Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom 9500+790FX+3870=better performance ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 19, 2007 5:40:08 PM

Hy! I want to buy a PC and i have a question : a Phenom 9500+a motherboard 790FX+Radeon 3870= better performance than an Intel Q6600+a motherboard X38+Radeon 3870 ? :bounce:  Wich platform is better for and ATI Radeon 3870 ?
Thanks
December 19, 2007 5:54:23 PM

I think there were some benchies with this exact thing in mind. I think the intel system had a slight fps advantage but not much...

Does anyone have a link to this ?

But my guess is that it wouldn't make much difference as far as games go but the Intel will put the smack down in apps.

a c 126 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 19, 2007 5:59:16 PM

Well not only in apps but when OC'ing the Q6600 it will rock the socks even more in games. But really depending on what resolution you are running it more than likely will be up to the GU for the FPS. But the one thing the CPU will do is loading and physicis in games such as Crysis.

So a Q6600 running at 3.2GHz will run the physics calculations faster than a Phenom 9500 running at 2.2GHz.
Related resources
December 19, 2007 6:04:15 PM

I believe every Major Computer website has Phenom vs Q6600 reviews.
I would suggest starting there.
a c 83 à CPUs
a c 92 V Motherboard
December 19, 2007 6:11:13 PM

"Spider" is marketing. I have yet to see a single benchmark that shows spider out performing their equals. Its pretty much just a way for you to give AMD as much money as you can.
December 20, 2007 4:12:44 AM

I mean that on an X38 , Q6850 and 3870 obtain max 70 fps in Oblivion . If i have a 790FX , X4 9600 or 9500 and 3870 i could obtain 80 fps ? I saw this here http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_15337,00.html down , click "Watch now" . I dont want to OC my CPU and the computer will be for games .
December 20, 2007 4:24:17 AM

i think it will be better since they are all built for each other so no conflicts will occur.
December 20, 2007 4:28:01 AM

I would say its marketing hype. AMD once claimed Q6600 is slower than Phenom 9500, which turned out that Q6600 is actually faster than Phenom 9900. I would recommend you reading 3rd party benchmarks, rather than from AMD.

If you're using your computer mostly for gaming, then dual core should suffice. A 5000+ BE, 790FX, and 3870s will be a decent computer.

If you desire for quad core performance (you won't see any significant improvement in games by going quad), then Intel would probably be the better way to go.
a c 83 à CPUs
a c 92 V Motherboard
December 20, 2007 5:59:04 AM

Quote:
I mean that on an X38 , Q6850 and 3870 obtain max 70 fps in Oblivion . If i have a 790FX , X4 9600 or 9500 and 3870 i could obtain 80 fps ? I saw this here http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_15337,00.html down , click "Watch now" . I dont want to OC my CPU and the computer will be for games .


Again, spider is nothing more then marketing hype AFAIK. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. AMD isn't holding the performance of all these parts unless they are put in a spider platform. AMD is having such problems right now that they can only dream of having anything faster then Intel right now. (I'm not saying their stuff is junk, I'm just saying that they don't have squat on the high end.)

If the setup you listed for Intel gets 70FPS, then the AMD one would get less. The 9600 < Q6850. As was mentioned, the 9600 < Q6600. (if we are measuring pure performance.) It doesn't matter if you are using a 790 or a 680a, the 9600 simply isn't as fast as the 6850.

@teh_boxzor, what conflicts have you heard about with a 680a? I haven't heard about any major problems with the K8/K10 CPUs, unless you count the L3 bug as one. From what I know however, that even happens if you are using the 790 boards.
December 20, 2007 7:12:45 AM

The Spider platform consisting of all AMD components doesn't have to be faster. The idea is compatibility and stability and then maybe speed. At least these are the reasons why AMD picked it up - how they advertise it is another story.
a c 83 à CPUs
a c 92 V Motherboard
December 20, 2007 7:18:55 AM

Again, can anyone name any stability problems with using existing chipsets? Can anyone point out a stability problem that exists between a CPU and a video card? Maybe in the future it will allow something different/better, but at the moment, it doesn't allow anything new.
December 20, 2007 7:33:23 AM

4745454b said:
Again, can anyone name any stability problems with using existing chipsets?

