Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Not a flame starter, Phenom, good for?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 21, 2008 2:57:47 AM

I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?
Some quick history so nobody thinks I'm spilling gasoline waiting for somebody to bring a match; my favorite build from scratch was a AMD XP 1600+ with the 1st nForce chipset. For the most part, I build Intel machines and am wanting to have a good reason to build another AMD machine. Upgraded my father's machine from a Pentium D 840 to a used x2 4000 system I picked up a while back for $100 that included a gig of ram.
The only reason I can come up is video encoding, not even transcoding, but just pure h.264 and the like.
I personally prefer AMD's x2's for any pentium 4 family computers but sheesh, the Intel's seem to be steam rolling when you factor in gaming and/or overclocking.
March 21, 2008 3:21:43 AM

We cannot show you what the matrix is you must see it for yourself.

March 21, 2008 1:15:40 PM

we aren't with P4's anymore- that is why amd is now behind, because frankly K10 architecture just doesn't seem to deliver as much juice as Core 2, let alone penryn, however, if you can find one for cheap enough, it might be worth it for video encoding - better than any dual core anyway, since all phenoms thus far are quad
Related resources
March 21, 2008 1:19:40 PM

Phenoms are good for the same things as core 2's , just not as quickly. As far as X-2's, my x2-5600 was awesome, especially when it gotup to 3.2ghz. I hope to build a amd system again one day.
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2008 1:50:56 PM

jprevost said:
I'm not trying to start a flame thread here...

Anytime a thread starts with this as it's opening line, you should expect nothing but.

Asking what a Phenom is good for is like asking why you would want to use Firefox instead of IE.

You don't need any better reason to build an AMD machine other than the fact that you want to build an AMD machine. Who's approval are you looking for?

March 21, 2008 2:00:28 PM

Starting with B3, cheap server applications.
March 21, 2008 2:13:46 PM

Phenoms are good for any build, imo. If you want the fastest machine, look elsewhere. If you want a machine that runs applications, then the Phenom fits the bill. Not sure what exactly you're asking, since you didn't really give any specific tasks that you intend to run. You touch on video encoding, but not as a specific task you intend to do.

Hell, an X2, Core2, Quad, or Phenom will run whatever you want to run. It just depends on how fast you want to run a task, depends on the CPU you should get.
March 21, 2008 2:33:33 PM

Anyone wanting a fine performing system that doesnt want to overclock, and maybe wants to save a buck or two, olus take advantage of a platform on the cheap (780G) for light gaming, yet great for HD playback. No overclock, price competitive per performance, yea thats who its for
a c 172 à CPUs
March 21, 2008 2:43:29 PM

A really good example what happens when Marketing does not talk to Design and Engineering?
March 21, 2008 3:13:31 PM

Or you have a bunch of brainless twits sitting in your boardroom.
March 21, 2008 3:18:14 PM

jprevost said:
am wanting to have a good reason to build another AMD machine.
Forget about starting with a brand in mind, just make a checklist of what's important to you. Are you concerned about cost? What kind of apps will you run on it, and how often? Do you plan on overclocking? Is upgradability important? Follow your checklist to whatever processor it leads to and go with it.

If you start out wanting to have a reason to go one way or the other, you're apt to find one, regardless of how that reason stacks up against the real facts. That's a bass-ackwards approach IMO.

a b à CPUs
March 21, 2008 3:57:46 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Anyone wanting a fine performing system that doesnt want to overclock, and maybe wants to save a buck or two, olus take advantage of a platform on the cheap (780G) for light gaming, yet great for HD playback. No overclock, price competitive per performance, yea thats who its for



Or perhaps a decent HTPC setup. I like those "butter-smooth" HD playback comments about the 780G IGP. However I'd stick with a lower-power Phenom to avoid fan noise.
March 21, 2008 6:29:54 PM

