Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom Does have better bandwidth

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 20, 2007 9:50:36 PM

Over at Legit Reviews, they have contacted SiSoft about their Sandra scores. According to the article, using Sandra SP1, they got almost 10GB/s from RAM and over 40GB for L1 and that was WITH the TLB Patch. So it looks like the sun is finally rising on K10.

We see from HardOCP that Phenom can generally reach 3GHz and I believe that once the mobos get a few more BIOS updates, the FSB should allow a higher OC.

Phenom FTW!!

Don't use all caps in thread titles

More about : phenom bandwidth

December 20, 2007 9:57:59 PM

3 Ghz on the current B2 or the upcoming B3 revisions?
December 20, 2007 10:04:02 PM

But...

1. Sis Sandra's improved score has absolutely no impact on Phenom (or even Barcelona's) performance. It just shows a correct memory bandwidth.

2. 3Ghz was unstable, using 9600's BE. HardOCP said 2.8Ghz is rock solid, but not 3Ghz.

3. And No, I really doubt by updating motherboard's BIOS, you can increase Phenom's FSB clock. Afterall, Phenom is CPU constrained, not BIOS constrained.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2007 10:10:51 PM

So because Sandra bandwidth benchies are great now, does that mean real world performance also went up to sub-adequate levels?
December 20, 2007 10:32:46 PM

This is not exciting news. K8's memory performance already bested Core's consistently. It would be much more exciting if Phenom managed to steal back the crown in some other performance parameters, like gaming.
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2007 11:09:35 PM

Seems like the same crap over, just oppisite companies now. At one time, Intel had the superior memory speed, but still far behind AMD. These sync benches are WORTHLESS. Look at REAL applications and their performances, the Phenom SUCKS. Even the OLD q6600 and OLD X2 6000+ and better stomp Phenom cpus.
The Phenom is a useless cpu until it can finally beat the x2 6400+ and the q6600.
a c 127 à CPUs
December 21, 2007 12:21:15 AM

Well BM due to other tests the QX6850 doubled the floating point calculations of a E6850. Based on that does that mean that it will be better in real world performance? The HD2900XT with 1GB GDDR4(1GHz memory) has a much higher memory bandwidth than the 8800 Ultra even but it still does not outperform it.

Its like 3DMark. Its great for showing what you have but true performance is not based on it.

Don't get me wrong BM. I am glad that Phenom is finally getting something good but its nothing in terms of real world performance. I love that AMD thinks they can perform but the competition is not there yet. Most true entusiasts go for whatever performs even if getting a 3GHz will cost 300 instead of 200.
December 21, 2007 12:33:06 AM

yomamafor1 said:
But...

1. Sis Sandra's improved score has absolutely no impact on Phenom (or even Barcelona's) performance. It just shows a correct memory bandwidth.

2. 3Ghz was unstable, using 9600's BE. HardOCP said 2.8Ghz is rock solid, but not 3Ghz.

3. And No, I really doubt by updating motherboard's BIOS, you can increase Phenom's FSB clock. Afterall, Phenom is CPU constrained, not BIOS constrained.


3. CPU-constrained would mean that no amount of effort would get it to 3GHz. There was a review linked by the Inq or Fudzilla some time ago that showed the FSB going to 500MHz on one 790FX.

2. Selective reading. He said he had 4 of them and the lowest clock was 2.8GHz, but I'm sure that two different !6600s will OC differently with everything else the same. As a matter of fact, everyone knows that every chip DOESN'T clock the same.

