Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD pwned

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 23, 2008 12:27:13 PM

How can DELETED thunderman talk his way out of this one?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-9600-black-edition...


In the end, we can't really recommend AMD%u2019s Phenom 9600 Black Edition, since that CPU draws more power than Intel's Core 2 Quad Q6600 while costing the same, offering less overclocking headroom and thus providing lower performance overall.

The bottom line is that the Phenom 9600 Black Edition offers bad value for money. Based on our benchmark results and the direct comparison with Intel's Q6600, AMD's CPU should cost no more than €150, in our opinion.



Why would anybody with half a brain consider AMD for a new build?

More about : amd pwned

January 23, 2008 12:47:35 PM

UncleDave said:

Why would anybody with half a brain consider AMD for a new build?


If you really believe that then you are no better than thunderman

AMD processors are very competitively priced and are an attractive offer for the < $200 price range
January 23, 2008 12:51:34 PM

DELETED

keep it clean everyone
Related resources
January 23, 2008 12:56:36 PM

Please delete your reference to thunderman. I would hate to see yet another relevant thread devolve into a worthless flame war.
January 23, 2008 12:56:55 PM

I will be purchasing parts for a new system soon, and I will be purchasing an AMD processor. However, I am still biding time to see if AMD releases a better processor soon.

The reason why I am purchasing an AMD (phenom BE to be specific) is because I believe that the overall quality of my computer would be better with my particular choice in parts.

You see, the AMD compatible motherboard (The gigabyte FX series) are amongst the most powerful boards available when the proper research is done and you patch it correctly. Also, there is greater crossfire support as well with these motherboards. I will be acquiring two Sapphire 3870's as my video cards. In essence it will be a spider platform.

Toe to toe, I agree that the AMD phenom processors are not as powerful as their Intel counterparts, but the hardware that can be used with the AMD processors are currently better than the hardware compatible with Intel processors.

Today in computing, performance is not based on processor ability. Processors have become so advanced that graphics cannot keep up with it. Having better graphical processing units will be better for performance than getting the best processor.
January 23, 2008 12:57:26 PM

Here is a fun fact for "UncleDave"

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247944-28-intel-share...

The qx9850,....is a head of a giant ahead of the phenom 9900,...but what has that to do with the labeling of AMD processors as, "not worth your socket title!" It's all relative and the are absolute
(of course),...but only time will tell!
January 23, 2008 12:57:34 PM

Here is a fun fact for "UncleDave"

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247944-28-intel-share...

The qx9850,....is a head of a giant ahead of the phenom 9900,...but what has that to do with the labeling of AMD processors as, "not worth your socket title!" It's all relative and the are absolute
(of course),...but only time will tell!
January 23, 2008 1:07:10 PM

turboflame said:
If you really believe that then you are no better than thunderman

AMD processors are very competitively priced and are an attractive offer for the < $200 price range



turboflame, you are right I should have said in the quad processor space!
January 23, 2008 1:10:05 PM

homerdog said:
Please delete your reference to thunderman. I would hate to see yet another relevant thread devolve into a worthless flame war.


Too late :D 
January 23, 2008 1:21:21 PM

adlertheman said:
DELETED


adlertheman since you ask, I actually have an Athlon XP in my PC and in my file server. The last Intel I owned was a PIII. As the time for me to upgrade is coming, the first thing I did was wait for the Phemon - believe me or not I really wanted to support AMD.

I just can't justify spending money on emotion.

btw I think you meant "you're"
January 23, 2008 1:24:09 PM

Even Xbitlabs says the phenom sucks when compared to the Q6600.

Though, the 790fx motherboard by DFI is great, the cpu isn't.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom...

As much as I want AMD to stay in the game, they need to get their act together and release something better than Phenom fast.
January 23, 2008 1:42:27 PM

This is another thread that is just not worth it. There is no new news in this and if the OP would look around the forum he/she/it would find more then enough threads on this.