You should say "current" instead of "existing, otherwise i just don't know where to start my list...
Most problems arise between chipset and GPU, but CPU chipset compatibility can be messed up too. I remember that 945 intel chip based board made by asus that had this annoying bug of corrupting my HD data thanks to an error in the bios/driver. Oh, and there was that really pretty IronGate chipset by AMD back in the days - i still get a warm feeling just thinking about it.
a c 83 à CPUs
a c 92 V Motherboard
December 20, 2007 8:15:12 AM

Yes, yes, ok, current stability problems with existing chipsets. I laughed a bit when you mentioned your 945 problem, as the harddrive isn't a part of spider. (hear that AMD, you need to go buy Western Digital if you want mega performance from your products.) I have heard of some chipset/video card problems, and that wierd issue with the 820 and the 865(?), whichever one couldn't handle the 820 multiplier correctly.

For the last several years, things have been pretty quiet on the compatibility front. For the most part, you plug it in and go. Most issues can be handled by a bios update. At this point I wouldn't trust AMD for a "trouble" free system.
December 20, 2007 11:23:44 AM

teh_boxzor said:
i think it will be better since they are all built for each other so no conflicts will occur.

That is hilarious!
December 20, 2007 1:19:56 PM

Well seeing as you can buy a quad core Phenom for as little as $199, I would go with it and the spider platform. In gaming, your performance is mostly depending on your GPUs, CPUs don't really affect it much. In real world applications, if you're using multi-threaded software, you won't see a noticeable difference between them both (Unless you're counting the seconds of difference between them).
December 20, 2007 1:54:27 PM

4745454b said:
I have heard of some chipset/video card problems, and that wierd issue with the 820 and the 865(?), whichever one couldn't handle the 820 multiplier correctly.


Just look at the Nforce 570/590 boards that could handle the Pentium D 820 only as a single core, yet the 805, 830 and even 840 worked in most cases. I hope AMD takes the platform serious this time. There was a time when they made their own chipsets. It was the dark ages and their chipsets all carried the plague...
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 20, 2007 1:54:50 PM

The Q6600 is a bit faster than the Phenom, but that doesn't matter because the hard disk and the GPU will limit your fps before either of those CPUs comes close to 100% usage.

The Q6600 overclocks better than the Phenom, but you don't care about that.

The X38 will allow you to add a second HD 3870. The 790fx will allow that too, plus a third and fourth card later. Chances are, you'll want a second card some day, but not more, so again it's the same.

I would say just pick whatever is cheaper. The differences are not likely to matter to you, so why pay for them.
a c 99 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 20, 2007 2:20:54 PM

robert_romania said:
Hy! I want to buy a PC and i have a question : a Phenom 9500+a motherboard 790FX+Radeon 3870= better performance than an Intel Q6600+a motherboard X38+Radeon 3870 ? :bounce:  Wich platform is better for and ATI Radeon 3870 ?
Thanks


Here's a brief summary:

Phenom 9500 + 790FX motherboard + one Radeon 3870 is slightly slower than a Q6600 + X38 motherboard + one Radeon 3870. The Phenom setup is also less expensive than the Q6600 setup to compensate.
December 20, 2007 2:25:36 PM

teh_boxzor said:
i think it will be better since they are all built for each other so no conflicts will occur.

Common misconception - only thing that is easier is updating drivers from the same website.
December 23, 2007 1:57:36 AM

don't hate. =[
December 23, 2007 2:39:46 AM

Refering to what Aevm and MU engineer wrote, it would probably be best to pick what setup is cheapest, and at this time, it would be the Phenom, 790FX and the 3870. One other thing to keep in mind is that if you can get a Phenom Black Edition cheap enough, that would be better than a plain Phenom. You would then have the ability to raise the multipier for a slight overclock without messing with the FSB. Doing that seems to have a bit better stability. Then again, for general gaming, it wouldn't really matter.