So far what I've gathered from your replies is that the phenom is a processor that is just the next x2 for everything (gaming included) when not considering overclocking. In other words, it's for a RTR machine that doesn't have any stand-out performance in one area other than maybe server apps and video encoding.
Considering overclocking and Intel walks away with just about every processor they make right now.
So the phenom is good (maybe not great) for an unspecific family computer that should last 4+ years without needing to clean out any dust bunnies :)  .
I can't for the life of me find AMD pushing the chip for any specific application. Kind of sad really because I would think if they priced it as low as they did, they would try and sell them into some market slice. I remember when performance/watt was all the x2, but the price wasn't pretty, then the c2d was all that and then some but the price was stuck and forced the x2's down making them a great buy for a budget gaming build. Now it doesn't look like there is ANY benefit to going with AMD for an internet/office/gaming/family machine. The benefit would only be there if I already had a phenom ready mobo sitting here waiting for an upgrade :(  .
March 21, 2008 7:30:55 PM

The only thing i would build a K10 box for is MySQL servers. It's the 1 area where the chips shine over current Intel offerings. out side of that in the high end performance arena, a K10 is not the best of the best. It is a cheap quad core though.
March 21, 2008 7:43:14 PM

Consider this.
On this board, most people consider AMD chips a failure just because they can reach Intel frequencies. On the other hand, Intel chip cost much more than AMD ones. Even at same performances level. CPU and Motherboard Intel based are more expensive. Yet, from an Intel CPU + motherboard you can get much more power, but you are going to spend more money as well. See the prices of those ultra-mega-super powerful Quad cores.
Phenom CPU costs for what they give.
In the end it all depends on what you use yor PC for (mainly). If you do video encoding/rendering o generally run very CPU intensive application a quad core would be much better than a dual core (even if the latter is faster in clock). If you mainly play games a dual core is still the perfect choice. Now, once you have decided how many cores you need, just look at you pocket and try to chose the best CPU+motherboard you can find for your money. If you desperately need to save 10 secs at each video you encode, then go for Intel Q67xx family. If you prefer to keep you pocket a bit fatter as you don't mind those 10 secs, Phenom may be a solution.
If you want to play Crysis on your brand new 24" monitor @ 1920x1200 with all enabled, go for a E8600 + the faster GForce you can afford (or a couple of them in SLI). If you are happy with a 1600x1200 with medium settings, probably a X2@5400-5600 may be a good choice for half (or less) the price of the previous choice.
Take into consideration than C2D are their end on the actual architecture. Next one will need a completely new motherboard/chipset/memory.
AMD announced that future Phenom CPU will remain compatible with current AM2+ motherboards, so a smooth transition in next months may be available trough that path.

I'm too debated on the kind of PC I am going to build. On one hand a middle set-up AMD based waiting for a further upgrade once faster 45um CPU will be available (ever three cores would be good). On the other hand a full optional (almost as exagerating is stupid in any way) Intel based system to be used in the next couple of year waiting for the brand new architecture to come down in price (and maturing a bit) and so do a change over in a single shot.

My problem is also that I WANT a nVidia GPU. And I can't see many AM2+ motherboards with good SLI support (I'm looking for a 780a motherboard at resonable price).

As there are some interesting offers lately, I think I'm now more geared towards an Intel build (E8400+GF9600 with SLI option in future) which would finally allow me to play modern games at a resolution a bit higher than 800x600 (now I have an Athlon300+ with GF6600... what a dinosaur I am!).

March 21, 2008 8:12:15 PM

We used to buy k6-2s because they were really cheap compared to intel and gave us the acceptable performance we needed. The X2 has run its course and now we are back to where the AMD solutions can't beat intel, but can keep up. Phenom is a great solution for under 200 bucks.

A phenom is a good upgrade from a dual core if your currently running less than an x2 5000+ and you have a motherboard that currently supports phenom. you will feel a bit of a performance difference. Its a great upgrade if you are going from single core to multi-core, and you will love it for a couple of years.
March 21, 2008 8:49:21 PM

K8's - High end gaming machines (single threaded)
K10 - Budget mutli-threading (video encoding)

Core 2 Duo - High end gaming (they have faster models than AMD)
Core 2 Quad - Anything, all models faster than AMD's quad-core

Pentium 4 - Landfill

If you're going to OC, go with Intel. The only processor AMD has that is worth OCing is the Athlon X2 5000+ BE.
March 21, 2008 9:18:53 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
K8's - High end gaming machines (single threaded)
K10 - Budget mutli-threading (video encoding)

Core 2 Duo - High end gaming (they have faster models than AMD)
Core 2 Quad - Anything, all models faster than AMD's quad-core

Pentium 4 - Landfill

If you're going to OC, go with Intel. The only processor AMD has that is worth OCing is the Athlon X2 5000+ BE.