Also, the OP needs to educate him/her/its self when it comes to processors. I am not saying AMD is better then Intel or Intel is better then AMD. AMD is better in areas that Intel isn%u2019t and Intel is better that AMD isn%u2019t. For the common user, they would never know the difference.

Since we are all educated enthusiasts here who are never a fanboy of any company and only care for the best results, we can clearly see that Intel is currently in the lead. AMD is bringing innovation to the market and we all hope that the B3 revision of the Phenom will fix all the errors and give that processor a great edge over Intel (The ability to overclock a single core will be impressive.... once you can overclock the sucker). Sadly to say, Intel has the best price to performance right now.

If you want to look into the graphics, AMD is very competitive vs. Nvidia. The AMD card will not give you as many FPS but with the current 3870 card, you get a better picture quality and richer color then what Nvidia has to offer. Nvidia will give you smother frame rate but a worse picture quality. Price to performance also leans into AMD favor.

Every company has the pro's and con's.
January 23, 2008 1:57:00 PM

spaztic7 said:
This is another thread that is just not worth it. There is no new news in this and if the OP would look around the forum he/she/it would find more then enough threads on this.


Yeah, probably right about the thread.

When I started the the thread it was because I can't remember seeing a review that was that harsh. I started reading hoping that the BE was going to be competitive but to read this "Like AMD’s first Black Edition model, the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, the overclocking potential is so low that the unlocked multiplier is almost not worthwhile.".

The review had nothing "nice" to say about the chip. That is not good news at any level!

spaztic7 said:
Also, the OP needs to educate him/her/its self when it comes to processors.


Is that really necessary?
January 23, 2008 2:05:36 PM

Bad thread? What was your first clue? The bad spelling perhaps?
January 23, 2008 2:18:08 PM

UncleDave said:
Yeah, probably right about the thread.

When I started the the thread it was because I can't remember seeing a review that was that harsh. I started reading hoping that the BE was going to be competitive but to read this "Like AMD’s first Black Edition model, the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, the overclocking potential is so low that the unlocked multiplier is almost not worthwhile.".

The review had nothing "nice" to say about the chip. That is not good news at any level!


Yeah, I read the review and I honestly did not see anything really bad about the Phenom. Yeah it did not beat the q6600, but it did show that you can overclock it.

I have a q6600 and I am board of it. I think I may jump to Phenom after B3 assuming it fixes the issues.

UncleDave said:
Is that really necessary?


Sorry about the educated thing.... I just got caught up in my thread. I just do wish you didn’t make it seem like it is utter crap. It is not that bad and at least they finally put something out vs. delay after delay.

I guess I am just sad to see people still busting on AMD (god knows I did my fair share of it). I think the reality hit for me when their stock took a nose dive and they looked like the might be bought out.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2008 3:56:19 PM

Just read the whole review....








Speechless....
January 23, 2008 4:11:09 PM

Black Edition OCed to the Max not as good as Intel's lowest quad at stock?

Things that make you go "hmmmmm".
January 23, 2008 4:17:11 PM

No offense, but these kinds of threads are starting to get on my nerves....

But yeh, like TC said, the BE edition of Phenom, which is supposed to be the cream of the crop, still cannot outperform an year-old double-cheeseburger designed quad core from Intel.

There is no significant performance difference between them, but its was supposed to bring competition back to the market.... when it did exactly the opposite, take competition away from the market
January 23, 2008 4:26:33 PM

Scotteq said:
Just read the whole review....








Speechless....


Nothing new in either review cited in this thread.

This forum topic always reminds me strongly of the Windows XP versus Vista argument. Some people think XP is vastly superior to Vista. Others believe that some of the added benefits of Vista are worth having. Who is "right" and who is "wrong"? And we can always make things murkier by considering Linux or FreeBSD. That particular forum topic is a "holy war" with no correct answer; just as the current Intel versus AMD topic has no correct "answer".

Anyway I do wonder why Tom's hasn't upgraded DirectX since April 2007. There have been bi-monthly updates in June, August and November. These updates appear to include updates for both DX9 and DX10.

