Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom Black Edition announced for Q4 2007

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 27, 2007 8:56:55 PM

Source: http://ascii.jp/ (Japanese)



I read this news on several sites and it seems AMD is quite serious about this.

There are several implications though:
- If this Black Edition chip is still a B2 revision it makes no sense because it would be hardly overclockable.
- The price. At 2.3 Ghz it can't compete with Intels Q6600 unless its offered at a decent price. I believe it would be acceptable to price it equal to the Q6600.
- The naming scheme of the phenom series makes me suspicious. It may sound childish but what will AMD do if they really make a phenom 9900 with 2.6 Ghz? Does that mean they have no plans (or are unable to make) faster chips or is it just a marketing error?
- Given the companies history of delays and paper launches, how can they possibly pull this off?


Here's another site with a more detailed article about it (German):
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/am...

And a link to another forum with some more pictures regarding AMD recent revelations (English):
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=69055
November 27, 2007 9:03:58 PM


- If this Black Edition chip is still a B2 revision it makes no sense because it would be hardly overclockable.
Agreed, but it's better than nothing I guess.

- The price. At 2.3 Ghz it can't compete with Intels Q6600 unless its offered at a decent price. I believe it would be acceptable to price it equal to the Q6600.
It needs to be priced LOWER than the Q6600, by a considerable amount, especially if you take into account overclocking, which we should since it's a 'BE' edition processor. Of course, AMD would probably charge $300 for it.

- The naming scheme of the phenom series makes me suspicious. It may sound childish but what will AMD do if they really make a phenom 9900 with 2.6 Ghz? Does that mean they have no plans (or are unable to make) faster chips or is it just a marketing error?
Yeah, it's rather curious, they didn't leave a lot of room for clockspeed growth in the naming scheme eh. Oh well, IF they can get above 2.6GHz, I'm sure they'll work something out. Product numbers is the least of their worries at the moment. ;) 

- Given the companies history of delays and paper launches, how can they possibly pull this off?
It's just a Phenom 9300 with an unlocked multi, it's not that hard to unlock the multiplier at the factory. :kaola: 
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2007 9:09:10 PM

No offense to AMD but if it is still a B2 and doesn't have any fixes this would be a waste. Doesn't Black Edition mean it is clocked higher stock than a normal version? Also if they had to recall the launch of the 9700(clocked at 2.4GHz due to lackluster performance and too much power usage) how do they plan to release this?

I think AMDs roadmap is wrong. They want this but wont be able to till they fix the L3 cache error and get them to both perform equally as a Q6600 and use a little power. That is what AMD needs to get serious about. Not trying to release CPUs that wont be anygood.

This just makes me laugh. Intel has a set plan and has stuck to it so far where as AMD has had to take detour after detour. This is just another "paper release". Even Intel proved that their"paper tiger" QX9770 was real. Toms has one now.
Related resources
November 27, 2007 9:32:13 PM

Black edition probably means in this case with an unlocked CPU multiplier for better overclocking. To try and get some of the enthusiasts buying.
November 27, 2007 9:42:07 PM

jimmysmitty said:
No offense to AMD but if it is still a B2 and doesn't have any fixes this would be a waste. Doesn't Black Edition mean it is clocked higher stock than a normal version? Also if they had to recall the launch of the 9700(clocked at 2.4GHz due to lackluster performance and too much power usage) how do they plan to release this?

I think AMDs roadmap is wrong. They want this but wont be able to till they fix the L3 cache error and get them to both perform equally as a Q6600 and use a little power. That is what AMD needs to get serious about. Not trying to release CPUs that wont be anygood.

This just makes me laugh. Intel has a set plan and has stuck to it so far where as AMD has had to take detour after detour. This is just another "paper release". Even Intel proved that their"paper tiger" QX9770 was real. Toms has one now.


A couple things here. First off, this was a press release with a few slides showing some good numbers in comparing the AM2 6000+ to the Phenom 9500. But they're only slides, no actual chips and platforms for the reviewer to play with and try to verify what the AMD official was saying. Have we heard this story before, and how many times for the past year? Sorry, I lost count and lost interest. I mean, I waited and waited for Phenom to appear and justify my faith in AMD. Phenom didn't have to be a world beater, only be reasonably competitive. Of course, we pretty much know the truth of what happened.

