AMD pwned

[UncleDave]

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

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-9600-black-edition,review-30093.html


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?

 

[turboflame]

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

 

[adlertheman]

DELETED

keep it clean everyone

 

[homerdog]

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

 

[njalterio]

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.

 

[adlertheman]

Here is a fun fact for "UncleDave"

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

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!

 

[adlertheman]

Here is a fun fact for "UncleDave"

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

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!

 

[UncleDave]

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!

 

[cynewulf]

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

Too late

 

[UncleDave]

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"

 

[soloman02]

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-phenom9600-be.html

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.

 

[spaztic7]

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.

 

[UncleDave]

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!

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

Is that really necessary?

 

[onestar]

Bad thread? What was your first clue? The bad spelling perhaps?

 

[spaztic7]

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.

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.

 

[Scotteq]

Just read the whole review....








Speechless....

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

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

Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

 

[yomamafor1]

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

 

[keithlm]

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.)

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

XP vs Vista = VERY SUBJECTIVE


Phenom VS. [Insert Proc Here] = VERY OBJECTIVE



Phenom is very short of living up to its name.

 

[retro77]

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].

 

[spaztic7]

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

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

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.

 

[retro77]

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

 

[ragemonkey]

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...