(I can NOT readily find release notes for these updates... but it would be a good bet that some performance tweaks might have been included for running DX9 and DX10 on the Vista platform. If so then the benchmarks might be different for both brands of CPU.)
January 23, 2008 4:57:55 PM

XP vs Vista = VERY SUBJECTIVE


Phenom VS. [Insert Proc Here] = VERY OBJECTIVE



Phenom is very short of living up to its name.
January 23, 2008 5:02:33 PM

Here's a crazy thought: The CPUs from AMD and Intel dont have to compete head to head in the "whos fastest race". Thats why there are so many levels of the CPU on the market. Not everyone drops $1000 for the new CPU when it comes out. Not everyone drops another $1000 to run 2 video cards.

The average PC enthusiasts isn't in the top 1% in performance. So, all you that are bashing AMD because their CPU isn't as fast as Intels can open your eyes a little wider and look at the whole picture.

My last Intel was a PII [slot 1 for those old enough to know what that is]. I am an AMD fan. I wasnt always though. When AMD had heat issues and chips were frying, I didnt like AMD [again, another reference to us old timers].
January 23, 2008 5:08:38 PM

I think it comes right down to personal preference. What do you want. I do not do any video encoding so all those benchmarks mean nothing to me, nor do I picture edit or video edit. I just want a processor that will give me the best gaming experience with little to no load time, lag, issues, or crashes. I want a processor that gives me a good windows experience and has no issues running windows or loading anything. I do understand that loading something has more to do with your RAM but then again, a Phenom will load faster then a P2 and a Q6600 will load faster then a Phenom.

Moo
January 23, 2008 5:12:16 PM

retro77 said:
Here's a crazy thought: The CPUs from AMD and Intel dont have to compete head to head in the "whos fastest race". Thats why there are so many levels of the CPU on the market. Not everyone drops $1000 for the new CPU when it comes out. Not everyone drops another $1000 to run 2 video cards.

The average PC enthusiasts isn't in the top 1% in performance. So, all you that are bashing AMD because their CPU isn't as fast as Intels can open your eyes a little wider and look at the whole picture.

My last Intel was a PII [slot 1 for those old enough to know what that is]. I am an AMD fan. I wasnt always though. When AMD had heat issues and chips were frying, I didnt like AMD [again, another reference to us old timers].


Yes, but AMD is no longer in the uber-ethusiast market and is forced to sell all their procs for less than $260, which is BAD for AMD and their bottom line.
January 23, 2008 5:23:38 PM

Selling your chips for cheaper than your competitor isn't bad, is it? I would think that would be a plus in my book.
January 23, 2008 5:23:54 PM

Kind of deflating to see the benchmarks. I have been using a 6400BE for many months now. It has been a great CPU and I was hoping to buy a Phenom when they came out. Once AMD lowered their clock offerings I was waiting on the Phenom BE to see how high people could get it. I figured if the vast majority could get them above 2.8 then it would be a good upgrade. Looks like the benches prove exactly that, in order to stay with/beat a 6400BE you need to be able to get the clock above 2.8

Sad to see that the reviewer couldn't get above 2.7. Although i'm not sure I agree with his stance on not Volting the Proc over 1.4 volts. Everyone has their opinions... but i think the author was being a little bull-headed on this point. Oh well... regardless... my friend has a 5000 BE Oc'd to 3.2 running at 1.45v. Its been going for awhile and the temps are good with his Zalman 9700.

Some reviewers on newegg have claimed it can reach 3.0 - 3.2 on air, but as we all know about a lot of those newegg reviews. I guess, sadly enough, I will be sitting on my 6400BE until AMD releases something better. Although that new Gigabyte AM2+ board kinda feels like a waste now...
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2008 5:28:26 PM

This entire 1000 dollar high end cpu stuff is utter garbage. Im sick of people saying AMD doesnt need to compete with 1000 dollar cpus.

Who ever has the performace crown is always going to sell the highest binned chips for that price. EE or FX.

The issue now is not AMD competing with 1000 dollar intel cpus. Its CHEAP intel cpus. Nothing they got overtakes intels slowest/cheapeast/oldest quad.