1. This shows that K10 is almost a new paradigm and apps released in the future can be much better optimized. AMD admitted that they should have gotten the chips out sooner for OEMs and devs.
December 21, 2007 12:40:32 AM

who cares - since its slow better bandwidth is useless

i really think it is hard for amd - my dd3 maximus and 4gz q6600 rip through many apps

good news for amd is still like the x6800 better since few apps support even 2 threads

once ms optimise 4 threads and 4 cores the true amd/intel quad core differences will be seen across the board and it does not look good for amd

good news is i am looking to buy 500-1000 shares of amd - with my few pennies i think its bottomed


you guys heard it first - just like my intel call at 18
like my amd/intel spread

i am calling amd a bottom buy it now!
December 21, 2007 12:44:47 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Well BM due to other tests the QX6850 doubled the floating point calculations of a E6850. Based on that does that mean that it will be better in real world performance? The HD2900XT with 1GB GDDR4(1GHz memory) has a much higher memory bandwidth than the 8800 Ultra even but it still does not outperform it.

Its like 3DMark. Its great for showing what you have but true performance is not based on it.

Don't get me wrong BM. I am glad that Phenom is finally getting something good but its nothing in terms of real world performance. I love that AMD thinks they can perform but the competition is not there yet. Most true entusiasts go for whatever performs even if getting a 3GHz will cost 300 instead of 200.



Wow. All I can say is wow. Like I said, I think that most apps just aren't compiled to take advantage of Phenom's features. Recompiling Linpack showed good improvements in Anand's last test. You all think I care whether this company has bragging rights or that one but I don't.

I am of the opinion that this is a similar occurrence in a lot of apps. Sure, maybe I'm being too easy on them and maybe I should jump on the screw AMD bandwagon but that would require being like people here.

They still have my business and I know things can only get better.
December 21, 2007 12:44:50 AM

Although it's better than nothing, it doesn't change the fact that it can match Intel...Sun's gonna rise next year.
December 21, 2007 12:45:09 AM

well near bottom
buy 25-50% of total postion - it cold dip to 6 but i think we see 10 before we see six

once it hits 10 you will not get it again at this price???
December 21, 2007 12:50:12 AM

computertech82 said:
Seems like the same crap over, just oppisite companies now. At one time, Intel had the superior memory speed, but still far behind AMD. These sync benches are WORTHLESS. Look at REAL applications and their performances, the Phenom SUCKS. Even the OLD q6600 and OLD X2 6000+ and better stomp Phenom cpus.
The Phenom is a useless cpu until it can finally beat the x2 6400+ and the q6600.



So because a quad core that has been through three(?) revs and a chip running at up to a GHz more are faster, the CPU is worthless? Well, let's see how many people end up with a worthless CPU. I mean, right now Phenom 9500 is the best deal on Newegg at $199.
December 21, 2007 12:54:14 AM

Artificial memory bandwidth benchmarks are useless.


This is one of the things that AMD touts, but for us consumers it is totally irrelevant.
December 21, 2007 12:59:36 AM

fps

burn time

multitasking

that is relevant

bandwidth is only relevant with in the same processor system combo
December 21, 2007 1:03:39 AM

At least Phenom isn't expensive, as BM pointed out.
December 21, 2007 1:04:41 AM

fanboy vs fanboy

AMD vs Intel

Baron Matrix vs dragonsprayer

Heaven vs Hell

... or maybe just hell vs hell...

LET'S ROCK!!!!!!
December 21, 2007 1:09:28 AM

Isn't Amd's memory bandwidth only useful in large server applications,
where a ton of ram needs to be accessed?
December 21, 2007 1:28:54 AM

BaronMatrix said:
3. CPU-constrained would mean that no amount of effort would get it to 3GHz. There was a review linked by the Inq or Fudzilla some time ago that showed the FSB going to 500MHz on one 790FX.

2. Selective reading. He said he had 4 of them and the lowest clock was 2.8GHz, but I'm sure that two different !6600s will OC differently with everything else the same. As a matter of fact, everyone knows that every chip DOESN'T clock the same.

1. This shows that K10 is almost a new paradigm and apps released in the future can be much better optimized. AMD admitted that they should have gotten the chips out sooner for OEMs and devs.


