the one that's on Newegg. AMD's top recalled processor is 13% SLOWER than Intel's low end quad core.
November 22, 2007 3:17:52 PM

reconviperone1 said:
B4 i knew how much it sucked i would have been happy, but now my eyes are fixed on a q6600, only thing i love those new 790fx boards(especially the price) and the 3870 video card, maybe i will keep my 5600(whick hauls ass) and maybe take a wait and see for the pphenom.



I see no reason to get a new cpu or video card at this point. I am still running windows XP so no DX10. I see a lot of people on here saying they are going to upgrade to a quad and that is great and all but if you still have a decent system why not wait at the least another six months.
November 22, 2007 3:18:14 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Phenom FTW.


I never knew you were dyslexic. You completely transposed that last part.


BaronMatrix said:
Phenom WTF.


There. Fixed it for ya.
November 22, 2007 3:37:41 PM

joefriday said:
I never knew you were dyslexic. You completely transposed that last part.




There. Fixed it for ya.



LAWL. So true. In Baron's mind Phenom is a sucess because with a few minor revisions it will become 800% faster. AMD fanboys are even saying that disabling the L3 will make it faster, after they touted the all powerful and innovative L3.

I predict AMD will be less than 10 USD per share next week.
November 22, 2007 3:52:36 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
LAWL. So true. In Baron's mind Phenom is a sucess because with a few minor revisions it will become 800% faster. AMD fanboys are even saying that disabling the L3 will make it faster, after they touted the all powerful and innovative L3.

I predict AMD will be less than 10 USD per share next week.



I just feel like I won't be a slave to Intel. Sure, maybe AMD would be the same way if the situation were reversed but it's not so

Phenom FTW.

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!

and other such nonsense.
November 22, 2007 3:55:30 PM

BaronMatrix said:
I just feel like I won't be a slave to Intel. Sure, maybe AMD would be the same way if the situation were reversed but it's not so

Phenom FTW.

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!

and other such nonsense.


How is picking an Intel proc because it performs better being a slave?

If anything you are just a slave to AMD and blinded by your own hypocrisy.

Edit: If the Phenoms were actually faster would you have cried when AMD charged a premium for them because of the performance? No, it would be about how great the processor was compared to Intel. However.. because Intel has the better performance they are price gouging!
November 22, 2007 3:56:33 PM

joefriday said:
I never knew you were dyslexic. You completely transposed that last part.




There. Fixed it for ya.


i thought baron ended it after c2d came out.. guess hes back now for more with phenom?
a c 127 à CPUs
November 22, 2007 3:58:37 PM

pogsnet you have the wrong info again just like last time. The top end 9700 Phenom is 13.6% slower than the lowest Q6600. The 9500 is in the 25-30% slower range.

bitrate I for one like to upgrade my mobo every 3 years or so so that I can take advantage of not only the CPUs true power but all the others as well. For instance you put a Phenom into a old AM2 mobo. Lets say SATA 3 comes out next year as well along with true quad PCIe and DDR3 gets cheaper. You will need a newer mobo for the SATA3, ddr3 and so on. So if Phenom ever gets faster and you want to use that speed you will have to get the newest mobo and so on. And AM3 will need new mobo as well as its a new socket.

As for the almighty L3, Intel had L3 before on one of their EE version CPUs. So it really isnt anything amazing and I am sure Intel would release another L3 cache if they wanted but they don't need it since it wouldn't add anything.

I can't wait to see the Q9450. I will probably grab one just for the hell of it.
November 22, 2007 3:59:04 PM

cnumartyr said:
Wow... are you slow?

AM3 is a new motherboard. Nehalem will be a new motherboard. I don't see the difference there. Both have clear upgrade paths.. new socket with a new motherboard.

By the looks of things it will cost a bomb? Would you mind directing me to where you got this information? Q9450s will be in the $300-400 range when they release. That's not bad. If anything AM2 is a dead motherboard the same way LGA775 is.