They have nothing to challenge intels dual cores. Even more so now with the e8400 for about 200.


AMD is competing with intels sub 200 dollar cpus not 1000 dollar ones.

The place where AMD destroys intel is the server market. And they currently have a stop ship on those cpus.

To all those people using this 1000 dollar bs line. What amd cpu have you purchased where you actually stacked it up againts a 1000 dollar intel cpu. The 6400 black edition? Any of the phemons.....STOP IT
January 23, 2008 5:45:18 PM

yawn
January 23, 2008 5:45:54 PM

retro77 said:
Selling your chips for cheaper than your competitor isn't bad, is it? I would think that would be a plus in my book.


I'm speaking to the financial side of it and mounting losses that has lowered the value of AMD's stock and hurt its credit rating.

While you might not care that AMD is selling all it's procs below $260, AMD cares because it is not making money. If AMD can't make money it will not exist.

Let's hope they can hang in there and get things turned around.
January 23, 2008 5:48:31 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I'm speaking to the financial side of it and mounting losses that has lowered the value of AMD's stock and hurt its credit rating.

While you might not care that AMD is selling all it's procs below $260, AMD cares because it is not making money. If AMD can't make money it will not exist.

Let's hope they can hang in there and get things turned around.



I agree. It is great for the customer to see low prices but horrible for the company.
January 23, 2008 5:50:27 PM

Do we have any data to reference on how much it costs AMD or Intel to make a CPU? That would be interesting.
January 23, 2008 6:01:00 PM

It cost Intel 3 canadian babies soul to make 1 QX9650.

In honestly.... no

I googled it and look and look and look and found nothing.
January 23, 2008 6:13:06 PM

Nothing wrong with AMD CPU's, it's just that AMD has nothing to compete in the high end.
January 23, 2008 6:33:44 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
XP vs Vista = VERY SUBJECTIVE


Phenom VS. [Insert Proc Here] = VERY OBJECTIVE


On the other hand I can go 180 degrees in the opposite direction say the the XP vs Vista is objective and the CPU comparison is subjective.

We can run benchmarks on XP and objectively show that it is "better" than Vista. Although in order to judge it as "better" we have to ignore any benefit the newer system might provide.

Conversely we can compare CPU's that have different architectures and look at issues that can not be benchmarked or tested.

In other words... when doing an orange to orange comparison... Intel currently wins. But the Phenom (and Nehalem) are NOT oranges they are tangerines. Eventually people are going to understand the differences and then realize that the benchmarks designed for testing oranges only need to be close for tangerines.



I see people post things in this forum like: "OMG.. why wud any1 buy a Phenom when it has a major bug and Intel pwns it in all the benchmarks? Ne1 who doesn't buy Intel is stoopid."

To them I could say: "Why would I buy a current Intel chip knowing that it is already an obsolete architecture that Intel has already planned on replacing? I'd rather have a chip that basically has the new architecture that Intel is moving towards. Why buy a ticket for next week's bus to Detroit if you are already in Detroit?"
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2008 6:58:54 PM

Well.. To point out the obvious, Keith (and I'm not taking the p*ss... Honestly) - But the supposedly 'obsolete' architecture has been, and is, measurably and demonstrably superior to the "New Architecture" chip which is under discussion. Dollar for dollar and Clock for Clock, better. And since we're enthusiasts here and not the general buying public - about whom we can all agree won't notice the difference at all - Overclocking very much does matter. The advantage of Blue over Green in this arena is great enough that it's hardly even worth discussing.

So I need to ask - Is a New Architecture chip worth having in this situation? Or would it be smarter to use the proven performer now? Especially since there's nothing saying you "must" upgrade to Neph when it's released? Hell, maybe Neph (or Windows 7) will prove to bomb. But we *know* what real products can be purchased with real dollars - Now.