Landfill, that was cold, LOL
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2008 9:49:43 PM

Phonem really belongs in the landfill with the p4s. It can't even beat amd's own x2 6400+, that's just sad. And with the price about the price of a Intel Q6600 ( a far FASTER cpu), there is NO reason to get a phonem. Now IF (big IF), the B3 gains performace (seems to be a debate if 10-20% is gained or not), it MIGHT be worth it. But it would have to finally beat the OLD X2 6400+ and the OLD Intel Q6600.
March 21, 2008 10:38:38 PM

ok it sucks that's all !!
March 21, 2008 10:48:17 PM

computertech82 said:
Phonem really belongs in the landfill with the p4s. It can't even beat amd's own x2 6400+, that's just sad. And with the price about the price of a Intel Q6600 ( a far FASTER cpu), there is NO reason to get a phonem. Now IF (big IF), the B3 gains performace (seems to be a debate if 10-20% is gained or not), it MIGHT be worth it. But it would have to finally beat the OLD X2 6400+ and the OLD Intel Q6600.

This is true, a 6400+ will beat out the current Phenoms, but that 6400 is the highpoint of a design over4-5 years. Eventually we will see phenoms outperforming this, its a clock issue not a IPC issue. Now, if you had to do a clock for clock your 6400 against a phenom youd see improvement. Its come in limping, slightly underperforming, had problems from the get go, but if it gets ironed out, therell still be a place for it, maybe not at the top, but certainly somewhere, as it isnt as bad (with no oc) as all that
March 21, 2008 10:53:37 PM

Ignoring both computertech82 and boner...
Thanks for the replies that boiled down the phenom for me. I think I know how I'll use it in a build.
At where I work, we have a small database and only 2 computers currently. The place is expanding to have 2 additional computers. Right now 1 of the computers is a user AND the sql server. It's our fastest machine, a 64 3400 or something and the other end machine is a celeron D. Everything works great right now but when we add the 2 additional computers and increase the database 2 fold I can see using the phenom as the new server and keep it a user machine. Inexpensive and powerful for the office where we do not overclock.
Again thanks for the replies. BTW, we're using a dual P3 866MHz machine as our VOIP phone system!
March 21, 2008 11:09:02 PM

computertech82 said:
Phonem really belongs in the landfill with the p4s. It can't even beat amd's own x2 6400+, that's just sad. And with the price about the price of a Intel Q6600 ( a far FASTER cpu), there is NO reason to get a phonem. Now IF (big IF), the B3 gains performace (seems to be a debate if 10-20% is gained or not), it MIGHT be worth it. But it would have to finally beat the OLD X2 6400+ and the OLD Intel Q6600.


saying that a Phenom should go to the landfill because a 6400 beats it in single threaded apps is like saying a 2.4Ghz Q6600 should go to the landfill because a 3.0Ghz X6800 can beat it in single threaded apps. a Phenom vs an X2 running at the same speeds will win all the time, and when you use programs that can actually use 4 cores it really pulls ahead of the 6400. not saying its awesome or anything, but its still better clock for clock than the X2's.

proof is here: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/14/phenom_vs_athlon_core_scaling_compared/index.html

March 21, 2008 11:31:16 PM

I am still wondering why I -need- 4 cores as all I do is surf the web,torrent and game.

I can't notice any of the games running any faster moveing from a sngl core to a dual at the same Ghz....but sure as hell noticed alot going from a OC'd 7900GT to a stock 8800GTS (G92)!
March 21, 2008 11:45:31 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
K8's - High end gaming machines (single threaded)
K10 - Budget mutli-threading (video encoding)

Core 2 Duo - High end gaming (they have faster models than AMD)
Core 2 Quad - Anything, all models faster than AMD's quad-core

Pentium 4 - Landfill

If you're going to OC, go with Intel. The only processor AMD has that is worth OCing is the Athlon X2 5000+ BE.

Truth be told I would -rather- have bought more Optron 148's when I picked them up for $70...and more G.Skill PC-4000 (ddr1).
On stock volts they (the seven in my profile) all OC 50% and never get warm (3-4C over room air running Orthos)...and the DDR1 ram beats the fastest DDR2 in Read/Write/Copy benchmarks (Everest) by 1K points.

