Kuma cancelled.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hkepc.com%2F%3Fid%3D1290%26fs%3Dnews&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en

looks like AMD notice that a dual core processor wouldnt even be able to compete Intel's dual core.might as well safe some money and spend on something worth while.a bare minimum for AMD to compete against Intel's dual core is a Tri-core at the moment.
115 answers Last reply
More about kuma cancelled
  1. Given that K10 is a "native" quad core to begin with, it doesn't make sense to deliberately disable two functional cores to produce a Kuma. Remember that since dual core is mainstream now, so the quantity demanded for them will be significantly larger than Phenom/Barcelona.
  2. Or create a native dual-core version... simply would drag AMD down... kinda expected...
  3. I think AMD is in a bad spot and faces some tough challenges over the next few years. Nehalem looks like a monster, so I'm thinking AMD is going to try and settle back into the low end CPU market with some decent mid-range choices.
  4. They haven't made a dual core mask for K10.

    Jeez Gill your a real n00b ... you should read some of the previous threads before posting ...
  5. well cancelled is cancelled!what else to say or explain.plus consumers wouldnt benefit from it anyway the production cost is going to be the same.and what i said is true also.there is no dual core product that can compete with intel.and the likes of Phenom X3 8750 is competeing againt E7200(dual core) and Q6600(quad core),and the result is it beats E7200 in multi threaded apps(pretty obvious) and facing negative result against the Q6600 in stock form.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-x3-8750.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293

    the result speaks for themself.a dual core product will mean pointless.but it might make sense if its a native dual core and cost will be lower.

    so is what i said no true?and my 1400 post is helping people in Overclocking section mostly.unlike you shouting out "AMD4Life" in your sub 1000 post.
  6. I think AMDs mistake was going straight quad core for K10 first before even doing a dual. If they did a dual and quad at the same time maybe they would be in a bit better place since they would have a nice range of low end duals to sell to that could have been cheaper to produce therfore resulting in better profits from it.
  7. The important thing here is the cultural exchange and experience. I would never have known the meaning of Drongo, or would have known about the Aussie version of the Urban Dictionary if it weren't for Reynod. Thanks (and I agree with you).
  8. I agree with jimmy that it would have been nice if AMD had introduced the dual core K10 at the same time they did the quad core, but they didn't have they money to do it. Now they don't have the money to much of anything, and they might have realized that the older AM2 chips were just as fast and cheaper to make as they already have the fabs up and going, so they're staying with them for the time being.
  9. AMD needs faster clocked duals, but the time to take advantage of that is slowly eroding due to software slowly starting to go multi-core.
  10. i think AMD is kinda stuck at the situation if they go forward they will make a lost and going back is not a viable option.the only way to stay alive in stay where they are now and try to make a sale.

    if i rememeber correctly Phenom is marginally faster then the old quad core they've got.its nothing in the world of Core to Nehalem architecture that AMD can achieve.but then again Phenom is just the tock part where as Nehalem is tick.but we will all see how it turns out at the end of the year and beginning of next year.
  11. AMD isn't doing a tick-tock approach. They are doing a tick-flop.

    K8 - Tick
    K10 (Desktop) - Flop
  12. TechnologyCoordinator said:
    AMD needs faster clocked duals, but the time to take advantage of that is slowly eroding due to software slowly starting to go multi-core.


    Yes, but I'd see them spend it on a Deneb and etc. I mean quad-core is the way of the future and for a company like AMD it doesn't make sense to go back even though I'd love to see 65nm K10 45W dual-core...

    iluvgillgill said:

    so is what i said no true?and my 1400 post is helping people in Overclocking section mostly.unlike you shouting out "AMD4Life" in your sub 1000 post.


    Go pick on someone with a similar post count (not me). Intelligence is not measured in posts...
    Jeez, you don't just insult Reynod, he's smart... (Wait why am I supporting him?) :pt1cable:

    If done natively it will cost less as there is less die and a smaller failure rate etc.

    Anonymous said:
    The important thing here is the cultural exchange and experience. I would never have known the meaning of Drongo, or would have known about the Aussie version of the Urban Dictionary if it weren't for Reynod. Thanks (and I agree with you).