Wrong...you are absolutely wrong. The new AM3 cpus in 2008 WILL fit into any current AM2 or AM2+ board, and as long as the get a bios upgrade, they WILL support the cpu. So why don't you research before you speak, huh? Yes, AM3 will be a new chipset and new board; but it is only required to get the special features of the CPU to work, features like controlling each core's individual clock speed. HOWEVER, nehalem will NOT work in the old boards, plain and simple. Don't believe me? Google it; check the forums here, it would take you like 5 minutes to find all this information that shows what you said to be completely incorrect.
November 22, 2007 4:03:18 PM

AMD is getting to be really stupid; can someone tell me why they didn't just suck it up, admit defeat, and glue two cores on one die? All this, "intel doesn't really have true quad cores!!!" crap...Last time I checked, the q6600 (and the other intel quad) had four cores. 4 cores=true quad. Plain and simple. I think a quad based on the X2 cores would have been great. I think it would have given the q6600 a serious run for it's money.
November 22, 2007 4:10:08 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
AMD Fanboys are mad because the best AMD quad core processor, which has been RECALLED, is still beat by Intel's worst quad core. AMD has a clear upgrade path so you can continue to upgrade to lackluster performance.

Nice try Fanboy. Why don't you go buy some AMD stock?


Actually, I think both sets of fanboys need to get a grip. Intel often forces motherboard switches due to voltage and chipset issues and AMD's upgrade path doesn't offer the best performance. It's always better putting a new CPU into the best motherboard for it's features.

What I will say in AMD's defense is that Phenom is no Netburst. I have two AMD systems, an X2 3800+ Windsor 65 watt on a 690G ASUS board and an X2 4600+ Windsor 65 watt on a 6100 405 chipset MSI board and they both run rings around my P4 2.8 Northwood and P4 630 Prescott.

AMD will get the Phenom up to speed much more quickly than Intel got the message that Netburst was a dead end. We will probably see AMD competitive at the high end when they go 45nm and up their Phenom's clock speed. After all, the X3850 and X3870 are successes and all they have to do is apply the same level of improvement to the Phenoms.

What we all have to keep in mind is that AMD will probably be a mid to low end CPU company through 2008. Intel had all that money from market share of bad processor designs foisted upon the public for several years. Intel was very fortunate it was on top. If AMD had made the same mistake as Intel did with Netburst, then AMD would be history.

Give it time, the Phenom is not a total disaster and AMD is still viable at the mid range and low end. That's where I buy to build my PCs. I didn't regret the Northwood but I regretted building the Prescott, but I'd hoped the socket 775 would be suitable for a C2D when they arrived. Silly me for hoping that Intel would do the right thing in designing compatibility with existing boards.

Intel suits eventually got the message and killed Netburst. They have great processors now. They still need to do something for their customers on the chipset level. I don't see that happening any time soon. AMD at least allows people to upgrade their CPU with a bit of a performance hit. Some people need to do that on a budget.

During the Netburst years, Intel did not deserve to be the market leader from a technology standpoint, but the business of selling technology is not about the technology but the perception. That's why AMD will probably always be at an 18% to 25% share of the market and why Intel will always be rolling in cash from the Dell, HP and Lenovo buyers of the world.

Me, I'm holding off on quad core Phenom, but I want a hybrid Crossfire board when they arrive, and I'll get an X2 6400+ because I'll have the X3870 first. I can take a small hit in CPU performance to get the rest of the platform that I want for my budget gaming rig in time for future DX10 RPGs. Can't wait for Elder Scrolls 5 one of these years.
November 22, 2007 4:30:15 PM

monsterrocks said:
Wrong...you are absolutely wrong. The new AM3 cpus in 2008 WILL fit into any current AM2 or AM2+ board, and as long as the get a bios upgrade, they WILL support the cpu. So why don't you research before you speak, huh? Yes, AM3 will be a new chipset and new board; but it is only required to get the special features of the CPU to work, features like controlling each core's individual clock speed. HOWEVER, nehalem will NOT work in the old boards, plain and simple. Don't believe me? Google it; check the forums here, it would take you like 5 minutes to find all this information that shows what you said to be completely incorrect.



I stand corrected. A while ago the last time I read about AM3 it said new socket. I am currently misinformed then.

At the same time... Remember 939 -> AM2 Fiasco?

My point is really that Intel is releasing a completely new architecture. Netburst -> Core2 worked on LGA775 (Still have a P4 in an LGA775). Nehalem has it's own IMC, QPI, and a lot of other new features. It has to have a new motherboard to work with it. I'm glad though. We'll finally move away from this FSB.
November 22, 2007 4:33:31 PM

cnumartyr said:
How is picking an Intel proc because it performs better being a slave?

If anything you are just a slave to AMD and blinded by your own hypocrisy.