Second involves Intel. Tom's accused Intel of just trying to sabatoge AMD with a fake announcement about a chip that didn't exist. So Intel responds by sending a chip with no strings attached and tells Tom's to have at it. If AMD responded like Intel did, then I wouldn't have quite the distrust of of AMD which I now harbor. Instead, AMD hides truth behind closed doors and NDA's. So who do I trust, AMD or Intel? I'm not saying that Intel is perfect. We have yet to see any X48 boards for sale at Newegg, but we do know they exist and should be here soon, along with a new chip to put into it. I like that, and I like Intel putting its product where its mouth is.

As for the Phenom Black Edition? Well, we have some slides and promises, just like we've had slides and promises for the past year. I've used AMD chips for the past decade, but enough is enough. Pardon my cynical self, but I'll believe it when I see it reviewed by multiple sites, verified to be good, and for sale at Newegg. And I won't believe it one second sooner.
November 27, 2007 9:48:20 PM

nice..... and now why is it that this forum has a lot... but i mean A LOT of ads
November 27, 2007 9:59:27 PM

boner said:
nice..... and now why is it that this forum has a lot... but i mean A LOT of ads


Capitalism.
November 27, 2007 10:01:05 PM

Unlocked multipliers FTW!!! For God's sake just make this standard on every CPU across the board. Can someone tell me what good locked multipliers do for CONSUMERS? Arguing for locked multipliers makes about as much sense as supporting DRM.
November 27, 2007 10:03:09 PM

I wish AMD had the black edition right now, it would give them some ground to fight on. They should make black editions of every processor and become the "Overclocker's Company".

Unfortunately the only enthusiast chip they currently have is the "TLB Errata Recall Edition"
November 27, 2007 10:16:37 PM

rodney_ws said:
Unlocked multipliers FTW!!! For God's sake just make this standard on every CPU across the board. Can someone tell me what good locked multipliers do for CONSUMERS? Arguing for locked multipliers makes about as much sense as supporting DRM.


Rodney, you just don't seem to understand things from the company's point of view. Often times the only differences between two or more CPUs is the multiplier. If the multiplier was unlocked, then there would be no reason to have so many CPUs to confuse the unknowing buyer. With a locked multiplier, the company can sell a low speed chip for a small profit, and then by using a higher locked multiplier sell that same chip to someone who wants more speed and charge him twice as much, thereby making lots of profit. See how good it is for the company to have lots of different chips with locked multipliers instead of only a few chips with unlocked multipliers?

Oh wait, you were asking what good locked multipliers did for consumers. Well, no good at all, unless they enjoy spending money when they don't need to.
November 27, 2007 10:20:24 PM

Yep, for consumers. I put it in upper-case so you wouldn't miss that important detail :)  No biggie.
November 27, 2007 10:21:47 PM

sailer said:
Rodney, you just don't seem to understand things from the company's point of view. Often times the only differences between two or more CPUs is the multiplier. If the multiplier was unlocked, then there would be no reason to have so many CPUs to confuse the unknowing buyer. With a locked multiplier, the company can sell a low speed chip for a small profit, and then by using a higher locked multiplier sell that same chip to someone who wants more speed and charge him twice as much, thereby making lots of profit. See how good it is for the company to have lots of different chips with locked multipliers instead of only a few chips with unlocked multipliers?

Oh wait, you were asking what good locked multipliers did for consumers. Well, no good at all, unless they enjoy spending money when they don't need to.

lol so true
November 27, 2007 10:34:53 PM

rodney_ws said:
Unlocked multipliers FTW!!! For God's sake just make this standard on every CPU across the board. Can someone tell me what good locked multipliers do for CONSUMERS? Arguing for locked multipliers makes about as much sense as supporting DRM.


In the days of unlocked CPUs, some dogdy retailers used to raise the multiplier and sell the CPU at higher pricepoints. Hence the locking of the multis.

Or so they say anyway... it was a long time ago.
November 27, 2007 10:50:07 PM

boner said:
nice..... and now why is it that this forum has a lot... but i mean A LOT of ads



Some psycho keeps attracting more consumers.
November 27, 2007 10:54:17 PM

I assume you don't want to name certain person, because its too embarrassing? :lol: 
November 27, 2007 11:06:35 PM

rodney_ws said:
Yep, for consumers. I put it in upper-case so you wouldn't miss that important detail :)  No biggie.