Shame 939 MB's and fast DDR1 ram are almost just a memory...but you can still pick up Optron 180's boxed for $126.
On stock volts and air the Optrons (939) all had no problem doing 3Ghz (even the 146's) and loads of people had them 3.3-3.4Ghz with just a small volt boost.
March 22, 2008 12:53:36 AM

ZOldDude said:
I am still wondering why I -need- 4 cores as all I do is surf the web,torrent and game.

I can't notice any of the games running any faster moveing from a sngl core to a dual at the same Ghz....but sure as hell noticed alot going from a OC'd 7900GT to a stock 8800GTS (G92)!



Who the hell says YOU NEED 4 cores? If that's all you do, then a P133 would suffice.
March 22, 2008 4:10:45 AM

ZOldDude said:
I am still wondering why I -need- 4 cores as all I do is surf the web,torrent and game.

I can't notice any of the games running any faster moveing from a sngl core to a dual at the same Ghz....but sure as hell noticed alot going from a OC'd 7900GT to a stock 8800GTS (G92)!

Well its been said that nVidia is going to kill AMD, but maybe its the other way around? http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta... and http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta... so when it comes right down to it, for gaming it IS the GPU hmmmm
March 22, 2008 4:33:55 AM

While nvidia may be right to a certain extent, JK's P133 might be okay for solitaire, it can barely play pinball.
Nvidia showed F@H that they were not ready to share enough of thier code to make thier chips good GP-GPUs, so trying to take the cpu out of the equation is no very realistic.
They should face the fact that the pretty little nvidia girls dont stand a chance against the 800lb gorrila.
March 22, 2008 4:37:23 AM

To the OP.
If you dont know that you need all the power that is Intel, chances are good that an AMD chip will do fine. Then again Intel also has some very good deals as well.
March 22, 2008 4:56:20 AM

This is OT but really, trying to run anything faster only goes so far. In reality, almost all users care more about their graphics experience than anything else. Weve reached the stage in the complex computational field where most cpus will get the average Joe by just fine, thus elimnating the need for speed to a large exrent. BUT, an average users experience can be MUCH further increased by a better graphical output/capability. If you place a pc in a store thatll just crunch numbers, put it on a shelf for all to see/try, and put one thats slower at number crunching, but has the capability to play games in 3D, show all things in 3D as a total GUI, guess whod sell more?
March 22, 2008 6:52:30 AM

jprevost said:
I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?


A Phenom 9150 (the 1.8 gigahertz B3 65 watt Phenom arriving soon) would be great for an HTPC with a TV Wonder 650, a Blu-ray drive and a 3450 or 3470 in hybrid Crossfire on a 780G board.

A Phenom 9850 may (or may not) overclock well (we'll have to see). A Phenom 9750 should do well vs. a Q6600 at stock speeds. The 780G is the best budget chipset right now from anyone. Nvidia's trying to compete there but Intel simply cannot.

The triple core Phenom's are great for existing 690 boards with Phenom capable bios updates. The real Phenom's will be Deneb @ 45nm, expected late third quarter this year. I'll still go Phenom B3 to hold me over, though whether I'll go 9750, 9850 or just an 8750 remains to be seen. I'll get a 780 board as well, with new RAM.

The big thing for me, is that there should be AM2+ Denebs that might not require a bios update. If I went Intel for Q6600, Penryn or Wolfdale (good luck finding those in stock), then I'd need a new board for Nehalem. Though Nehalem should be faster than Deneb, I'm not sure it will be a repeat of Q6600 Kentsfields vs. B2 Phenoms. I expect Phenom to be clocked at 3.0 or 3.2, with some overclockablity, this time next year.

So, since I hate just buying new boards and RAM, I'll put an 8750 in our ASUS 690G board, move my signature board, CPU and RAM to a PC in the bedroom, and get a 780G board with a Phenom to hold me over until Deneb. Then, I hope to just stick a Deneb in without any hassles. Only if I finally decide I want CrossfireX next year will I get a new board.

Budget reasons, plus I like ATI/AMD chipsets over Intel or Nvidia. Those reasons probably don't work for most here. Too many people here want SLI on Nvidia boards, or want the absolute fastest overclock they can get to even consider Phenom a reasonable upgrade.