Edit: If the Phenoms were actually faster would you have cried when AMD charged a premium for them because of the performance? No, it would be about how great the processor was compared to Intel. However.. because Intel has the better performance they are price gouging!



No, I just hate Intel. I'm not a fan of large, abusive corporations. I wish it were faster so they could charge a slight premium and you could all talk about something else. I would still buy cheapest one. They aren't price gouging, their using their monopoly power to set prices. They always have.
November 22, 2007 5:21:26 PM

cnumartyr said:
I stand corrected. A while ago the last time I read about AM3 it said new socket. I am currently misinformed then.

At the same time... Remember 939 -> AM2 Fiasco?

My point is really that Intel is releasing a completely new architecture. Netburst -> Core2 worked on LGA775 (Still have a P4 in an LGA775). Nehalem has it's own IMC, QPI, and a lot of other new features. It has to have a new motherboard to work with it. I'm glad though. We'll finally move away from this FSB.


Aye, I do remember that...I am stuck with my 939 X2 4200+ for another year...it is rather sad.
November 22, 2007 5:46:46 PM

This post is awesome tc and the baron head to head! go at!

me, until any amd quad hits 3ghz+ i am not bitting then again i never did buy too many amd chips. in the next month we should see plenty of good head on head testing.
November 22, 2007 6:19:10 PM

BaronMatrix said:
No, I just hate Intel. I'm not a fan of large, abusive corporations. I wish it were faster so they could charge a slight premium and you could all talk about something else. I would still buy cheapest one. They aren't price gouging, their using their monopoly power to set prices. They always have.


Now you admit you hate Intel.

Plus, who's using monopoly crap to set prices? I don't remember Intel dropping the prices of their Quads when the 45nm were released. Did they? Hmm...nope.
When Core 2 Duo was released, who dropped their prices first? AMD or Intel? Yup...AMD. 2 weeks before launch.

Seems like they are in the business of making a profit. Geez, go figure. A business wanting to make profit. What a new concept, huh?

Take a trip back to 2004-2005, and tell me how much did AMD set their prices for their high end CPUs? I don't think Intel was setting prices for them back then. Were they?

Same old argument, with nothing to back it up with. It's old, and played out.
November 22, 2007 7:18:29 PM

If we would all remember AMD was kicking A when the Athlon 64 came out, and they were kicking A until the C2D came out. Now Intel is kicking A and AMD is being beat. And around and around we go, it's a cycle that will continue, AMD and Intel will continue to compete and people will make choices on what procs they will choose.
November 22, 2007 8:57:36 PM

Phenom.....hmmmm
Certainly is a phenomenon! A phenomenon (Greek: (please excuse, the forum does not support greek font), pl. phenomena ) is any occurrence that is observable.

Falling flat on one's face certainly qualifies. Intel should be raising prices does also. Sell AMD...buy Intel
November 22, 2007 9:04:09 PM

phailnom (fail nom) is more like it?

if it oc's above 3ghz i can use it - so who has one and it will run at 3.2ghz?
November 22, 2007 9:17:40 PM

Just wondering BM, given that you support smaller companies like AMD that are being oppressed by bigger companies like Intel, what if AMD started owning Intel to the point where the roles reverse? Would you still be supporting AMD or would you support Intel?
November 22, 2007 10:14:29 PM

cnumartyr said:
At the same time... Remember 939 -> AM2 Fiasco?


I wouldn't call that a fiasco. 939 is the best socket ever, period. AMD did such a good job with it. All 939 -> AM2 did was get from DDR to DDR2 (with a minor hit on performance!). I think AMD could have gotten away with sticking with 939 and DDR if they would have released K10 on time.
November 22, 2007 10:16:58 PM

Also, if baron truly supports "smaller companies" why doesnt he buy a whole bunch of via's?

zomg! amd AND intel are ganging up on poor via :( 
November 22, 2007 10:22:13 PM

BaronMatrix said:
They aren't price gouging, their using their monopoly power to set prices. They always have.



Oh shut up already. So you're saying you want Intel to lower their prices or raise them?



Scenario one: Intel raises prices and makes profits so high that you blush. Baron then bitches about Intel's profits and price gouging.

Scenario two: Intel lowers prices (and still makes a hefty profit) and AMD bankrupts immediately(4Q 2008). Baron bitches about monopolistic practices.

Scenario three: Prices stay the same. Baron bitches that Intel prices are both too low and too high.



The common theme? Baron bitches about Intel pricing no matter what.
November 22, 2007 10:31:55 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Oh shut up already. So you're saying you want Intel to lower their prices or raise them?