Don't worry, I got the upper-case "CONSUMERS" detail. :bounce:  I was just putting in a company point of view for the purpose of contrast. :whistle:  After all, where would the companies be without the consumer?
November 27, 2007 11:32:14 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I wish AMD had the black edition right now, it would give them some ground to fight on. They should make black editions of every processor and become the "Overclocker's Company".

Unfortunately the only enthusiast chip they currently have is the "TLB Errata Recall Edition"


That would be funny if it wasn't true...It's probably the saddest thing I have heard of in a long time; recalling you "flagship". I used to love AMD so much, but I don't really have trust in them anymore.
November 27, 2007 11:33:50 PM

sailer said:
Rodney, you just don't seem to understand things from the company's point of view. Often times the only differences between two or more CPUs is the multiplier. If the multiplier was unlocked, then there would be no reason to have so many CPUs to confuse the unknowing buyer. With a locked multiplier, the company can sell a low speed chip for a small profit, and then by using a higher locked multiplier sell that same chip to someone who wants more speed and charge him twice as much, thereby making lots of profit. See how good it is for the company to have lots of different chips with locked multipliers instead of only a few chips with unlocked multipliers?

Oh wait, you were asking what good locked multipliers did for consumers. Well, no good at all, unless they enjoy spending money when they don't need to.


Ummm....you would not be saying this if intel made an affordable unlocked multiplier. It is not a stupid idea at all; it's just that AMD's chips aren't the best for implementing it on.
November 28, 2007 12:06:46 AM

rodney_ws said:
Unlocked multipliers FTW!!! For God's sake just make this standard on every CPU across the board. Can someone tell me what good locked multipliers do for CONSUMERS? Arguing for locked multipliers makes about as much sense as supporting DRM.



Unlocked Multipliers....so simple even a caveman gets it.

(Sorry, just couldnt resist ;)  )
November 28, 2007 1:20:16 AM

First of all,I need to be able to read the language.That link sucks for the english speaking majority.Anyhow,if the phenom is due to be released Q4 for 2007,then I expect we'll see it very soon.I really hope so.AMD needs some goodluck for a change.

Dahak

M2N32-SLI DELUXE WE
X2 5600+ STOCK (2.8GHZ)
2X1GIG DDR2 800 IN DC MODE
TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
EVGA 7950 GX2 550/1350
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
ACER 22IN WS LCD 1680X1050
250GIG HD/320GIG HD
G5 GAMING MOUSE
LOGITECH Z-5500 5.1 SURROUND SYSTEM
500WATS CONTINUOUS,1000 PEAK
WIN XP MCE SP2
3DMARK 05 13,685
November 28, 2007 2:31:48 AM

It's marketing, folks. AMD is desperate. They'll do anything to sell a chip. Calling it a crazified "black edition" and throwing in some rad scorpion stickers is just their new low, that's all. For every gamer that knows the dirt on hardware, there's two more that just buy a name.

Of course, this isn't to say I'm anti-AMD. Quite the contrary, I'd love to see AMD succeed. However, they're draggin' their butts in the dirt these days, and I don't see improvement on the horizon.
November 28, 2007 2:55:05 AM

jjblanche said:
It's marketing, folks. AMD is desperate. They'll do anything to sell a chip. Calling it a crazified "black edition" and throwing in some rad scorpion stickers is just their new low, that's all. For every gamer that knows the dirt on hardware, there's two more that just buy a name.

Of course, this isn't to say I'm anti-AMD. Quite the contrary, I'd love to see AMD succeed. However, they're draggin' their butts in the dirt these days, and I don't see improvement on the horizon.



Hmmm does AMD even advertise at all? What percent of their budget goes to advertising............?

I have a few computer games that on start up have advertisements for Intell..............and Nvidia......I have never seen AMD mentioned.

Lord of the rings battle for middle earth......starts up and then a little advertisement says play it on intell with hyper-threading............so I really don't think fancy stickers or calling it a black edition is a guise to fool people.