    Yeah, he's the one who does proper Australian English... mine is spelt correctly but its condensed and hard to understand let alone read... you need a master's degree in English in English to understand what I'm saying! =)
  13. it looks kinda like it as well.but i guess everyone got no doubt about K10 being a flop when you look at what its originally aim at.
  14. iluvgillgill said:
    i think AMD is kinda stuck at the situation if they go forward they will make a lost and going back is not a viable option.the only way to stay alive in stay where they are now and try to make a sale.

    if i rememeber correctly Phenom is marginally faster then the old quad core they've got.its nothing in the world of Core to Nehalem architecture that AMD can achieve.but then again Phenom is just the tock part where as Nehalem is tick.but we will all see how it turns out at the end of the year and beginning of next year.


    I think K10 was supposed to be the tick to a new future, but it flopped. But it boils down to finances concerning the Kuma chip. Is costs too much to get it into production. So AMD runs as fast as it can with the present dual cores, only to be slowly left behind.

    Yes, I think the latest Phenoms are slightly faster than a Q6600 at stock speed, but the Phenom does overclock very much, struggling to approach 3ghz, while the Q6600 often goes all the way to 3.6ghz. The newest Phenoms aren't bad chips, they just are a year and a half late.
  15. i never said intelligence is count on post.and why im insulting him?well simply because he insulted me first about my post.i just doing a respond to it.and now he edited his post.if he is smart he wouldnt come out with such comment at first.
  16. maybe i should have quoted his message so you can see what he wrote.you seriously think i would just start insulting someone for no reason?have i started on you for no reason?i dont think so!
  17. I don't see this as a bad thing for AMD. Heck when you can buy a Phenom quad core for less than $200 and a triple core for about $150, who cares about a Kuma dual core; especially if the dual cores are clocked at the same speed as the quad and triples!

    @ Technology Coordinator - I agree, AMD need faster core speeds and to concentrate on multi-core procs. Also, I would add their should be a tight focus on the move to 45nm as well.
  18. iluvgillgill said:
    i never said intelligence is count on post.and why im insulting him?well simply because he insulted me first about my post.i just doing a respond to it.and now he edited his post.if he is smart he wouldnt come out with such comment at first.


    I see he see-sawed his anvil-evil. Yup, that's good to hear then... Reynod what did you say exactly?

    iluvgillgill said:
    maybe i should have quoted his message so you can see what he wrote.you seriously think i would just start insulting someone for no reason?have i started on you for no reason?i dont think so!


    Okay, sorry I have a kinda, how shall me say? Liking towards Reynod...

    Sorry if I hurt your feelings or such... I'll see-saw my post if you wanna...
  19. Q6600 < AMD phenom DOT

    how old is the Q6600 compared to the Phenom?, sorry it's a sensitive subject for AMD
    God I love it how my local store keeps trying to convince me that AMD is better then Intel, and that Intel stole ideas etc etc etc... He even got me nearly convinced to buy a x2 3800+ glad I didn't. The Dual cores work fine though, but they are not near intels higher chips.

    It's a shame, cause I don't wanna be in the $500+ range again for a new Intel CPU.

    AMD needs to get their asses together and create something good, they do not have to exceed, but the q6600 is turning pretty old. And still theres not really much to compete it in the multi processor benchmarks.

    The E8400 is a wonderful choice aswell.... but I still like the quad-core idea more, do more in less... gaming, downloading, listening music, scanning at the same time.

    Stop argueing about who insults who, my god, AMD needs to get their stuff ready and compete. Simple as that.
  20. amdfangirl said:
    Sorry if I hurt your feelings or such... I'll see-saw my post if you wanna...


    my feelings are intact.LOL

    i just want to point out things.never intended to insult anyone in this forum(apart from one who always start on me,expect him to come in here!HAHA).i know you are a repectable person as i said before.you only say what you see and believe i dont have a problem with that:)
  21. I agree with Mr. Radium.

    Fancy technology buzzwords don't mean much, it's results. AMD's desktop quads don't compete with most of Intel's quad desktop offerings.
  22. TechnologyCoordinator said:
    AMD isn't doing a tick-tock approach. They are doing a tick-flop.

    K8 - Tick
    K10 (Desktop) - Flop


    LOL. Thats just funny. Also we have yet to see anything about a Intel Nehalem dual core. And if it is as good as the quad parts seem and if the onboard GPU is better than expected then AMD will lose a lot in the low end and HTPC market.

    Anonymous said:
    I don't see this as a bad thing for AMD. Heck when you can buy a Phenom quad core for less than $200 and a triple core for about $150, who cares about a Kuma dual core; especially if the dual cores are clocked at the same speed as the quad and triples!

