QX6700 underclocked to 2.3 ghz to match the 9600. Clock for clock does matter, it shows the actual difference in performance of the architecture without trying to calculate the difference mathematically. Real world results....
BUT, as you can see, the phenom does stay relatively close, although still behind. Yet, they charge a arm and a leg for a 2.3 ghz phenom which is inferior to a q6600 for the price.
It's idiotic to buy the phenom over the q6600 for a new build atm. If upgradability is your boat then that's a dif story, but not performance wise. The qx6700 at 2.3 couldn't be beat except in one or two (one being synthetic, which doesn't hold a lot of value for real world performance) benchmarks, meanwhile the q6600 is clocked faster and targeted at the same price range as the phenom 6600.
Bottom of the line, AMD is overcharging for a inferior processor, that is very limited in oc potential thanks to this TLB eratta, issues with their 65nm SOI design, heat, and power consumption. We also have the yorkfield processors just a month or two away, while lowering the power consumption (considerably in idle), and increasing the lowest end quad core clock speed to 2.5 ghz at 266 dollars.
AMD was extremely late in offering their solution, it performs worse then the much older core 2's, while taking more power, and having many issues that need to be fixed. They have the audacity to price it at the same range as the q6600, while it can't beat it clock for clock, they even priced the 2.3 phenom to match the 2.4 intel offering. If they at least priced it competitively I wouldn't have an issue. It's already sad to think how late this processor was to get into the market, offering this kind of performance. Especially considering the claims and lies AMD was marketing about a 40% improvement over intels core processors. Personally, this launch is a utter joke.
I guess that pretty much sums it up, it's nearly even. I wish there was more applications tested. But with their pricing it's ridiculous to build a new AMD quad core rig. But the most important point, Clock for clock, inferior to a very dated product.
Message edited by Kamrooz on 12-12-2007 at 10:48:38 PM
You obviously need to further your reading comprehension. he said "a clip faster than the Cloverton chips on the market." Why would he be stupid enough to mean higher clocked chips? And below you even found the exact quote that I - excuse me - WE used.
Give it up.
Selective quoting again? BM, how many times do I have to point it out to you?
Quote :
But AMD's "Barcelona" quad-core chip, due to arrive midway through 2007, will be a significant notch faster than the Clovertown chips expected to be on the market at that time
Expected to be on the market at that time. This means he's targeting the Clovertown chips on the market when Barcelona launches.
Selective quoting again? BM, how many times do I have to point it out to you?
Quote :
But AMD's "Barcelona" quad-core chip, due to arrive midway through 2007, will be a significant notch faster than the Clovertown chips expected to be on the market at that time
Expected to be on the market at that time. This means he's targeting the Clovertown chips on the market when Barcelona launches.
Pwnt.
So there are no 2.3Ghz chips to compare to? So you're actually saying that AMD meant the chip would be faster than a higher-clocked chip? You're right. They are stupid.
But then I guess he could have meant "revision of....." I guess what he says depends on whether or not you like an open market or whether you think that AMD just got lucky with K8 and now the mighty Intel will run them out of business.
So there are no 2.3Ghz chips to compare to? So you're actually saying that AMD meant the chip would be faster than a higher-clocked chip? You're right. They are stupid.
But then I guess he could have meant "revision of....." I guess what he says depends on whether or not you like an open market or whether you think that AMD just got lucky with K8 and now the mighty Intel will run them out of business.
How does what AMD claimed have anything to do with my preference of open market? Its plain for everyone to see. There is no "ifs", or "buts", but "40% faster than the fastest Clovertown on the market at that time".
Maybe you should step out, and see this from an angle other than your own's.
I don't want to see AMD vanish, I just want Baron for ONCE to at least look at the current situation without blinded eyes, which seems to be more impossible than getting the government on stem cells and clean energy....
Baron, read my prior post, funny how you ignore posts that completely relate to your argument, as well as destroy it. clock for clock, inferior...
BM: AMD MEANT K10 FASTER THAN 450MHZ PENTIUM II UNDERCLOCKED TO 100 MHZ, NOT ANY CURRENT CHIP AT STOCK FREQUENCIES
TC: WTF?
YO: WTF?
BM: PEOPLE DON'T WANT AMD CHIPS COMPAIRED TO CURRENT INTEL TECHNOLOGY! THEY WANT K10 CHIPS COMPARED TO OLD, UNDERCLOCKED INTEL TECHNOLOGY. WHAT WOULD BE THE USE TO COMPARE IT TO CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AT STOCK FREQUENCIES!?
BM: AMD MEANT K10 FASTER THAN 450MHZ PENTIUM II UNDERCLOCKED TO 100 MHZ, NOT ANY CURRENT CHIP AT STOCK FREQUENCIES
TC: WTF?
YO: WTF?