I certainly won't buy a cpu just because it came with a free sticker...................
November 28, 2007 3:07:42 AM

Until AMD gets its act together with the new phenoms, i think our only real choice for decent priced quad cores is the q6600. A single product. Wow....
November 28, 2007 3:25:27 AM

Hmmm does AMD even advertise at all?

Yes. What do you think this black edition is? If they didn't advertise, they'd just slap a number on it. Advertisement comes in many guises, and not all of them subscribe to the video method of delivery. Call it public relations if you want, but the end goal is the same.

What percent of their budget goes to advertising............?

A good percentage. They paid someone to come up with the "black edition" schema.

...so I really don't think fancy stickers or calling it a black edition is a guise to fool people.

I certainly won't buy a cpu just because it came with a free sticker......


Maybe you wouldn't, but some people would. It's not about the sticker, per se, but about an image. The "black edition" is supposed to be bad, extreme, tough. It is supposed to be the antithesis to Intel's blandness. They're not trying to fool people, necessarily, but they are trying to distract from the obvious performance deficiencies of the chip.
November 28, 2007 4:00:09 AM

jjblanche said:

Maybe you wouldn't, but some people would. It's not about the sticker, per se, but about an image. The "black edition" is supposed to be bad, extreme, tough. It is supposed to be the antithesis to Intel's blandness. They're not trying to fool people, necessarily, but they are trying to distract from the obvious performance deficiencies of the chip.


I don't know.
Intel has been putting the Extreme Edition (or Extremely Expensive) CPUs in black boxes for years now.
November 28, 2007 4:31:48 AM

But does Intel have tarantula stickers?

AMD is trying to make the uninitiated think they're getting something extreme with a black edition.

The point is, AMD is really cultivating an image, much more so than Intel. And they need that image, because their CPUs pale in comparison to the competition. How are they going to sell their stuff without the aid of smoke and mirrors?

http://promotions.newegg.com/AMD/X2Black/index.html

Do you see anything like this nonsense from Intel? No...and want to know why? They don't need it.

I rest my case.
November 28, 2007 9:46:14 AM

jjblanche said:
But does Intel have tarantula stickers?

AMD is trying to make the uninitiated think they're getting something extreme with a black edition.

The point is, AMD is really cultivating an image, much more so than Intel. And they need that image, because their CPUs pale in comparison to the competition. How are they going to sell their stuff without the aid of smoke and mirrors?

http://promotions.newegg.com/AMD/X2Black/index.html

Do you see anything like this nonsense from Intel? No...and want to know why? They don't need it.

I rest my case.


http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=xtreme_...
November 28, 2007 10:53:05 AM

jimmysmitty said:
No offense to AMD but if it is still a B2 and doesn't have any fixes this would be a waste. Doesn't Black Edition mean it is clocked higher stock than a normal version? Also if they had to recall the launch of the 9700(clocked at 2.4GHz due to lackluster performance and too much power usage) how do they plan to release this?

I think AMDs roadmap is wrong. They want this but wont be able to till they fix the L3 cache error and get them to both perform equally as a Q6600 and use a little power. That is what AMD needs to get serious about. Not trying to release CPUs that wont be anygood.

This just makes me laugh. Intel has a set plan and has stuck to it so far where as AMD has had to take detour after detour. This is just another "paper release". Even Intel proved that their"paper tiger" QX9770 was real. Toms has one now.


The phenoms were recalled due to a hardware bug. Yeah it probably made sense to recall the 2.4ghz phenoms in a number of ways, but then again it is absolutely unexceptable to be selling a product that has a bug in it. Power hungry and hot, or um... not, nothing will kill reputation more in a single stroke as offering a defective chip for open sale.
November 28, 2007 12:04:56 PM

If AMD starts selling their processors with a bunch of spider stickers and spider tattoos then I'm all over it! Look I can over-clock this beast from 2.3 to 2.35!
November 28, 2007 2:11:25 PM

jjblanche said:
But does Intel have tarantula stickers?

AMD is trying to make the uninitiated think they're getting something extreme with a black edition.

The point is, AMD is really cultivating an image, much more so than Intel. And they need that image, because their CPUs pale in comparison to the competition. How are they going to sell their stuff without the aid of smoke and mirrors?

http://promotions.newegg.com/AMD/X2Black/index.html

Do you see anything like this nonsense from Intel? No...and want to know why? They don't need it.