    @ Technology Coordinator - I agree, AMD need faster core speeds and to concentrate on multi-core procs. Also, I would add their should be a tight focus on the move to 45nm as well.


    Well if you look at what holds a Q6600 back from OCing to 4GHz its just that. Its a quad core and the ability to OC and reach higher speeds is not the same as a dual core. So a dual core would be great for the gaming area since most gamers still feel a dual is better than a quad for gaming.

    Of course I am just a lowly plebbian to their buisiness men so what do I know?
  23. i think reviews should do tests for CPU in a more realistic review such as having background program running such as antivirus and itune and start doing video encoding and time it.because reviews and CPU manufactures cant really expect us to do only one thing as once when we got a multi core CPU which initially allowing us to do more(what intel promoted)
  24. I was running my defrag, antivirus and windows media player while playing TF2 on my Q6600 and never once had it slow down. And Source is very CPU dependant.
  25. I encode flash videos, play itunes, have many forum stuff open in Firefox, Painter X gigapixel res drawing and play diablo 2 on my BF's 40" on a dual display HTPC with uber-slowdown! this means I click alot and nothing happens and heaps of arrows come out like a machine gun, does heaps of damage to the enemy then the enemy still hasn't attacked as it lags, I move and the enemy goes ballistic attack in one direction missing me... repeats and etc. dual core slowdown bug... how did I ever beat diablo without it...
  26. iluvgillgill said:
    i think reviews should do tests for CPU in a more realistic review such as having background program running such as antivirus and itune and start doing video encoding and time it.because reviews and CPU manufactures cant really expect us to do only one thing as once when we got a multi core CPU which initially allowing us to do more(what intel promoted)


    ever since i started with computers ive done more than one thing at a time, on a 2100+ amd i listened to music while playing games, and unzipping a program, of course this was possible due to smart planning on my part. My game drive has always been separate to my other drives so that the HDD access didn't slow my games down. now with my dual core 4400 X2 939 socket, i dont think i actually do more at a time, i have 4 drives, 2 drives in RAID 0 for games and PS, 1 Drive for OS and other programs and 1 Drive for my downloaded files. having my stuff split up like this means my computer doesnt slow down due to HDD access.

    when i get a quad core will i do things differently? No, infact i doubt ill notice a speed increase(apart from supcom).

    EDIT

    at the end of the day what im trying to say is that its not really the CPU that makes the difference when they go as fast as they do, its the limitations of the HDD, amdfangirl i bet that if you got another drive and put your music and itunes on it allong with your Painter X gigapixel program on a different drive then your game will not slow down.
  27. On some single core games I find that my AMD Opteron 175 (S939) runs faster with core affinity set so it only runs on one core.
  28. ^ sometimes you must set it to single core or it won't run!
  29. Ok first off, all AMD multi-core cpus are native-dual/tri/quad

    Second, AMD bought out quads first because their AM2 dual-cores were already compatible with the AM2+/phenom platforms. Dual-cores have been around for 5 years, they are getting to be the entry level cpu solution. Anyone that is still using a single core chip today would still see huge performance gains getting an AM2 dual core in a system that would cost less than $300 to build. Anyone that is using a dual-core system is going to be more inclined to purchase a quad-core rig.

    Lastly....those benchmarks are biased simpily by the test platform being 32bit. Intel has rather lackluster performance in 64bit applications, where as AMD excels in 64bit computing. Benchmarks that test 64bit hardware in 32bit OS's with 32bit software just annoy me. But rather than just rant about the idiocy and unfairness of the practice i'll just give numbers.

    Cinebench, much like 3DS max 9, maya, softimage and all the other 3D modeling and animation software...is 64bit compatible, but than so are all of the other benchmarking suites commonly used. I'm still running a 939 socket 4400x2 toledo core cpu, on a DFI cff3200 Dr/g mobo, with 4 gigs of ram and an HD2900xt gfx card. I however chooseto run my 64bit hardware on 64bit vista ultimate. Now while i normally run my cpu OCed at 3.6ghz, to be fair i set the clock back down to 2.2ghz to run cinebench.

    Running the 32bit benchmark at 2.2ghz i scored a meger xcpu 3023
    Running the 64bit benchmark at 2.2ghz i scored a meger xcpu 3540

    hmm...my amd cpu performed 17% better when running the same application in 64bit version.