(And never mind that Intel used to use on-die memory controllers, but went to a FSB design since at the time that was a bottleneck - what comes around goes around, I guess)

January 23, 2008 7:27:38 PM

Scotteq said:
And since we're enthusiasts here and not the general buying public - about whom we can all agree won't notice the difference at all - Overclocking very much does matter.

<Snip for just the highlights>

So I need to ask - Is a New Architecture chip worth having in this situation? Or would it be smarter to use the proven performer now?


Ah... but that is the crux of the matter.

It is becoming readily apparent that there are different categories of "enthusiasts".

Some prefer benchmarks speeds at the cost of anything else.

Some prefer a newer architecture at the cost of some speed. Especially when all indicators are showing that the current crop of benchmarks do not actually test for the benefits that are provided by the new architecture.

So you can't really ask what is "smarter". Because it would depend on what type of "enthusiast" you are asking.

And "proven performer" is in the eyes of the beerholder. (For example: I consider benchmark results of 123fps versus 140fps to be basically identical results.)

AND BTW: It is also starting to appear that the Phenom is going to be the chip of choice when using Linux or FreeBSD... but the jury is still out on that front... hard to weed out the chaff from the wheat... or whatever.

EDIT:: ALSO BTW: I had a dual CPU machine I made with two PIII (1Ghz) chips back in 2000-2001. I consider myself an "enthusiast". I also DO NOT CONSIDER overclocking to be as important as some people seem to be claiming that I must consider important or I lose my moniker of enthusiast. I will play with overclocking... but revert back to stock speeds. (I need stability... in ANY of the many operating systems I'm running. I can't "really" guarantee that just because Windows ran stable... that it will be the same in FreeBSD or Linux.)

EDIT EDIT:I've also toyed with the idea of making a dual head 1207 opteron machine using quads. Will cost a bit more... but I'd have my own version of "spider". But... then I realize just how much that might cost. (Unless I can get the CPU's for about $250.00 each... then I might do it anyway. Oh... and I probably won't overclock it either... at least not after "just playing".)
January 23, 2008 7:29:16 PM

i built an e6600 system several months ago, and its pretty nice. But if I was doing it now I would probably build an X2 6400 system. I had AMD 3500 before this and I think the on chip memory controller (and other architectural differences) helps things in subtle and practically impossible to quantify ways (slightly less hesitation and crashing in games). I didnt like have to put an active cooler on my NB. I think AMD is still 'a little more stable and smoother in games'. Not that I have any complaints with my e6600. I like my 8800gt also, but I want to try ATI next time since I too have experienced the slightly better image quality (my nvidia's make gradient 'bands' sometimes. The poplular talk that Intel is so much better than AMD is hogwash and it also depends on your intended use. Ultimately I suggest to people a novel and fun idea "buy both". It does seem that AMD as a company does more with less and also is in somewhat of a recovery mode from recent poor execution. For my next PC if at that time Intel still has no integrated memory controller i will probably build AMD.
January 23, 2008 7:55:57 PM

Would you all please stop. Everything and I mean everything in this world that we live in is relative, so that means that everything and I mean everything has its place.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven, hell, existance, non-existance, under whatever your little brains want it to be........

Yes Virginia there is a time and place for the Phenom regrdless what all the small thinkers think........get over it all ready.

Yes unfortunately there is a time for these worthless ranting posts, but I wish there were not, but if horses were wishes beggars would ride. :kaola: 

January 23, 2008 8:00:05 PM

caamsa said:
Would you all please stop. Everything and I mean everything in this world that we live in is relative, so that means that everything and I mean everything has its place.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven, hell, existance, non-existance, under whatever your little brains want it to be........

Yes Virginia there is a time and place for the Phenom regrdless what all the small thinkers think........get over it all ready.

Yes unfortunately there is a time for these worthless ranting posts, but I wish there were not, but if horses were wishes beggars would ride. :kaola: 



You are so right!! And the good news is, Ive finally found the time and place for Phenom:



j/k
sorry....but you know me. I can never resist. ;) 
January 23, 2008 8:08:24 PM

turpit said:
sorry....but you know me. I can never resist. ;) 


SGI?