I rest my case.


No tarantula stickers, but they do have the black Intel EE sticker.
And you are right, Intel doesn't need to do it, but I wouldn't mind if Intel threw in a few other cool stickers in the box. Hell, if I paid over $1k for the CPU, I'd like something cool to come with it. I was thinking about seeing if they would add a coupon for a better HSF in the retail box. :lol: 
November 28, 2007 4:40:27 PM

NMDante said:
Hell, if I paid over $1k for the CPU, I'd like something cool to come with it



I totally agree:


$1K CPU = Gimme a damn sticker!
November 28, 2007 5:18:57 PM

jjblanche said:
Hmmm does AMD even advertise at all?

Yes. What do you think this black edition is? If they didn't advertise, they'd just slap a number on it. Advertisement comes in many guises, and not all of them subscribe to the video method of delivery. Call it public relations if you want, but the end goal is the same.

What percent of their budget goes to advertising............?

A good percentage. They paid someone to come up with the "black edition" schema.

...so I really don't think fancy stickers or calling it a black edition is a guise to fool people.

I certainly won't buy a cpu just because it came with a free sticker......


Maybe you wouldn't, but some people would. It's not about the sticker, per se, but about an image. The "black edition" is supposed to be bad, extreme, tough. It is supposed to be the antithesis to Intel's blandness. They're not trying to fool people, necessarily, but they are trying to distract from the obvious performance deficiencies of the chip.


Ahhh I believe that the black edition cpu comes with an unlocked multiplier.......so in that case it is a special edition.

You ever buy a car? Well they have special edition cars that are standard or even upscale cars that are called special editions........hell some only come in specific colors but........................you get extras like a better stereo cd changer in the trunk etc............

So I don't think this is a guise.......now if they sell a chip and it is the exact same thing as a regular chip sure that is wrong.............but these offer some thing extra...........

Tell me the last time you saw an advertisement on TV for AMD? I see them in magazines and that is about it.

I can't play a computer game without seeing an advertisement for Intell or Nvidia.........





a c 99 à CPUs
November 28, 2007 5:35:02 PM

rodney_ws said:
Unlocked multipliers FTW!!! For God's sake just make this standard on every CPU across the board. Can someone tell me what good locked multipliers do for CONSUMERS? Arguing for locked multipliers makes about as much sense as supporting DRM.


Locked lower multipliers make NO sense whatsoever to anybody. However, lower multipliers are usually unlocked down to a certain point so this is not an issue. There is no risk in underclocking a chip by the multiplier as it will not exceed TDPs or run unstably on the standard Vcore settings.

Locked upper multipliers are generally only beneficial to the CPU maker as it allows them to artificially differentiate what in many cases is the same product. I suppose in a *few* cases the multiplier is actually locked for a reason- the CPU cannot run stably at a higher speed without exceeding TDPs. The locked multiplier discourages curious but ignorant people from trying to adjust it, getting a bad result, and then either whining to tech support (and costing the company money) or spreading rumors to their friends (resulting in lower sales for the CPU company.)

But for most everybody here that knows what they're doing, locked multipliers are a bug, not a feature. Just like DRM.
November 28, 2007 6:00:05 PM

rodney_ws said:
Unlocked multipliers FTW!!! For God's sake just make this standard on every CPU across the board. Can someone tell me what good locked multipliers do for CONSUMERS? Arguing for locked multipliers makes about as much sense as supporting DRM.


Locked Multipliers do alot for the Consumer.

I presume you are not a true communist who believes that we money should be done away with along with all personal possesions. Personally, I just am not into that, though some of you may be. As a consumer, I prefer the fact that I am permitted personal possesions.

The other thing some people may be forgetting a simple rule one of my professors taught me, "If it's good in theory but not in practice, its not good theory".

I presume Intel could only make a single Very Fast processor and charge everyone the same.
Most likely, Intel would charge much more for this than they would have for their slow processors.
Many big companies, businesses, and others are flush with cash and would pay it.
That means the average consumer would pay much higher prices.

However, Intel realizes that consumers have many different price points and performance needs.
What Intel does is try to match to price, performance, and demand to maximize their profits.

It is the fact that each company in the free market is working to maximize profits is what pushes our economy, increases our efficiency, and provides jobs for all of us.