Just some thoughts.
December 23, 2007 3:37:51 AM

Slobogob said:
The Spider platform consisting of all AMD components doesn't have to be faster. The idea is compatibility and stability and then maybe speed. At least these are the reasons why AMD picked it up - how they advertise it is another story.


I think the major point i heard was upgrade path would be more consumer friendly. I don't think i see any posts on this forum saying,

"Can I buy XXX video card if i have XXX CPU and XXX mobo?"

Compatability doesn't seem to be any kind of a selling point at all.

Stability? Dunno about that... look at AMD's work on just the phenom... not exactly known for it's solid ruggedness... the 3870 is an excellent card for any system but I'm not exactly buying stability as a selling point for any system with a Phenom as the brain.

I mean, if you're being sold sub-quality CPU... at least you are comforted knowing that there's a chance down the road AMD will come out with something truly great that you can just pop right in and laugh in all the Intel fanboy's face right?

This isn't an attempt at a flame at all, just voicing my thoughts on the subject.
January 1, 2008 3:18:22 AM

I think the only reason why the q6600 is faster than the Phenom is bcecause the Phenom doesn't have any ability to overclock.

Also some boards are designed better for crossfire than others. I see nothing wrong with what AMD is doing. The 790fx chipsets are very new and may have bugs.

The attitude many Nvidia fans and Intel fans have, makes me want to stay with AMD/ATI. The 3870 card isn't near as slow as the Nvidia fans claim it is... in fact it beats the 8800gt in some games.
January 1, 2008 3:28:48 AM

There's a bit more to the comparison of the Q6600 and Phenom. The Q6600 has been upgraded during the past year, so its better than when AMD made its first estimates a year ago.

As to the motherboards, they are using a SB600 south bridge which is not working very well. So that adds its own share of troubles on top of whatever Phenom itself has. When the SB700 south bridge comes into use, things should get better, as well as the B3 stepping Phenom when its released. I'm an AMD fan myself, but I'm disappointed with the Phenom and am going to sitck with my old cpu and chipset for the moment. I do plan on a 3780 video card, though, to replace the Nvidia 7800 I'm presently using.
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2008 3:58:30 AM

tc17 well you think wrong
January 1, 2008 4:21:07 AM

Tc17 said:
I think the only reason why the q6600 is faster than the Phenom is bcecause the Phenom doesn't have any ability to overclock.


The Q6600 is faster at stock speeds also. It just happens to overclock much better as well.
January 1, 2008 4:41:36 AM

Tc17 said:
The attitude many Nvidia fans and Intel fans have, makes me want to stay with AMD/ATI.


Attitude? So... when AMD lies about certain things to cover their butt, causes us to have an attitude to buy Intel is wrong?

I go with what my money can buy to get the best... I don't really care too much for Intel or AMD, although I want both to continue to reach higher performance and lower cost.
January 1, 2008 4:52:59 AM

Tc17 said:
I think the only reason why the q6600 is faster than the Phenom is bcecause the Phenom doesn't have any ability to overclock.

Also some boards are designed better for crossfire than others. I see nothing wrong with what AMD is doing. The 790fx chipsets are very new and may have bugs.

The attitude many Nvidia fans and Intel fans have, makes me want to stay with AMD/ATI. The 3870 card isn't near as slow as the Nvidia fans claim it is... in fact it beats the 8800gt in some games.



I'd like to see where it beats the 8800 GT.. unless you mean the SLI vs. Crossfire X comparison.

I go for price/performance, in my range the 8800 GTS G92 + Q6600 takes the cake right now. I don't buy into multiple card setups at the resolutions I use... no reason to. I'd rather pay more for a card and get better performance.

Edit: Yea... Performance is wonderful til you turn on AA and AF. The sad thing? In situations where it would matter (low frame rate games) the GT comes out on top or is at the same level.

Single Card @ Legion
Reduction in Performance from CF?
January 1, 2008 6:17:55 AM

badgtx1969 said:
Common misconception - only thing that is easier is updating drivers from the same website.


ATI's drivers have terrible compatibility.
January 1, 2008 6:51:06 PM

You do NOT buy a quad core for gaming. Only 1 title supports quad cores and NO major titles releasing or in development this year are going to support quads. Why buy a CPU that needs to be OCed to the max to game well with an insane amount of great 2 core setups available from AMD and Intel.