    Sooo....it would be a fair assumption that the 7625 score the phenom x4 9750 recieved in 32bit cinebench would be around 8921 running 64bit cinebench. Maybe more, maybe less, but certainly higher then the 32bit benchmark. As for intel's performance, i really don't know what the difference would be as i have not seen many 64bit benchmarks run on their platforms
  30. ^ Sorry buddy but you talk about Intel having lackluster performance in 64Bit while not having an Intel system to test. Your scores mean nothing.

    K8 is old. K8.5 may bring some power improvements and a few others but the increase in performance will notmake it a god send.

    As far as I have seen 64Bit performance is not defined by the brand, i.e. AMD does not guarantee the best 64Bit performance.

    Go away with your fanboyism.
  31. Looks like you're both wrong.
    "History of Intel 64

    Historically, AMD has developed and produced processors patterned after Intel's original designs, but with x86-64, roles were reversed: Intel found itself in the position of adopting the architecture which AMD had created as an extension to Intel's own x86 processor line."

    "There are a few differences between the two instruction sets. Compilers generally produce binaries that are compatible with both (that is, compatible with the subset of X86-64 that is common to both AMD64 and Intel 64), making these differences mainly of interest to compiler developers and to operating system developers.

    [edit] Recent implementations

    * Intel 64's BSF and BSR instructions act differently when the source is 0 and the operand size is 32 bits. The processor sets the zero flag and leaves the upper 32 bits of the destination undefined.

    * Intel 64 lacks the ability to save and restore a reduced (and thus faster) version of the floating-point state (involving the FXSAVE and FXRSTOR instructions).

    * Intel 64 lacks some model-specific registers that are considered architectural to AMD64. These include SYSCFG, TOP_MEM, and TOP_MEM2.

    * AMD64 require a different microcode update format and control MSRs while Intel 64 supports microcode update as in 32-bit mode.

    * AMD64 originally lacked the MONITOR and MWAIT instructions, used by operating systems to better deal with Intel's Hyper-threading feature and also to enter specific low power states.

    * AMD64 systems allow the use of the AGP aperture as an IOMMU. Operating systems can take advantage of this to let normal PCI devices DMA to memory above 4 GiB. Intel 64 systems require the use of bounce buffers, which are slower.

    * Intel 64 only supports SYSCALL and SYSRET in IA-32e mode (not in compatibility mode). SYSENTER and SYSEXIT are supported in both modes.
    * AMD64 lacks support for SYSENTER and SYSEXIT in both sub-modes of long mode.

    * Near branches with the 66H (operand size) prefix behave differently. Intel 64 clears only the top 32 bits, while AMD64 clears the top 48 bits.

    * AMD64 added support for 1GB pages, in the page table system.
    "
  32. All I stated was that a certain brand does not mean the best performance. Its all dependcant on the product itesl. A Pentium D, yea it would bow to a AMD X2. But a Core 2, I dowubt it would even worry.
  33. iocedmyself said:
    Ok first off, all AMD multi-core cpus are native-dual/tri/quad
    :pfff: A song the AMD fanboys sing to themselves whilst crying in their cheerios. Scroll up to Yomama's post (it's the second post) and read his signature.
  34. iocedmyself said:
    Ok first off, all AMD multi-core cpus are native-dual/tri/quad

    Second, AMD bought out quads first because their AM2 dual-cores were already compatible with the AM2+/phenom platforms. Dual-cores have been around for 5 years, they are getting to be the entry level cpu solution. Anyone that is still using a single core chip today would still see huge performance gains getting an AM2 dual core in a system that would cost less than $300 to build. Anyone that is using a dual-core system is going to be more inclined to purchase a quad-core rig.

    Lastly....those benchmarks are biased simpily by the test platform being 32bit. Intel has rather lackluster performance in 64bit applications, where as AMD excels in 64bit computing. Benchmarks that test 64bit hardware in 32bit OS's with 32bit software just annoy me. But rather than just rant about the idiocy and unfairness of the practice i'll just give numbers.

    Cinebench, much like 3DS max 9, maya, softimage and all the other 3D modeling and animation software...is 64bit compatible, but than so are all of the other benchmarking suites commonly used. I'm still running a 939 socket 4400x2 toledo core cpu, on a DFI cff3200 Dr/g mobo, with 4 gigs of ram and an HD2900xt gfx card. I however chooseto run my 64bit hardware on 64bit vista ultimate. Now while i normally run my cpu OCed at 3.6ghz, to be fair i set the clock back down to 2.2ghz to run cinebench.