If we were to remove the profit making targets of companies, we would live in a terrible economy with far fewer possessions of any.

I for one see the big picture and realize that if companies gave their products away for free they would be out of business and soon there would be no products and consumers with no money to consume with.
November 28, 2007 6:47:40 PM

zenmaster said:
Locked Multipliers do alot for the Consumer.

I presume Intel could only make a single Very Fast processor and charge everyone the same.
Most likely, Intel would charge much more for this than they would have for their slow processors.
Many big companies, businesses, and others are flush with cash and would pay it.
That means the average consumer would pay much higher prices.


This is too easy to let go by. Both Intel and AMD have on occasion taken a single processor and sold it at differing prices according to the multiplier that's locked in. Intel and AMD thus make lots more money on the same chip when its multiplier is higher. The example you use suggests that there would then only be one chip available, a "one size fits all" type of thing. But there would still be the ability to have a number of different chips with different prices from which people could choose.

Chips could have different cache size levels, different numbers of transistors, different built-in features, numbers of cores, etc. Thus a person needing only a basic chip could pick out a simple cheap chip, like the Celeron, for simple tasks, while someone needing a chip for complex business needs could pick out a different one, and a gamer could pick out another chip altogether. Even among these three styles of chips, there could be a number of varieties based on real mechanical differences, rather than than just a multiplier. A benefit to the company would be that it would spend less money programing the chips and less money in advertizing, while the consumer could benefit by having an easier, more clear cut choice among chips.

It probably should be added that the average person who goes to Best Buy or wherever wouldn't care about all this, but would be happy that there wasn't a couple dozen computers with different chips and different prices for reasons he doesn't understand. The average person doesn't care at all about locked or unlocked multipliers. He only wants a cheap computer that will hook up to the internet and do some word processing. Its probably only the enthusiast gamer who cares one way or the other.
November 28, 2007 9:31:40 PM

caamsa: You're missing the point entirely.
November 28, 2007 10:01:38 PM

jjblanche said:
caamsa: You're missing the point entirely.



No you are....................... :D 

The Black Edition has an unlocked multiplier how is that a guise........


November 28, 2007 10:36:38 PM

First of all, the question becomes why are chips coming out of the factory clocked differently by the manufacturer (Intel/AMD/etc.)? The answer is a process related question. Running the exact same process on the same tools in the same factory still results in chips coming out with a certain level of variance. Some will have slightly wider transistors, some will have slightly skinnier transistors. At the end of the line, those differences correlate to how the processors perform within the specifications of certain SKUs (like heat produced at a certain frequency level). This is typically why a company has fewer products at the higher speeds and part of why the products at higher speeds cost more - it is harder to have the processors with thinner transistors yield well. Likewise, if demand for slower chips is much higher than supply, the engineers can intentionally run the process so it makes fat transistors, thus yields are great, but average "healthy" speeds are lowered. This is what takes Intel/AMD time to take a design and turn it into a product. The process of figuring out how to make the design on the wafer is so vital and can drastically affect performance. Intel's current method is to introduce a new chip design one year, then introduce a new process the next year. I.e., the process design and the chip design are basically being given equal importance by Intel - it really is that important.

Now why are locked multipliers a good thing? I guess the philosophy is around OEMs (it's not straights parts as you can't really change what's printed on Intel's boxes). Intel has a numbering scheme that corresponds to the stock frequency of the chip when it leaves the factory. With an unlocked multiplier, Dell could easily just stop putting that specification on their systems. The system will just read "This is a computer with a 3.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo". Consumers won't know if that's a 2.4 overclocked to 3.0 or it was 3.0 when it left the factory. Now, for most consumers, that would fool them. However, I would assume that at least a few geeks out there would get one of these systems, open up the ol' system specs (or even just the BIOS) and notice what Dell was doing and mention it to a few news media outlets. So I'm not too convinced that the locking is necessary. Dell, et al, could still ship systems overclocked in other ways. So as I said, I'm not really convinced that the locked multipliers are preventing this manipulation. Maybe it's a leftover philosophy from a time where it was more difficult to change the frequency of the FSB, etc. *shrug*
November 28, 2007 10:56:49 PM

caamsa said:
What percent of their budget goes to advertising............?