The Spider systems are fine. There is nothing wrong with them. The MB makers worked VERY closely with AMD when making these boards. Asus even pulled theres just to make sure untill recently. The Spider name does not mean "faster". It means it has been lab tested by all involved on all sides and has the highest amount of compatibility and stability. These companies are working very hard with AMD to insure these parts do not fall into the sea of conflict that riddles this industry. The compatibility factor not only applies to hardware now but ALL future hardware for the next few years from AMD should mount on these systems. Even the new socket will be back compatable out of the box or an AM2+ version made. The biggest draw is the 3-4 xfire configs, new features on the MB and the fact that you can use it for the next 3-4 years easy and still have upgrade options.

I bring this up alot. When someone says they want a rig built one of the first things I ask is "What type of dispay are you shooting for?". I ask them how big and what resolution they are looking for. Couple in price tags. I get people with big hopes for a PC and then they want to settle for a crappy resolution on a 19' monitor. If you are a gamer or into media display is very important. You would be supprised how fast normal folks change tune with you show them how much a display costs that can give a good visual representation of the power hidden in there PC.

**WARNING**
Pointing out a "bug" that is only reproduced in a lab and has almost never been produced by a consumer so far to this date is a poor way of bashing a peace of hardware. It is however a great way of making yourself looking like an idiot as in Intel fanboy being as Intel has a horrible record of releasing chips with far worse problems felt by everyone using them.
January 1, 2008 6:57:51 PM

Totally agree with you about the monitor point Jersey.. I've had a few friends that (back in the day) ran SLI'd 7800 GTXs powering 1280x1024 Monitors... Personally I run 16x10 on a 20" Widescreen, I have no reason to run SLI or Xfire. A powerful single card is more than enough to max out 99% of the games I play.

E8400 is going to be a great option for a while when it comes out.
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2008 8:31:57 PM

It is however a great way of making yourself looking like an idiot. hahahha Jersey. You calling people fanboys..oh my.

Your entire post except for the video resolution makes you look like a idiot fanboy or a AMD spokesperson.
January 2, 2008 12:20:42 AM

someguy7 said:
It is however a great way of making yourself looking like an idiot. hahahha Jersey. You calling people fanboys..oh my.

Your entire post except for the video resolution makes you look like a idiot fanboy or a AMD spokesperson.


Your post looks like an Intel fanboy trying to label people.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 2, 2008 1:12:52 AM

Do NOT get the crappy Phenom cpu. Even an OLD x2 5800+ and better stomps it. You could even get a amd 65nm and overclock it a little and stomp the ever living crap out of a Phenom 9900. It's a joke.
Quad isn't that great at gaming, but the gaming market is slowly moving over. That q6600 isn't that bad, and overclocked it really rips some speed. Look up the benchmarks yourself.
I would go with the motherboard that can be upgraded. Multi pci-e 16x is a plus if you have a very high resolution monitor (some newer games really push it). And with the 45nm cpus of intel that are suppose to be far better then any on the market, it might be a good idea having a motherboard that can support that cpu later on down the road. And btw, the intel chipsets typically support crossfire (ATI), the card you're thinking about.
January 2, 2008 1:36:08 AM

4745454b said:

For the last several years, things have been pretty quiet on the compatibility front. For the most part, you plug it in and go. Most issues can be handled by a bios update. At this point I wouldn't trust AMD for a "trouble" free system.


The only compatibility problem I've encountered in years between chipset and GPU is with a MSI K9N6SGM-V board. It lists "chipset limitations" that prevent use of ATI cards, and the manual includes the X1000 series not mentioned on the website.

http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K9N...

Some AMD platforms are stable. I've had no problems with our ASUS 690G boards and compatibility. I plan to flash the bios in January, just in case I decide to go Phenom instead of 65 watt Brisbanes that are due out. Right now, we have an X2 3800+ in one and an X2 4600+ in the other, both 65 watt Windsor cores. IMHO, the ASUS M2A-VM is the best AMD board out there today.

http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=156...