1. Better optimized? Are you kidding me? Having a "reported" larger memory bandwidth won't improve K10's overall performance. Will Sis Sandra's result change K10's SPECjbb's score? No. Will it change K10's SPECfp's score? No. As I said numerous time before, K10 is hardly bandwidth limited. It is mainly limited by its architectural design.

2. Every chip don't clock the same, but there's a general area where a chip will likely top out. You won't find a Q6600 to top out at 3.2Ghz, while another top out at 4.0Ghz. It doesn't happen. For K10's case, you'll likely see 3.0Ghz, max. Almost no one has gotten Phenom above 3.0Ghz. I'm sure with B3 stepping, things will change a little, but you won't see that much overclock headrooms.

3. 500 Mhz on 790FX, was obtained by a 6400+ BE, with multiplier set to 5, resulting in a clock of 2.5Ghz. Sure, 790FX has a lot of potential, but Phenom of current stepping doesn't. As you said, if its CPU constrained, it will be very hard for one to overclock it, which is exactly the case.

Unless you're trying to overclock the HT to its maximum potential, I fail to see how 500Mhz FSB represent anything.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 1:37:56 AM

deranged said:
Isn't Amd's memory bandwidth only useful in large server applications,
where a ton of ram needs to be accessed?

I don't think it's really useful at all. Haven't you seen the benchmarks? :lol: 
December 21, 2007 1:40:54 AM

BaronMatrix said:
So because a quad core that has been through three(?) revs and a chip running at up to a GHz more are faster, the CPU is worthless? Well, let's see how many people end up with a worthless CPU. I mean, right now Phenom 9500 is the best deal on Newegg at $199.



Gotta agree with you on the price deal. With a cheap AM2 or AM2+ motherboard and a $200 quadcore, AMD has a good value thing going there. However, if you are in to overclocking I would still wait for the B3 and see what it has to offer.

On the topic of memory bandwidth, I don't care how much memory bandwidth a CPU has, if it doesn't beat the competition in performance in video encoding, decoding, gaming and other such tasks, it isn't going to interest most users.
December 21, 2007 1:59:32 AM

Q6600, only $60 more is DRASTICALLY faster than AMD at stock and overclock a lot further, so I don't think AMD is going to lure a lot of overclockers.

I think the BE's are a decent product offering, but all this memory bandwidth junk is total BS, it's irrelevant; which is proven by every other benchmark, which Intel happens to win with their slowest quad core.
a c 127 à CPUs
December 21, 2007 2:16:02 AM

What if things do not get better BM? What if AMD is stuck in the same rutt as Intel with Prescott and wont get out until the next architecture update or even until 45nm?

All I am saying is that memory bandwidth is useless even if it is optomized or not. Thats why I compared it to the ATI vs NVidia where ATis R600 has a higher memory bandwidth but it still wont help in games. Just like this wont help in real worl applications.

I just don't see it helping it plow over a Q6600 right now. It is behind it by at least 15% total in terms of overall performance and even higher memory banwidth wont gain that much performance as thats what the L3 cache is for to lower the use of memory since its not as fast as being able to do everything on the CPU and between the CPU hence the higher L2 cache sizes of the C2D series.

And yea the BEs OC but in comparison to power consumption(and I love this since AMD brought it up first) the Q6600 uses less even when OC'ed.
December 21, 2007 4:26:18 AM

BaronMatrix said:
So because a quad core that has been through three(?) revs and a chip running at up to a GHz more are faster, the CPU is worthless? Well, let's see how many people end up with a worthless CPU. I mean, right now Phenom 9500 is the best deal on Newegg at $199.


Thats like saying the Michelin passenger and light truck tires manufactured between April 11 and April 24, 2004 @ $19.95 are the best deal at PeP boys

They are defective
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 4:35:31 AM

The lower price of the Phenoms does make them more attractive now (the 9500 was the same price as a Q6600 before here in Australia), but I would still pay an extra $50 for a superior chip.
December 21, 2007 7:30:03 AM

turboflame said:
fanboy vs fanboy

AMD vs Intel

Baron Matrix vs dragonsprayer

Heaven vs Hell

... or maybe just hell vs hell...