Wait wait wait, AMD has a budget now?!?!
November 29, 2007 12:05:46 AM

caamsa said:
No you are....................... :D 

The Black Edition has an unlocked multiplier how is that a guise........


Because an unlocked multiplier isn't going to do much for you when the chip itself has very poor overclocking potential. In fact, an unlocked multiplier on a Phenom is redundant. Thus, they're making you think you're getting something special, when in actuality you're not.
November 29, 2007 12:10:58 AM

jjblanche said:
Because an unlocked multiplier isn't going to do much for you when the chip itself has very poor overclocking potential. In fact, an unlocked multiplier on a Phenom is redundant. Thus, they're making you think you're getting something special, when in actuality you're not.



JJ, it's not like AMD has any issues with processors at higher speeds having TLB issues. If AMD ever had such issues they would have to recall processors.... Oh wait... They did have to recall processors...

Well, if AMD was afraid of overclocking then they would have flown all the reviewers to Tahoe to benchmark instead of giving them hardware to test and they would tell them they're not allowed to overclock the processors...

OH WAIT! THEY DID DO THAT!

AMD tried to hide Phenom performance and the overclockability (or lack thereof) of the chips.


You do know that if Intel ever recalled a processor on the day it launched that caamsa and Baron Matrix would be on these forums having multiple e-orgasms.
November 29, 2007 12:18:12 AM

No they just said that you weren't allowed to change the core voltage, they did allow overclocking
November 29, 2007 12:23:47 AM

Mathos said:
No they just said that you weren't allowed to change the core voltage, they did allow overclocking


Oh. So I would assume all the people overclocking never change core voltage.

WAIT...

Upping the core voltage IS PART OF OVERCLOCKING. So if you can't up the core voltage you can't overclock.


What was AMD trying to hide by not giving hardware to reviewers and instead controlling the environment and placing restrictions and NDA's on the press?

I think we all know now, we've seen the benchmarks, and we've read about Phenoms being recalled even after they were on the trucks to the retailers for launch.


Hats off to AMD for doing the right thing and recalling the processors, but a big thumbs down for being a failure of a company that hasn't figured out how to launch a product for over a year and a half now.
November 29, 2007 1:07:49 AM

jjblanche said:
Because an unlocked multiplier isn't going to do much for you when the chip itself has very poor overclocking potential. In fact, an unlocked multiplier on a Phenom is redundant. Thus, they're making you think you're getting something special, when in actuality you're not.


Well given AMD's 65nm node, I would imagine their Barcelona yield to be very inconsistent. There are chips that could be easily overclocked to 3.0Ghz with only 1.3~1.4Ghz (AMD 3.0Ghz demo), while there are chips that can only do 2.3Ghz without BSOD.

The black edition will be the cherry-picked ones, so I'm guessing the availability for those will be pretty poor.
November 29, 2007 6:39:06 AM

Caamsa,

That is one hell of an article (IQ). I study psychology, and i can affirm that. I've tried to tell that to everyone, for about a 3 years, and nobody ever trusted me. Thanks for finding that article.
November 29, 2007 7:23:14 AM

torcida_kutina said:
Caamsa,

That is one hell of an article (IQ). I study psychology, and i can affirm that. I've tried to tell that to everyone, for about a 3 years, and nobody ever trusted me. Thanks for finding that article.


Not to spoil you and Caamsa's party, but the survey also included those Joe Sixpacks, who buys their computer from Dell and HP. So of course due to Intel's market share, and their ability to actually deliver in volume, more people use them.

In a overclocking community though, the survey does not apply.

P.S. Sharidouche once used this report to "back up" his claim that "Intel's engineers are also dumber than AMD's". :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Someone needs to recommend a good psychiatrist to him.
November 29, 2007 11:46:49 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Not to spoil you and Caamsa's party, but the survey also included those Joe Sixpacks, who buys their computer from Dell and HP. So of course due to Intel's market share, and their ability to actually deliver in volume, more people use them.

In a overclocking community though, the survey does not apply.

P.S. Sharidouche once used this report to "back up" his claim that "Intel's engineers are also dumber than AMD's". :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Someone needs to recommend a good psychiatrist to him.



But i sell computers in a computer store, and you don't want to see faces of consumers who buys intel based computers. They really look dumb.
he, he, just kidding
!