Slobogob said:
Just look at the Nforce 570/590 boards that could handle the Pentium D 820 only as a single core, yet the 805, 830 and even 840 worked in most cases. I hope AMD takes the platform serious this time. There was a time when they made their own chipsets. It was the dark ages and their chipsets all carried the plague...


Yes, the K5 days :lol:  . That's why AMD bought ATI. ATI has very good chipsets. After the old i865 Northwood board died, I put in a P4 630 Asus P5RD ATI X200 board and it's only quirks are in the RAID implementation.
a c 83 à CPUs
a c 92 V Motherboard
January 2, 2008 3:30:20 AM

I wonder what it is about that chipset that won't handle those cards? I'm inclined to think its an issue with Nvidia then ATI.

Perhaps I'm not going back far enough, but we were happy when AMD was making chipsets for their slot Athlons. The Via KT133 wasn't out yet, and everything else had horrible issues. The AMD chipset wasn't perfect, but it was better then anything else. Once Via came out with theirs, AMD pretty much folded up their chipset business. At that time, Via's chipsets were king.

Hopefully we can all agree on whats been talked about already. Running a spider isn't going to give you better frame rates, just "guaranteed" compatibility.
a b à CPUs
January 2, 2008 4:41:17 AM

Can Not, Every post I have ever seen of the guy is a pom pom waving AMD post. Every single one.

Everything in his posts makes him a fanboy. There is no point to even respond anymore to people like that from either side. Just call the people out for what they are.

Its like having a logical discussion with the thunderman guy. Aint going to happen.



January 2, 2008 9:41:23 AM

computertech82 said:
Do NOT get the crappy Phenom cpu. Even an OLD x2 5800+ and better stomps it.


hmmm... better check the kind of benchmarks that were used buddy. after doing that, try to get a grasp of these keywords: threads and clock...i thought toms did a job on x2 vs phenom already.. better check that too


but then again yeah, phenoms are crappy, wont touch them till they hit sub $150 mark.

January 2, 2008 12:14:56 PM

someguy7 said:
Can Not, Every post I have ever seen of the guy is a pom pom waving AMD post. Every single one.

Everything in his posts makes him a fanboy. There is no point to even respond anymore to people like that from either side. Just call the people out for what they are.

Its like having a logical discussion with the thunderman guy. Aint going to happen.


I'll take your word for it.
January 3, 2008 4:06:49 AM

before i toss tons of money into another set up coming up here in a few months. is it even beneficial at all for a quad core if i dont render video, if i dont lay down tracks and mix music, and all i do is a slight oc and game moslty? i know that my "computer pants" would be buldging if i had me a nice 500 dollar quad in there, but is it really worth the price to do that and it is only 1-2 fps better in games? i mean yeah, that 5ghz on water would be sweet, but is it necessary yet? plus the amd "market hype" is for us poor folk, you know, military guys, college kids, highschoolers that want a good system without using mommas money etc. can get a decent computer going that can compare with that 3000 dollar bahemoth with two or three 8800 ultras. granted it might stomp the crap out of it, but that lil spider system will be better than what i have now. my cpu is bottle neckin bad i can tell, this 4000+ is junk, but i didnt have money for the 5000+ be (my dream chip for now until they straighten up their act) but i think im going intel for the next couple years. not fanboizm, i do like my amd tho, but i see how they offer good components for cheap. but clock for clock, i think intel has them hammered. sorry if its too much to read, or if anyone is mad after this, but i just see it as a gaming platform for us broke people!!! :) 
January 3, 2008 4:09:14 AM

oh, tells you how broke i am when a $130 dollar processor is expensive..hahahahha...military life is great isnt it? i only get real money when i do another 6 yrs!! hahahaha
January 3, 2008 5:11:55 AM

1777669,27,61626 said:
Attitude? So... when AMD lies about certain things to cover their butt, causes us to have an attitude to buy Intel is wrong?