    Running the 32bit benchmark at 2.2ghz i scored a meger xcpu 3023
    Running the 64bit benchmark at 2.2ghz i scored a meger xcpu 3540

    hmm...my amd cpu performed 17% better when running the same application in 64bit version.

    Sooo....it would be a fair assumption that the 7625 score the phenom x4 9750 recieved in 32bit cinebench would be around 8921 running 64bit cinebench. Maybe more, maybe less, but certainly higher then the 32bit benchmark. As for intel's performance, i really don't know what the difference would be as i have not seen many 64bit benchmarks run on their platforms



    As far as I know, Intel's inability to perform Macro-Fusion under 64bit costed them about 5%~10% performance hit, which is not sufficient enough to close the gap of at least 20% between AMD CPUs.

    In other words, AMD's CPU doesn't run faster under 64bit, but Intel's CPU runs slower. Unfortunately, Intel's CPU still runs faster even when one of its arms is strapped behind its back.
  35. I don't care about how well my system will do in 64-bit. I run a 32-bit OS. My applications are 32-bit. My games are 32-bit.

    64-bit benchmarks are good for people who will actually use them. However, the vast majority of computer users are running 32-bit OSes, hence 32-bit benchmarks.

    64-bit will catch on quickly when Microsoft stops providing a 32-bit option. The next OS being released is an update to Vista, so that will still be 32/64. However, I would imagine the OS they release after that will be a major update, and it wouldn't surprise me if they only offer it in 64-bit.

    Until then, 32-bit benchmarks please.

    iocedmyself said:
    Ok first off, all AMD multi-core cpus are native-dual/tri/quad

    Second, AMD bought out quads first because their AM2 dual-cores were already compatible with the AM2+/phenom platforms. Dual-cores have been around for 5 years, they are getting to be the entry level cpu solution. Anyone that is still using a single core chip today would still see huge performance gains getting an AM2 dual core in a system that would cost less than $300 to build. Anyone that is using a dual-core system is going to be more inclined to purchase a quad-core rig.

    Lastly....those benchmarks are biased simpily by the test platform being 32bit. Intel has rather lackluster performance in 64bit applications, where as AMD excels in 64bit computing. Benchmarks that test 64bit hardware in 32bit OS's with 32bit software just annoy me. But rather than just rant about the idiocy and unfairness of the practice i'll just give numbers.

    Cinebench, much like 3DS max 9, maya, softimage and all the other 3D modeling and animation software...is 64bit compatible, but than so are all of the other benchmarking suites commonly used. I'm still running a 939 socket 4400x2 toledo core cpu, on a DFI cff3200 Dr/g mobo, with 4 gigs of ram and an HD2900xt gfx card. I however chooseto run my 64bit hardware on 64bit vista ultimate. Now while i normally run my cpu OCed at 3.6ghz, to be fair i set the clock back down to 2.2ghz to run cinebench.

    Running the 32bit benchmark at 2.2ghz i scored a meger xcpu 3023
    Running the 64bit benchmark at 2.2ghz i scored a meger xcpu 3540

    hmm...my amd cpu performed 17% better when running the same application in 64bit version.

    Sooo....it would be a fair assumption that the 7625 score the phenom x4 9750 recieved in 32bit cinebench would be around 8921 running 64bit cinebench. Maybe more, maybe less, but certainly higher then the 32bit benchmark. As for intel's performance, i really don't know what the difference would be as i have not seen many 64bit benchmarks run on their platforms
  36. now i know there is a person more of fanboi then anyone i've come across.i think you should get yourself updated with the world.and that guy is still running a 2900XT if you have notice.get a grip!you will see more then 20% increase if you just swap out your old banger to a 8800GT.and about CPU?i dont think its worthwhile telling you about it since you are still living in the world of Pentium D and Celeron.

    i dare you to go out and get anyone's Core 2 based system and do a benchmark and compare it to yours.i think you wont say a thing afterward.
  37. Um gill, I use a HD2900Pro 1GB and it can easily keep up with the 8800GT. His GPU is not bad plus not everyone can afford to buy a new GPU every 3 months, like myself.