THey still make O2's and Irix?

I once got to benchmark a database as a "proof of concept" on a Cray-- er SGI... using some huge IBM raid systems years ago. During the benchmark the entire system was all MINE. I was the EVIL SYSTEM LORD! <evil laugh>

(After that... we got "Doom" to run on it. Kind of like killing a fly by making the sun go nova.)

EDIT: oh cry... "Together with all the MIPS family, it was officially discontinued on December 29, 2006."
January 23, 2008 8:58:52 PM

UncleDave said:

Why would anybody with half a brain consider AMD for a new build?


Price?


January 23, 2008 9:07:36 PM

UncleDave said:

Why would anybody with half a brain consider AMD for a new build?


Price?
I was at Fry's yesterday and bought a AMD AM2 5600+ (Dual core,1MB L2 per core,2.8Ghz stock) BOXED for $88 USD.
They had a 3850 for $229 that I will use for a few days and return it,and pick up a XFX 8800GT for only $1 more when they are instock.


Just got off Newegg and got some Corsair XMS2 PC-800 2 x 1GB for $29 USD after rebate and a PC Power & Cooling 610 for $109...free shipping for both.

Also picked up a cheap MB (ECS 7050M-M) for $44

MB+CPU+HS+Fan+2GB Ram = $161 USD.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2008 9:21:09 PM

ZOldDude said:
Price?
Price?
I was at Fry's yesterday and bought a AMD AM2 5600+ (Dual core,1MB L2 per core,2.8Ghz stock) BOXED for $88 USD.
They had a 3850 for $229 that I will use for a few days and return it,and pick up a XFX 8800GT for only $1 more when they are instock.


Just got off Newegg and got some Corsair XMS2 PC-800 2 x 1GB for $29 USD after rebate and a PC Power & Cooling 610 for $109...free shipping for both.
......

*cough* My E2180 can OC better and preform better than the 5600 even if they are OCed. AND the E21xx are about the same price.


Benchmarks:



January 23, 2008 9:33:49 PM

Shadow703793 said:
*cough* My E2180 can OC better and preform better than the 5600 even if they are OCed. AND the E21xx are about the same price.

It doen't matter if they are the same price.
The MD/RAM/CPU are going into a guys system that just died of old age (4 yrs old) and he bought a 700 Watt PSU about a year ago.

He is not going to OC (more so with that ECS MB!) so for the same price he gets an extra .8Ghz stock.
That made it a no-brainer for this build.
January 23, 2008 9:43:42 PM

Get this flamebait thread crap out of here....
January 23, 2008 10:00:48 PM

caamsa said:
Damn it turpit.............stop breaking into my house and taking pictures of my table. :kaola: 


:cry: 
But I like your table
January 23, 2008 10:03:12 PM

Nice desktop,sad to call it but without saying anything,we all know the answer.
January 23, 2008 10:12:05 PM

Irrespective of whether you buy AMD or Intel - one thing is for sure. If AMD goes under expect prices of Intel chips to increase and that is not good for any of us.

In most cases similarly priced chips perform similarly such that actual operational difference is imperceptible - you will not for example really notice a 5% or 10% increase in graphics card performance but you will notice a 25-40% impovement. I would consider the AMD6400+ a good buy right now - massively better than my current AMD4000+ for less than half the price I paid. The other factor for most users is irrespective of minor perfomance differences, cost is an issue for most users and if you can plug a Phenom into and existing AM2+ MB using your existing RAM that works out to $200-$300 extra you do not need to spend to upgrade your system. That is a lot relative to the price of the chip itself so if performance is 5% under a similar Intel model - who cares. IN terms of value for money it wins.

The situation may be different for new builds and this is not an attempt to analyze every possible scenario but at the of day people will buy what they will buy - hell I drove a BMW for years but when it came time to replace I figured an Infiniti represented far better value for money even if in absolute terms it wasn't quite as good.


January 23, 2008 10:22:37 PM

I would think that there would be a huge law suit on Intel for price gouging faster than we can even think about it.
!