Scenario one: Intel raises prices and makes profits so high that you blush. Baron then bitches about Intel's profits and price gouging.

Scenario two: Intel lowers prices (and still makes a hefty profit) and AMD bankrupts immediately(4Q 2008). Baron bitches about monopolistic practices.

Scenario three: Prices stay the same. Baron bitches that Intel prices are both too low and too high.



The common theme? Baron bitches about Intel pricing no matter what.


Maybe Baron just plain bitches.... :lol: 
a c 159 à CPUs
November 22, 2007 10:37:52 PM

I use 939 single core cpus, and they still do all I need in a computer. I remember the cost of older systems. When I started at IBM, they got away with charging $2500 for a 286 system. Imagine how slow that is compared to the 939. A few years later, I also remember a co-worker spending $500 on his pentium 100 cpu with motherboard. I'm rooting for amd; they can sell off ati; continue selling slightly slower cpus to dell and perhaps make the most money on their server cpus. I don't care how they survive as long as they can return to making a profit before someone completely buys them out. IBM could do no better; they made alot of mistakes that eventually cost them their pc business.
November 22, 2007 11:20:28 PM

o1die said:
I use 939 single core cpus, and they still do all I need in a computer. I remember the cost of older systems. When I started at IBM, they got away with charging $2500 for a 286 system. Imagine how slow that is compared to the 939. A few years later, I also remember a co-worker spending $500 on his pentium 100 cpu with motherboard. I'm rooting for amd; they can sell off ati; continue selling slightly slower cpus to dell and perhaps make the most money on their server cpus. I don't care how they survive as long as they can return to making a profit before someone completely buys them out. IBM could do no better; they made alot of mistakes that eventually cost them their pc business.


ATi is actually making them profit right now, so in the short-run; selling would give them a large chunk of cash. However, unless they really got back into the CPU market firmly again, they would lose all the cash they got from selling ATi. In the long run, ATi gets them more cash, but over more time. So I think in the long run, their company will be more stable with ATi. Everyone says that AMD killed ATi, but looking ahead, it looks like ATi might start beating nVidia for a while; at least if they can get their 3870x2 out on time...
November 22, 2007 11:29:41 PM

OH YES!!!
November 22, 2007 11:31:31 PM

o1die said:
continue selling slightly slower cpus to dell


Dell will lose interest if they cannot deliver in volume.
November 22, 2007 11:37:40 PM

AMD came out with there native quad core,the batch thats out now are slower than Intels slowest quad.Its not there fastest chip on the market,but Intel fanboys are making a big deal about it.Intel said that they where not going native quad,even go as for as calling AMD's naive quad core,then they said they are going native Q at 32nm.Sounds like they're about to do that re-engineering thing again.What AMD did /doing is global.for a company that 5-6 times smaller than its competter with far less money,they sure do make big plays and with big plays comes big risks.I commend AMD for there efforts and dough if Intel could do what AMD is doing right now.AMD.s bugs are being ironed out nowand will be mature at the time Intel drop there naive quad core and new motherboards.
November 22, 2007 11:40:39 PM

ro3dog said:
AMD came out with there native quad core,the batch thats out now are slower than Intels slowest quad.Its not there fastest chip on the market,but Intel fanboys are making a big deal about it.Intel said that they where not going native quad,even go as for as calling AMD's naive quad core,then they said they are going native Q at 32nm.Sounds like they're about to do that re-engineering thing again.What AMD did /doing is global.for a company that 5-6 times smaller than its competter with far less money,they sure do make big plays and with big plays comes big risks.I commend AMD for there efforts and dough if Intel could do what AMD is doing right now.AMD.s bugs are being ironed out nowand will be mature at the time Intel drop there naive quad core and new motherboards.


Native will be done on 45nm for Intel. Intel said from the start that Native on 65nm would cause too many issues and not be worth it for them in the long run.

AMD execs have even said that going fully native was a bad move considering how long it took them to get it out and that a "glued" quad core would have been the better financial idea.

I commend AMD for their efforts... but they failed. Intel could probably do it if they wanted to but why? We've seen what a problem native on 65nm has caused for AMD. A processor over a year late? All I can say is.. Intel was dead on about native on 65nm.
November 22, 2007 11:50:03 PM

The big thing is their are no advantages to the native approach; as you can clearly see be K10 benchmarks.
!