    But he is BSing. Hell he actually posted this same crap in some other thread. I kid you not it is word for word, verbatum the same as the other one.
  38. ^
    i mean 2900 is not a bad card at all!but its AMD's driver support that stop it from bringing out its full potential.no offence to the HD2900 i just wanna P him off and correct him if you know what i mean!
  39. iluvgillgill said:
    now i know there is a person more of fanboi then anyone i've come across.i think you should get yourself updated with the world.and that guy is still running a 2900XT if you have notice.get a grip!you will see more then 20% increase if you just swap out your old banger to a 8800GT.and about CPU?i dont think its worthwhile telling you about it since you are still living in the world of Pentium D and Celeron.

    i dare you to go out and get anyone's Core 2 based system and do a benchmark and compare it to yours.i think you wont say a thing afterward.


    You seriously dont have any right to call anyone a fanboy, Lol
  40. and so do you!

    a core 2 at 2ghz will outperformance his K8 AMD at 3Ghz.so it is true.i think you should do some research before you criticise on ANY comment made from ANYONE.
  41. iluvgillgill said:
    and so do you!

    a core 2 at 2ghz will outperformance his K8 AMD at 3Ghz.so it is true.i think you should do some research before you criticise on ANY comment made from ANYONE.


    OK, I want to see these benchmarks, cuz Im calling your **** out yet again.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/3dmark06-cpu,370.html?p=1266%2C1264%2C1263%2C1253%2C1259%2C1260%2C1242%2C1240%2C1233%2C1227

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/3dmark06-cpu,370.html?p=1266%2C1264%2C1263%2C1253%2C1259%2C1260%2C1242%2C1240%2C1233%2C1227

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/xvid-1-1-2,403.html?p=1264%2C1266%2C1263%2C1253%2C1260%2C1259%2C1242%2C1240%2C1233%2C1227

    The list goes on, to beat K8 at 3.2Ghz, the Core2 needs to hit 2.6 Ghz.

    Utter fail fanboi.
  42. B-Unit said:


    Well you are right in the 3DMark06 charts. It does take a 2.66GHz chip to beat a 3.2GHz K8. But then again the 3DMark06 doesn't show real world performance. Its a nice number to look at but its not all important.

    But one thing. In the XVid benchmark do me a favor. Click the link at the bottom of the chart that says "View all Products". It will show all the CPUs tested since 2007. You will see that a E6600 (2.4GHz chip) beats a 6400+ X2. So thats a 800MHz clock advantage and it gets beat.

    So he was close. A 2.2GHz Core 2 will beat a 3GHz K8. 800MHz clock difference. Next time make sure you check the whole chart and not what seems to be.
  43. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/xvid-1-1-2,403.html?p=1266%2C1264%2C1263%2C1253%2C1252%2C1262%2C1260%2C1259%2C1242%2C1227%2C1233%2C1302#

    Took your advice, cleaned them up a bit, added the E6600 and the X2 6000+. So, yes, I exagerated, the proper 2.4Ghz Core2 can beat the 6400+. However the E6400 at 2.1 scores exactly the same as the 3.0Ghz part from AMD. Not quite the beatdown gilly was describing.
  44. B-Unit said:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/xvid-1-1-2,403.html?p=1266%2C1264%2C1263%2C1253%2C1252%2C1262%2C1260%2C1259%2C1242%2C1227%2C1233%2C1302#

    Took your advice, cleaned them up a bit, added the E6600 and the X2 6000+. So, yes, I exagerated, the proper 2.4Ghz Core2 can beat the 6400+. However the E6400 at 2.1 scores exactly the same as the 3.0Ghz part from AMD. Not quite the beatdown gilly was describing.


    Yea not as bad as gill said but it is doing to A64 whats A64 did to Prescott only worse.
  45. alright my wrong i exagerated it.but Core 2 will beat it clock for clock.am i right b-unit or i just chatting BS again?

    note:i found someone more fanboylistic than you!!!lol
  46. I love how you run around yelling this stuff like its news. Its been this way for 2 years, stop gloating.
  47. iluvgillgill look what you started.... :lol:
  48. lol well just broadcasting news for those people who dont goto other websites to get news.because the news at tom is not that up to date.and if you have notice its mostly on Intel Nehalem and penryn.im sure there is no rules that says i cant spread news.is there?
  49. shadow! i know! i think everyone can see! but i still rate that iocedmyself as my number one AMD fan though!LOL
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel Dual Core AMD Product