LET'S ROCK!!!!!!



thanks for reminding me dude, im going to play GUILTY GEAR now! been a long time
December 21, 2007 8:24:04 AM

For me it's just bang for the buck that matters. I have no preference for any company. If Trump Industries or whoever makes them I could'nt care less.Long ago Intel had rock stable chipsets (remember legendary BX?) but now it's just the same sh*t.

And phenom seems like a good bang for the buck.
December 21, 2007 10:10:30 AM

perzy said:
For me it's just bang for the buck that matters. I have no preference for any company. If Trump Industries or whoever makes them I could'nt care less.Long ago Intel had rock stable chipsets (remember legendary BX?) but now it's just the same sh*t.

And phenom seems like a good bang for the buck.


I'm not getting your point here. What's unstable about Intel's current chipsets? The only one I've seen any complaints about is the 680i - which is a nVidia chipset.
December 21, 2007 11:05:07 AM

turpit said:
Thats like saying the Michelin passenger and light truck tires manufactured between April 11 and April 24, 2004 @ $19.95 are the best deal at PeP boys

They are defective


They're not defective! No! That's my favorite tire company! Do not speak ill of them!
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 11:08:35 AM

Memory bandwidth has always been an AMD advantage ever since they put the controller on the chip... I'm just stuck on the part where Memory bandwidth magically became a measure of CPU performance. And how when the benchmarks are run, Phenom *still* performs... less well... than equivalent costing Intel procs in spite of the memory efficiency.

To say the same thing from a different angle: If the Processor A had superior memory bandwidth/usage/efficiency and was otherwise equal to Processor I, then it would win. But it doesn't do that. So what does the user actually gain?

Hyperbole, I guess...
December 21, 2007 11:15:52 AM

randomizer said:
The lower price of the Phenoms does make them more attractive now (the 9500 was the same price as a Q6600 before here in Australia), but I would still pay an extra $50 for a superior chip.


Or if I really had to get AMD, I would save even more and get the BE 5000+ which when OC'd will beat the Phenom when OC'd in most tasks which don't use 4-cores. To really get a decent OC out of the Phenom you really need the 790 board which is $200 by itself so you can crank the related chipset power outage way up. Otherewise, the Phenom will not OC very well, even with hand selected chips.

The $80-$90 DS3L will push the Q6600 to its limits w/o problems.

THe cost problem with the Phenom at this point is that to get the most out of it, you need a mobo that costs $$$. If you have an existing AMD system that can take a Phenom, you really are not gaining much so the upgrade does not make alot of sense.
December 21, 2007 5:47:11 PM

yomamafor1 said:
1. Better optimized? Are you kidding me? Having a "reported" larger memory bandwidth won't improve K10's overall performance. Will Sis Sandra's result change K10's SPECjbb's score? No. Will it change K10's SPECfp's score? No. As I said numerous time before, K10 is hardly bandwidth limited. It is mainly limited by its architectural design.

2. Every chip don't clock the same, but there's a general area where a chip will likely top out. You won't find a Q6600 to top out at 3.2Ghz, while another top out at 4.0Ghz. It doesn't happen. For K10's case, you'll likely see 3.0Ghz, max. Almost no one has gotten Phenom above 3.0Ghz. I'm sure with B3 stepping, things will change a little, but you won't see that much overclock headrooms.

3. 500 Mhz on 790FX, was obtained by a 6400+ BE, with multiplier set to 5, resulting in a clock of 2.5Ghz. Sure, 790FX has a lot of potential, but Phenom of current stepping doesn't. As you said, if its CPU constrained, it will be very hard for one to overclock it, which is exactly the case.