That's okay, there are different types of enthusiasts and people build PC's for different reasons at different price points. Yet, even if I had the money for an extreme edition Intel CPU, I'd still go Phenom because I like the underdog and I expect Deneb to deliver next year.
March 22, 2008 7:09:14 AM

There's no real problem if you're using a PC, at all.

It really depends on what you want do to with your PC. As certain tasks do not require "the fastest Ghz". Like HTPC systems.

Remember that the supposedly "inferior" product (AMD in this case.) will have their price lowered when a more superior product is released, thus having the same overall value.

The value of AMD's processor only gets severely affected when overclocking is involved.

So for me, whatever value you have, you get a good processor.
March 22, 2008 7:47:14 AM

Phenom at the moment is really not as good as all the other choices.

If I were looking to spend above $170 on a processor, why the hell would I not buy a Q6600? And if you're not willing to spend that much, what need for a quad core system do you have anyways? I can get a dual core AMD that runs 3.2GHz at stock for $20 less than the lowest clock speed crippled Phenom. And for $20 more than the 2.3GHz Phenom, I can get the Q6600 which I can easily overclock well over 3GHz. I sure as hell wouldn't buy Phenom for overclocking. Just look at the success of the Phenom BE.

If you want the novelty of saying "lookit, I've got four cores!" for cheap, that's what you buy a Phenom for. If you are an AMD fanboy, you buy the Phenom. That's about it.

My first system I built from the ground-up was an AMD rig with an ASUS K8N-DL mobo, 2gb of RAM, a 7900GTX OC'd, and two 1.8GHz dual core Opterons. I love that system, but I'm sad to say that since then, AMD has not been able to provide me with a four-core solution that I would actually use. The only reason I'd buy a Phenom right now is for the novelty of having an AMD quad core processor as the successor to my first system, but with all the troubles Phenom is having, I wouldn't even buy it for that.

I'm hoping AMD will get it together, but for now, I simply don't see a reason for a Phenom.

PS - If you think a HTPC needs four cores to run properly, you're out of your mind.
March 22, 2008 8:52:16 AM

Unless your playing 1 or 2 certain games or doing video editing alot, you dont need a quad. AMD is cureently in a bad way, not only because their quads are having all the trouble, but there really isnt a big push to go quad. Look how many different posts there are asking quad or dual? The average Joe is just getting used to the idea od dual core, and the software makers are stumped using multithread. And heres Intel saying, yep 8 cores or more. Like I said, people dont use this, software CANT for the most part USE these and yet here we are. Bad timing on Intels part as well, trying to push something that isnt really markwet ready. And really, that much of a difference maker. Like I said, its more about graphics, where theres still alot of room for improvement, more wow factor for the average Joe. Now theres a market.
March 22, 2008 9:46:15 AM

Actually, I highly disagree with you. I'm not sure you've looked at the proper tests and benchmarks, but the quad core does have a multitude of advantages, and it's gathering increasing developer and consumer support. Within the next few years, multi-core (tri/quad and up) systems will become commonplace (hell, they already are becoming quite common) and by the mid-way point of the next decade, dual-cores might be virtually obsolete, just as single core systems are now almost non-existent in the market. Hell, I can remember when I bought a $2000 laptop with a P4 in it... that was three years ago.

I personally have a first-hand knowledge of the quad core advantage, and that's not something I will dispute. What I was saying is that the dual-core processors are more than enough for a lot of intensive media and gaming applications out there, and one does not NEED a quad core for bare minimum performance.

For god's sake, I build PC's for a living, and I've never seen an HTPC that needs more than a 1.6GHz dual core paired with a cheap video card such as an 8600GT. I think I've built 6 or 7 HTPC's so far, and I'm set to build another four in a few days. And I can tell you I'm not using a system with two QX9775's, 3 8800 Ultras, 16gb of RAM, and an nForce 790i chipset.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2008 10:15:13 AM

jprevost said:
I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?
Some quick history so nobody thinks I'm spilling gasoline waiting for somebody to bring a match; my favorite build from scratch was a AMD XP 1600+ with the 1st nForce chipset. For the most part, I build Intel machines and am wanting to have a good reason to build another AMD machine. Upgraded my father's machine from a Pentium D 840 to a used x2 4000 system I picked up a while back for $100 that included a gig of ram.
The only reason I can come up is video encoding, not even transcoding, but just pure h.264 and the like.
I personally prefer AMD's x2's for any pentium 4 family computers but sheesh, the Intel's seem to be steam rolling when you factor in gaming and/or overclocking.


