is amd insane?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/4345/

No one expects high performance chips from amd? They forgot all the OEM's using FX-60's?

AMD has totally lost control of its spin department. They have spun, an erratum into demand for low power chips since all they can make currently is low speed chips which coincidentally use low power?

I really do know what to make of this, it seems like an "off the cuff" comment by a poorly informed employee - amd should be embarrassed! I guess AMD has forgotten their hard core die hard techie friends!

I just wish we could have BE's and the like!
If AMD are going to make money from EE Phenom's then all the best to them.
But I certainly won't be buying one.
When I can get a >2.6GHz Phenom, that's when I'll change from my 6000+!

Their marketing department hired Al Gore as a consultant.

http://www.nyse.com/interface/jsp/ [...] ones=false

Those are the customers that make a company the best return per item sold.
When it comes to home users who run bookkeeping programs,surf the internet,P2P music and video 2Ghz of any brand is more than enough.

For gamers anything above 3 Ghz is a waste as with modern CPU's,MB's and ram it is the GFX card that is the key holding the vault door locked closed. It will still be along time befor the GFX cards can use more thabn the CPU and it's buss can feed it.

Check Tri-SLI benchmarks with Crysis, the CPU is the bottleneck.

If CPU power is not important, than Why did AMD move to the Quad?
Sounds like AMD should be focusing on the Low-Power Dual Cores.

The Concept of Going to 4 Cores from 2 to reduce power is not logical.

Also, the Power Usage you linked does not hold alot of water.

Let's see, there is an industry agreed upon standard for measuring power usage, but does not match this groups findings.

Well, you can always get the results you are looking for if you adjust the input parameters until you receive the output you want. I would rather rely upon industry agreed upon standards.

Still spreading FUD I see. Glad to see you haven't changed. Lots of games are limited by clockspeed. You're completely right in saying it's more about GPU power but extra CPU power helps a lot too.

The OEM's and SI's agree %100 with you, as do I. However, you're going to have a hard time convincing the "12000+" ex-Intel employees with a grudge combing the web to undermine anything involved with AMD, and engage in a smear campaign; aka, viral marketing. Think of the resources Intel can channel to this, from the previous pay-offs, kick-backs, rebates, etc., since fair trade commissions around the world have them under their watchfull eyes. Granted, not all of those terminated employees involved, and to those i'd wish all the best.

Even worse though, is the effort by those actively employed by Intel.

Well there is some sense to that because the vast majority of chips sold is in the lower end. The thing is though the enthusiast end decides where the market goes.

well look at the e2180 series, u can clock it up to 3ghz for only $90. And 3 ghz is totally not low end. Also who wouldnt want to buy a quad core for around $200?(especially those people with am2 mobos!)personally I would never pay more than $200 for a processor. It dont matter how low amd does, it just better beat the intel low end to be any good. I bet nvidia is itching to release a 8900gtx but ati doesnt compete at that end...

intel is my god!

sunday is gaming day! i tith to nvidia every 3 months for the next card upgraded!

intel is my god!

anything ove 3 ghz is waste????


first off gaming computers need high fsb and memory bandwidth - the cpu may not be the bottle neck but the way the cpu is utilized!!!!!


intel is still my god!

thepinkpanther, $200-$300 for a newer Quad core CPU is a great price in the terms that it helps to future proof you. I doubt we will see any good Quad core CPUs for gaming and the such for at least another year. About 2 years ago a single core CPU would cost $200 and thats for the low end.

I understand trying to build the cheapest PC. Hell I spent $1500 on mine and if I wnt thru an OEM it would have cost me $2500-$3000. But once the new Intel Quads are out I would think a year later the Q6600 could be bought for $150. Thats how I got me P4 EE for $150 bucks.

Now as for AMD dropping low end low power Quads is not going to be very feasable. I mean they use more power than a equivalent Intel Quad so if Intel wanted they could make a low power quad using low end CPUs like the E2140.

But the low end market isn't really about the cores. Most low end PCs either go for buisness use or people who like to do basic task so a quad is overkill. Even with Vista it would be a waste. I think what consumer really want is a good competative product from AMD that can compete with Intels low end offerings.

They might be right about this because they're forced into the budget and mainstream market. I really wanted a 65 watt Phenom that runs at 2.4 gigahertz, but that probably won't arrive until 45nm. With B3, it looks like I'll get either a 2.2 or 2.3 if I go Phenom.

Scaling might make the Phenom 9000 a quad core equivalent of an Athlon X2 4200+ in performance, which is a selling point for an Emachines quad core, but it's not oriented towards a mainstream gamer. I can see people at Best Buy and Fry's on the OEM side telling people that a "quad core is better", even if they just do e-mail and surf the net. The way Microsoft is going with their operating systems, I bet we'll need a quad core for multitasking sooner than expected.

The best use of a 1.8 gigahertz 65 watt Phenom 9000 would be in an HTPC. I could see getting one for that reason, but not as a mainstream desktop quad core.

Usually, I don't like AMD does everything wrong threads, as they just lead to trolling, but the question of why they'd release their 65 watt Phenom's only at 1.8 gigahertz is worth discussing. I don't think it's all marketing spin, because they need to get their mainstream CPU's power consumption down. The question is, have they released a CPU that's just clocked to low to matter? Perhaps only to those of us who build our own systems.

Most of their die hard techie friends abandoned them for C2D, the one's that haven't either want to go Wolfdale, or have ASUS 690G boards with an available bios. I haven't abandoned AMD yet, but I'm not sure that Phenom is worth it this year for me. My wife wants one, but she does video editing, encoding and also mods for several games. Me, I just play games, watch anime and kvetch on message boards.

Most of the members here are OCers. OCers don't care for power requirements and thus doesn't care for energy-efficient cpus. For some people who uses their pc 24/7, a 20W difference is a lot.

On the side note, did you know using 1min of a hair-dryer is equivalent to 15min of using the computer? A power efficient computer that is.

legitreviews sure put a strange spin on what AMD actually said.
What AMD really said was that they had talked to OEMs, and decided to focus on making high end sever quads, from the first quarter B3 product. They anticipated that the only stock left would only be viable as low end desktop chips.
Legitreviews said that, just with a bit of spin.