Unless you're trying to overclock the HT to its maximum potential, I fail to see how 500Mhz FSB represent anything.



SPECfp Rate is a clear win as are all HPC apps. HT is not the chip. Even Intel chips are limited by the FSB OC. That's why the multiplier makes a difference.
For the first released rev of a CPU with TWICE as many cores that need to be in near the same envelope, it's MAJOR. I'm rather certain that if AMD had more capital, they would have more headroom, but just as X2 went from 2.2 to 3.2, Phenom will also. They just need to take the time to keep power down. But did we really expect 4 cores of 65nm to be in the same envelope of 2 65nm cores?
Even the mighty Intel has basically double the power for quad vs dual at the same clock speed and process size.
December 21, 2007 5:48:29 PM

randomizer said:
I don't think it's really useful at all. Haven't you seen the benchmarks? :lol: 


My point was that optimization or even recognition of features can be a factor in SW perf.
December 21, 2007 5:52:32 PM

jimmysmitty said:
What if things do not get better BM? What if AMD is stuck in the same rutt as Intel with Prescott and wont get out until the next architecture update or even until 45nm?

All I am saying is that memory bandwidth is useless even if it is optomized or not. Thats why I compared it to the ATI vs NVidia where ATis R600 has a higher memory bandwidth but it still wont help in games. Just like this wont help in real worl applications.

I just don't see it helping it plow over a Q6600 right now. It is behind it by at least 15% total in terms of overall performance and even higher memory banwidth wont gain that much performance as thats what the L3 cache is for to lower the use of memory since its not as fast as being able to do everything on the CPU and between the CPU hence the higher L2 cache sizes of the C2D series.

And yea the BEs OC but in comparison to power consumption(and I love this since AMD brought it up first) the Q6600 uses less even when OC'ed.



It's impossible for them not to. AMD makes CPUs. They have made the fastest CPUs for years. They will keep up the trend of continuously improving the transistors and power usage. I am going to do soem real research into Phenom scores, especially in games and encoding as a few games show an uncharacteristic increase in perf while others exhibit little to none. ex: Supreme Commander showed almost 50% increase per core.
December 21, 2007 6:57:57 PM

DELETED sorry BM, i like amd too. i like R600's architecture. i liked AMD64... 4 years ago. DELETED in most real world apps phenom still suffers a 10-15% IPC deficit compared to core2. that's only going to get worse when nehelam (core3?) integrates the mem controller and gets triple channel ddr3. core2 already is architecturally more energy and work efficient. they don't even need to do anything to stay ahead of amd. they can maintain their lineup capped at 3.2ghz. they know their chips OC to 4.5ghz. they know even if amd gets a better architecture, they'd have to take that architecture to around 3.2-3.5ghz retail to truly beat intel. intel has more headroom and they know it. and the entire non-budget-conscious enthusiast crowd is in intel's camp now.
December 21, 2007 7:00:36 PM

randomizer said:
The lower price of the Phenoms does make them more attractive now (the 9500 was the same price as a Q6600 before here in Australia), but I would still pay an extra $50 for a superior chip.



And some people would put that $50 into more RAM, bigger HDD or a better video card.
December 21, 2007 7:16:35 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Phenom FTW!!


what does FTW mean ? besides "from the wilderness".
December 21, 2007 7:19:58 PM

turpit said:
Thats like saying the Michelin passenger and light truck tires manufactured between April 11 and April 24, 2004 @ $19.95 are the best deal at PeP boys

They are defective



Do they cause a lot of accidents or just need to be replaced faster? The difference is that CPUs do not undergo structural wear unless overvolted, thereby causing migration due to heat. I actually use VMs as a dev, but I would still buy one. If customers are actually taking these for use (Barcelona) then why are you doubting it?