that's the bummer of it for AMD supporters...there is little to inspire faith these days.
the greenies have always put up with wild speculations, but up until now the wild claims and speculations were delivered upon, and (almost...lookin' at you, 400fsb barton!) relatively on time and compatible.
then oh, hecktor! (tm) drove the greens into the intel inside iceberg, and they lied their asterisks off under his hands. no, he's not the only one to blame...but neither is bush, and who gets the brunt?
look...we've had our butts handed to us, okay? we know it...we don't support AMD because we expect the best anymore. we get it...we lost. we're barely even tacking on the obligatory "for now" to that admission anymore! we've been out-maneuvered, out-r&d'd, and completely mismanaged...

the only reason why our flag is still green is nothing to do with who is better. it can be summed up with a simple question...
how much would your much ballyhooed q6600 be if there was no AMD at all? or even a c2d allendale?

what we need is a good ol' fashioned montage. that always gets the underdog through...

btw...for the original poster....wait for sb700 for 790fx. that gives you crossfire X, plus more. and wait for b3 stepping because greencoats know...give them an extra stepping, historically speaking...(lookin' at you now, t-bred rev. b!)



[/quote]
January 3, 2008 5:27:32 AM

patater said:
before i toss tons of money into another set up coming up here in a few months. is it even beneficial at all for a quad core if i dont render video, if i dont lay down tracks and mix music, and all i do is a slight oc and game moslty? i know that my "computer pants" would be buldging if i had me a nice 500 dollar quad in there, but is it really worth the price to do that and it is only 1-2 fps better in games? i mean yeah, that 5ghz on water would be sweet, but is it necessary yet? plus the amd "market hype" is for us poor folk, you know, military guys, college kids, highschoolers that want a good system without using mommas money etc. can get a decent computer going that can compare with that 3000 dollar bahemoth with two or three 8800 ultras. granted it might stomp the crap out of it, but that lil spider system will be better than what i have now. my cpu is bottle neckin bad i can tell, this 4000+ is junk, but i didnt have money for the 5000+ be (my dream chip for now until they straighten up their act) but i think im going intel for the next couple years. not fanboizm, i do like my amd tho, but i see how they offer good components for cheap. but clock for clock, i think intel has them hammered. sorry if its too much to read, or if anyone is mad after this, but i just see it as a gaming platform for us broke people!!! :) 


simple answer...no. you have no use at all for quad, and only barely for dual. 5000+ BE w/ 790fx (again, wait for sb700) and 3870 (sapphire's atomic hd3870 will be well worth the wait http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_atomic... )
should do you better than well. don't waste $$$ on cores you couldn't possibly hope to implement!
you can always drop in a later stepping (if they finally get better!)...

again...its not about fanboyism...its about consumerism.
January 3, 2008 6:31:24 AM

Hy! I want to buy a PC and i have a question : a Phenom 9500+a motherboard 790FX+Radeon 3870= better performance than an Intel Q6600+a motherboard X38+Radeon 3870 ? :bounce:  Wich platform is better for and ATI Radeon 3870 ?
Thanks

The real answer to this is very simple, they are both cracking platforms, you can go with either with extreme confidence. The AMD will not let you down if that's what your worried about. The 3870 is a great value GPU board, I know, I own one, and it can handle any game thrown at it. The AMD system is better if you want to X-Fire it, if for no other reason than that it's built for just this purpose, however if video and sound recording and encoding are the go then you might see some benefit from the Q6600, but it won't be mega. Remember you will probably get the choice to apply the TLB bios patch, and as you may not need to worry about this errata you could get a bonus performance of 10 to 20% but either rig will do you very nicely. Enjoy.
January 3, 2008 7:08:23 AM

how much would your much ballyhooed q6600 be if there was no AMD at all? or even a c2d allendale?