*sings song to make it easier to understand*

aaaaanything AMD cann doo Intel can dooo beta
Intel can market things betta then you
(fanboy singing) no you cant
yes i can....

March 22, 2008 11:38:20 AM

apache_lives said:
*sings song to make it easier to understand*

aaaaanything AMD cann doo Intel can dooo beta
Intel can market things betta then you
(fanboy singing) no you cant
yes i can....



ROFL.
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2008 12:33:56 PM

Okay, I'll tell why I would buy one.
I am in the market to build to a new quad core system soon, I have thought about giving up on AMD and going with an Intel offering. But the more I think about it, I simply will NOT spend my money with Intel. It has nothing to do with who is the fastest. A Phenom, although not the fastest quad core out there will do anything I need just fine, and then some (except benchmark bragging rights, big deal). You can call it anything you like, even foolish or stupid. But there is more to buying a product in my opinion. Thankfully, I have a choice on which company I want to spend my money with, and it's definetly not Intel.

There are many cars out there faster than my Intrepid. Let's start a new thread.... "Dodge Intrepid, good for?"
March 22, 2008 1:58:38 PM

Intel beat me up when I was a kid.


But seriously, AMD's ethics and they way they have treated their following and shareholders has been rather shady lately.
March 22, 2008 1:58:43 PM

jprevost said:
I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?
Some quick history so nobody thinks I'm spilling gasoline waiting for somebody to bring a match; my favorite build from scratch was a AMD XP 1600+ with the 1st nForce chipset. For the most part, I build Intel machines and am wanting to have a good reason to build another AMD machine. Upgraded my father's machine from a Pentium D 840 to a used x2 4000 system I picked up a while back for $100 that included a gig of ram.
The only reason I can come up is video encoding, not even transcoding, but just pure h.264 and the like.
I personally prefer AMD's x2's for any pentium 4 family computers but sheesh, the Intel's seem to be steam rolling when you factor in gaming and/or overclocking.


When considering getting the best processor period, or getting the best processor for a certain price, there is absolutely no reason to buy an AMD processor. Intel has very cheap dual cores (E4500), as well as the best performing (qx9700), they have also captured the best performance for price (q6600). Intel is dominating in every facet. The only reason to purchase a phenom is if you feel like being charitable to AMD, which really is not much of a reason.
March 22, 2008 5:23:29 PM

I wish someone would do a statistical comparison on how many apps and programs currently use more than 1 or 2 threads. Its a very minute amount. I mean a very small amount, just like in gaming, which doesnt show the dominance of the truly superior product of Intel. What Im saying is, maybe a Intel quad will average 30% better on average on most apps/programs vs a Phenom, but when it comes to gaming, its just not there, whether at 4 cores or 2 cores, and by the time we will see a true advantage of multithreading, the Nehalem will be here, and its a whole new socket change anyways
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2008 10:42:08 PM

jitpublisher said:
Okay, I'll tell why I would buy one.
I am in the market to build to a new quad core system soon, I have thought about giving up on AMD and going with an Intel offering. But the more I think about it, I simply will NOT spend my money with Intel. It has nothing to do with who is the fastest. A Phenom, although not the fastest quad core out there will do anything I need just fine, and then some (except benchmark bragging rights, big deal). You can call it anything you like, even foolish or stupid. But there is more to buying a product in my opinion. Thankfully, I have a choice on which company I want to spend my money with, and it's definetly not Intel.

There are many cars out there faster than my Intrepid. Let's start a new thread.... "Dodge Intrepid, good for?"