I was wondering what would have happened had AMD not said anything.
December 21, 2007 7:21:14 PM

cpburns said:
DELETED . sorry BM, i like amd too. i like R600's architecture. i liked AMD64... 4 years ago.DELETED in most real world apps phenom still suffers a 10-15% IPC deficit compared to core2. that's only going to get worse when nehelam (core3?) integrates the mem controller and gets triple channel ddr3. core2 already is architecturally more energy and work efficient. they don't even need to do anything to stay ahead of amd. they can maintain their lineup capped at 3.2ghz. they know their chips OC to 4.5ghz. they know even if amd gets a better architecture, they'd have to take that architecture to around 3.2-3.5ghz retail to truly beat intel. intel has more headroom and they know it. and the entire non-budget-conscious enthusiast crowd is in intel's camp now.



All of that and you're still not a chicken.
December 21, 2007 7:25:51 PM

Baron, if the CPUs are not defective then why would AMD:

A) Make a patch
B) Stop-ship
C) Recall
and
D) Replace the processors


D E F E C T I V E !
December 21, 2007 7:46:53 PM

DELETED
December 21, 2007 7:59:12 PM

For all it´s worth, here is my 2 cents.

I own 2 Phenom 9500's and 1 Athlon 64X2 6400+, 1 Athlon 5000+ (multiplier unlocked) and an Athlon64 X2 5600+.

Main Boards are both ASUS SLI DeLuxe with NForce 590 chipsets.

Here is my findings.

First:
I crunsh SETI units (look at www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu).

Running these tasks really keeps Your CPU busy, or shall we say: 100% CPU utilization guaranteed. This really is a way of testing Your new Mainboad, Processor or memory modules to see if they can withstand a 100% burn in test for as long as it takes.

During the last 8 Years I have done some selections/deselections depending on the performance as well as durability.

Now:
Without overclock, a Phenom Processor running at 2200 MHz using Corsair Extreme Memory DDR2 6400 CL4 will outperform an Athlon64 6400+ by as much as 60%.

Remember, the Phenom is running at 2.2 GHz and the 6400+ is running at 3.2 GHz.

The Phenom draws approx 25 Watts less power from the mains than the X2 6400+.

Regrettably AMD has locked the clock multiplier on the retail versions contrary to the test units used at the Nov 19 introduction in Poland and reviewed earlier here in Tom's Hardware.

Nonetheless, I have been able to push my PCI speed to 110MHz before my SCSI-card packed up on me.
The Phenom 9500 is running stable at 2440 MHz or 10% overclock without any problems. Now I just need a better PCI SCSI card before I can try a further increase in CPU Clock.

As for work/$ this is by far the best deal I have seen so far, and I have been here since the very beginning in --78.

Any perticular question? Don't hessitate to ask, I will try to answer to the nest of my abilities.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You all.

ChrisD
December 21, 2007 8:08:24 PM

i'm not saying the phenom is the worst chip to ever hit the market. i'm saying that i still think the Core2's are more cost effective for the performance. i think they outperform phenom by a good stretch, especially in terms of OC headroom. i think BM refuses to see the reality of the situation. he twists facts to meet his own goals. anyone knows now that core2 does more work per cycle. if you want the ultimate performer, you go with a core2 unless there's a specific app which has been optimized for amd chips, and therefore runs better on that chip. most real-world apps don't care much and leave the work up to the cpu.
December 21, 2007 9:23:48 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Baron, if the CPUs are not defective then why would AMD:

A) Make a patch
B) Stop-ship
C) Recall
and
D) Replace the processors


D E F E C T I V E !



I'm saying there is a publicized erratum that in a few rare cases will cause you to reboot, with no mention of data corruption or loss.
a c 127 à CPUs
December 21, 2007 9:26:06 PM

ccc10156, thats probably great for what you do but have you bothered to see what a C2Q would do in that situation? Thing is it doesn't apply to everyone. We are talking about stuff everyone uses on a daily basis such as gaming, decoding/encoding and that sort of stuff.