Oh Dario Oh Dario this question has already been answered before ATi, before Nvidia and before 3Dfx. Remember socket 7, and you could choose a great mobo and pick say Cyrix PR233, K6233 or P233 and who remembers IDT Winchip. Here Intel did everything to shake the others off their platform. Only AMD came through this. Today it's a platform war and AMD knows it & so does Intel, cause they started it, that's why with ATi at their side and the lame Intel integrated video processors, Intel knows that it's in for it. Competing against AMD in CPU manufacture is one thing, coming up against ATi in the graphics area is an all together different kettle of fish and no wonder that Intel has released the same CPU core since the release of Core 2. By a cheap one and go as fast as the big end of town. Yeh right! Intel knows that only 1 poof-teenth of the worlds population is able to exploit the overclockability of this new core, they just like the advertising they get from a small minority of vocal users and meanwhile keep creaming in the dollars from each new main board purchased for each Die shrink so that they can squeeze every last bit of juice & bucks out of the architecture. Remember Intel have not yet got to independant cores, that won't happen till Nehalem, and there's rumblings there to at the moment as well, with things not going quite to plan. And the final answer to your question is this, if there were no AMD/ATi or Nvidia, would you actually bother buying a new computer? Imagine the excitement of a powerful Quad core processor without a decent 3D accelerator, it would be an office computer and that's about it. Why we probably wouldn't need quads, or duals, or 64 bit for that matter would we?
January 3, 2008 12:26:27 PM

dario77 said:
1777669,27,61626 said:
Attitude? So... when AMD lies about certain things to cover their butt, causes us to have an attitude to buy Intel is wrong?

that's the bummer of it for AMD supporters...there is little to inspire faith these days.
the greenies have always put up with wild speculations, but up until now the wild claims and speculations were delivered upon, and (almost...lookin' at you, 400fsb barton!) relatively on time and compatible.
then oh, hecktor! (tm) drove the greens into the intel inside iceberg, and they lied their asterisks off under his hands. no, he's not the only one to blame...but neither is bush, and who gets the brunt?
look...we've had our butts handed to us, okay? we know it...we don't support AMD because we expect the best anymore. we get it...we lost. we're barely even tacking on the obligatory "for now" to that admission anymore! we've been out-maneuvered, out-r&d'd, and completely mismanaged...

the only reason why our flag is still green is nothing to do with who is better. it can be summed up with a simple question...
how much would your much ballyhooed q6600 be if there was no AMD at all? or even a c2d allendale?

what we need is a good ol' fashioned montage. that always gets the underdog through...

btw...for the original poster....wait for sb700 for 790fx. that gives you crossfire X, plus more. and wait for b3 stepping because greencoats know...give them an extra stepping, historically speaking...(lookin' at you now, t-bred rev. b!)
[/quote]
said:


My comment was based off of tc17 post stating that he'd be sticking with AMD/ATI products because of the attitude of Nvidia/Intel fanboys.

So what I was really trying to say is I'm going to spend my money on what I think is best, and it is with Intel. But since I have an Intel product, and Nvidia product, that comment of attitude is just plain wrong, unless your dealing with people that are just die hard stupid on a particular brand. I would have brought AMD or AMD-ATI product if I knew it was better then the other.

I could actually care less about intel/nvidia/hector/amd-ati/ibm/ms/apple. I'm only going to buy what really interests me, rather then shout praises at a company for their products... Since they will be outdated sooner or later. :lol: 
January 5, 2008 5:58:24 AM

thanks man, reaffirmation that i should NOT dump about 3 gs into a computer. i think i can do a good 1300 dollar one again, just have to find a cpu with a better multi that wont slow my ram down :( 
January 5, 2008 6:03:57 AM

btw, that card is BEAUTIFUL!!! i think two would fit nicely in my new box. are they going to be around 300? that is my guess.
January 5, 2008 7:30:25 AM

Probably, point of marketing spider is that it would\should be much more cheaper than buying 3 parts(since all profits are going to amd on spider, i think spider should be cheap like s**t)
January 5, 2008 5:12:50 PM

I think what it boils down to is this: If you're intended workload on your cpu and overall system is easy and a light workload and doesn't stress all 4 cores (in which case you really don't need quad core), then a C2Q will perform slightly better clock for clock, currently.
Phenom/Barcelona's playground is in the multithreaded, and demanding workload arenas that really stress the cpu and subsystem. Unreal Tournament 3 for example. There are more games and software on the way, or currently being patched/recompiled. So I think AMD is more futureproof in that respect as well.
!