Oh AMD and Intel are so evil - why dont you buy from VIA instead? It also offers (in)superior products that perform poor clock for clock like AMD ;) 

Buying from the smaller company cause you think the bigger company is evil doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like an Idiot. Put your hard earned cash to good use and get the fastest CPU for your money, pick performance not a brand, bugger both the companies.
March 23, 2008 12:16:25 AM

apache_lives said:
Oh AMD and Intel are so evil - why dont you buy from VIA instead? It also offers (in)superior products that perform poor clock for clock like AMD ;) 

Buying from the smaller company cause you think the bigger company is evil doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like an Idiot. Put your hard earned cash to good use and get the fastest CPU for your money, pick performance not a brand, bugger both the companies.

Does Intel have one of these? http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_484_486,00.html
I'd like to read it.
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2008 1:13:27 AM

I'll tell you what a Phenom and the other AMDs are good for - the low end. I'm building an HTPC and only AMD sells a 45W chip. Right now there is no comparison in the top end. If you really want the best CPU, Intel wins. For medium to low, though, AMD is decent competition.
March 23, 2008 2:15:36 AM

I saw this thread earlier and couldn't think of what to say. Now I have. A Phenom, more specifically a B3 Phenom that performed well, would be good for getting Intel to release its latest Yorkie chips. So far, it seems, Intel is content to not release new chips, but instead just let the market continue as it has for the past several months.

You might remember that when the Phenom was first released, Intel was worried and did a preview of the QX9770. Tom's called Intel a spoiler on it, so Intel shipped out a sample QX9770 right away to prove that it was real. Then the new Yorkies were announced to be shipping in January. But the Phenom bombed, so Intel delayed the new chips. When will the new Intel chips arrive, April, May, June, somethime beyond that? I don't know. But I do know that if a B3 Phenom was to come out next week running at 2.6 ghz or better, we'd probably see Q9450s and Q9550s at Newegg before the week was out.

I myself would like a new Phenom that performed well, so that I could slip it into one present office machine. But realistically, I don't expect to see any B3 Phenom for another month or two at best. Hope I'm wrong about that, but AMD has not impressed me with its abilities for the past year and a half, so I'm not going to get excited. Yes, that's what I'd like, a fast running B3 Phenom (is that an oxymoron?) for my business computer and a Q9550 and a X48 mobo for my gaming computer. But I'm not expecting either anytime soon.
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2008 2:27:18 AM

Q9450s and E8500s are at Newegg, as well as FX-82s and Phenom 9700s, you just can't buy them yet :lol: 

E8500:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Q9450:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

FX-82:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Sorry, couldn't help it. I was trying to see if newegg had fake posted my 4850e yet, but I couldn't find it. Oh well, maybe next week. I'm not in any real rush.
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2008 3:40:29 AM

sailer said:
I saw this thread earlier and couldn't think of what to say. Now I have. A Phenom, more specifically a B3 Phenom that performed well, would be good for getting Intel to release its latest Yorkie chips. So far, it seems, Intel is content to not release new chips, but instead just let the market continue as it has for the past several months.

You might remember that when the Phenom was first released, Intel was worried and did a preview of the QX9770. Tom's called Intel a spoiler on it, so Intel shipped out a sample QX9770 right away to prove that it was real. Then the new Yorkies were announced to be shipping in January. But the Phenom bombed, so Intel delayed the new chips. When will the new Intel chips arrive, April, May, June, somethime beyond that? I don't know. But I do know that if a B3 Phenom was to come out next week running at 2.6 ghz or better, we'd probably see Q9450s and Q9550s at Newegg before the week was out.

I myself would like a new Phenom that performed well, so that I could slip it into one present office machine. But realistically, I don't expect to see any B3 Phenom for another month or two at best. Hope I'm wrong about that, but AMD has not impressed me with its abilities for the past year and a half, so I'm not going to get excited. Yes, that's what I'd like, a fast running B3 Phenom (is that an oxymoron?) for my business computer and a Q9550 and a X48 mobo for my gaming computer. But I'm not expecting either anytime soon.


Heh the Q6600 has been on the market for ages before the phenom, and Intel..... (LOL) was expecting more competition, and pre-released something just incase, everyone got there hopes up for the new AMD cpu, and it turned into a dud.
March 23, 2008 6:09:02 AM

EXT64 said:
Sorry, couldn't help it. I was trying to see if newegg had fake posted my 4850e yet, but I couldn't find it. Oh well, maybe next week. I'm not in any real rush.



Yeah, I've seen a couple of these fake listings come up. Teasers are all they are. I want the real thing, not fantasy.
!