Your example is sorta like why people believe the Cell processor is superior to desktop CPUs since Folding@Home performs better on it. Well of course considering that it will only run that but try to run games while a encoder, winrar packer and virus scan on a PS3 and it wont happen. In real world apps and games Phenom does not perform near as well as a C2Q and so that sucks away at its price/performance ratio and it doesn't perform as efficiently(power usage) as even a Q6600 no matter what AMD states the "ADP" is.

Also what about those that gt a Q6600 G0 stepping and have it running @ 3.6GHz on air stable? Thats a 50% OC. Hell the Yorkfeilds are said to hit 4GHz on air even the Q9300 which will replace the Q6600 so thats more like 60-70% OC on air stable.

cpburns, don't even try. BM is stuck in his ways and wont change even if AMD released the Phenom @ $500 and it performed 50% less than a C2D E6300. Phenom is his little god and he will always praise it even if it doesn't get any better at performing.
December 21, 2007 9:30:38 PM

jimmysmitty said:


cpburns, don't even try. BM is stuck in his ways and wont change even if AMD released the Phenom @ $500 and it performed 50% less than a C2D E6300. Phenom is his little god and he will always praise it even if it doesn't get any better at performing.


Yet another Dr. Phil who can examine my responses to determine what my purchase decisions are based on. I guess I'm like the people who were here with 3.8GHz Netburst that were trounced by lowly FX62. I'm holding out hope for a miracle.

OK, well maybe not a miracle, but maybe a few months to pass. I still don't have to upgrade to anything. if I did, just to be different than you, I would buy AMD.
December 21, 2007 9:55:03 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Yet another Dr. Phil who can examine my responses to determine what my purchase decisions are based on. I guess I'm like the people who were here with 3.8GHz Netburst that were trounced by lowly FX62. I'm holding out hope for a miracle.

OK, well maybe not a miracle, but maybe a few months to pass. I still don't have to upgrade to anything. if I did, just to be different than you, I would buy AMD.


You can't compare Netburst to this. Netburst was indeed inferior, but it could clock high to make up the gap a bit (not saying it could catch up much, but at least it lessened the gap)...

On the other hand, we have Phenom, inferior architecture performance, that can't clock high. This is much worse than Netburst's days. Even a 2.6 Phenom can't beat out a q6600. I'm glad to see the 2.3 phenom has dropped in price to around 230-240. It was needed, it was overpriced. But if the 2.6 isn't priced around the q6600, that's an issue, after all. Of numerous benchmarks, the 2.6 Phenom only won a rare few. Keep in mind though, 45nm quad yorkfields will increase the the speed per dollar, a 2.5 quad will be priced at arond 266, which the 12mb cache 2.66 will be at 315. AMD will have to drop prices again to be competitive. As long as they set the price relative to the performance, than I have no issues, but that does not mean it's a great product, after all, Barcelona's launch was a failure, and the product itself is a disappointment.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 10:36:37 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Artificial memory bandwidth benchmarks are useless.


This is one of the things that AMD touts, but for us consumers it is totally irrelevant.


Agreed :D 
December 21, 2007 10:50:42 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Yet another Dr. Phil who can examine my responses to determine what my purchase decisions are based on. I guess I'm like the people who were here with 3.8GHz Netburst that were trounced by lowly FX62.


I have yet to see you actually *buy* anything. Do you have a Phenom yet? I hear they are selling at Newegg.

BaronMatrix said:

I'm holding out hope for a miracle.


Wow. World take note. Even Baron thinks Phenom needs a miracle to catch up to intel's offering.
December 21, 2007 11:32:35 PM

ryman554 said:
I have yet to see you actually *buy* anything. Do you have a Phenom yet? I hear they are selling at Newegg.


WERD. Like most fanbois he won't put his money where his mouth is.

ryman554 said:
Wow. World take note. Even Baron thinks Phenom needs a miracle to catch up to intel's offering.


ROFL
!