BM: PEOPLE DON'T WANT AMD CHIPS COMPAIRED TO CURRENT INTEL TECHNOLOGY! THEY WANT K10 CHIPS COMPARED TO OLD, UNDERCLOCKED INTEL TECHNOLOGY. WHAT WOULD BE THE USE TO COMPARE IT TO CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AT STOCK FREQUENCIES!?
Sit down. Breath. Now try to care less.
The energy you put into bashing AMD and BM is reaching extremes. AMD really did hurt your feelings by moving to AM2 like they did eh? Maybe therapy?
this entire situation reminds me of what happened to Intel back when the P4s were being beat by the Athlon 64s. They built the Core architecture to give people hope, then came back with the Core2 architecture and destroyed the Athlons. Yes AMD does not have the time span Intel might have had due to the fact that they are a much larger company and hae much more money to work with, however, even if AMD continues to go in the red, IBM, Samsung, Tx Insturments, and other chip makers will have intrest in AMD, after all they are second largest x86 microprocessor producer. AMD does have significant value to the market, and many companies have invested too much research and development to let AMD die. K10 will be the original core architecture that was to Intel, only for AMD.
I predict within the next two years the highend will be dominated by the smaller of the two again, and will push Intel into making a Core3 or something of nature.
L3 cache works, well it does help if you actually make it work. And why would they remove the IMC now when they have had it working for more than 2 years. There is a big speed advantage in terms of memory access with the IMC. Intel just didn't do it because they were stubborn and believed that GHz were the way (now it's actually core count). AMD's IMC did bring insane memory benchmark numbers before Core 2 came.
Though its amazing how intel was able to boost memory access perf without resorting to an IMC, i'd love to see the boost that it could actually bring to a Core 2 right now.
BTW, its not relly core count that is what is most important, many applications and even games cannot take advantage of two or more cores, and it actually hurts performance...according to Tom, L2 cache is even more important than second/second third and fourth core, at least on Core 2 models...disabling L2 cache had more of an impact on performance than disabling the second core...
Looks like a bunch of 486 processors a few MMX 233's and a couple Pentium pro's.
If you look very closely, there is an AMD chip (Am486 or Am5x86) at each corner. The rest appear to be Intel CPUs.
Quote :
Remember the slot processors? What possessed them to do that I will never know........
The reason AMD and Intel did that is because it allowed them to put L2 cache with their processors and run it at a reasonable speed and not break the bank. The then-current 350 nm and 250 nm process technology didn't give anybody enough of a transistor budget to have much of an on-die (and full-speed) L2 cache and have the chip be anything less than horrifically expensive. The motherboard makers of the day could choose to put L2 cache on the motherboard and it ran at bus speed, which wasn't terribly fast compared to core speed. Intel tried to boost L2 cache performance by making an MCM out of the Pentium Pro to run the L2 cache at full speed. One die was the PPro core and the other was the L2 cache, connected by a backside bus. This was fast but very expensive to manufacture. The slot was a "meet in the middle" approach between the MCM L2 cache running at full speed and the on-motherboard cache running at bus speed. The CPU sat on a little daughter card with L2 cache chips very near it so that they could run at 1/2 core speed. This was the best option for performance for the price at the time, which is why they did it. When the 180 nm chips were developed, there was enough transistor budget to put the L2 on-die and run it at full speed. Thus, slots were no longer needed but they hung around a little while just because it was what mobo makers were making and the chips weren't yet running hot enough that thermal and weight issues of the slot were insurmountable. Not to mention system integrators liked the things as they didn't have to goof with putting HSFs on processors- just plug in the cartridge and go.
The reason that slots went away was that chips drew more power than the number of power pins in the 242-contact slots (both A and 1) had, also the cartridge didn't lend itself to cooling as well as a socket would. SO it is not a surprise that once the process nodes got small enough to put the L2 on die, out popped Socket 370 and A, and the slots went away for good.
Quote :
That is pretty neat I have a lot of respect for people who can recycle stuff in useful ways.
Ah...the flames died? Oh well, there's always another one...
What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that Baron somehow manages to ignore every frekin proof out there...Any normal guy, including fanboys, would admit AMD isn't in great shape and that Phenom sucks. I bet BM will continue to boast about Phenom after AMD dies
That aside, anyone knows if AMD improved the leaking problem on the 65nm Brisbane? I believe their reason for not moving to 65nm earlier was the fact that 65nm leaked too much and also they probably thought that the K10 would replace the K8s anyways. I get the feeling that using this desperate plan they did not fix the leakage...
If you look very closely, there is an AMD chip (Am486 or Am5x86) at each corner. The rest appear to be Intel CPUs.
Quote :
Remember the slot processors? What possessed them to do that I will never know........
The reason AMD and Intel did that is because it allowed them to put L2 cache with their processors and run it at a reasonable speed and not break the bank. The then-current 350 nm and 250 nm process technology didn't give anybody enough of a transistor budget to have much of an on-die (and full-speed) L2 cache and have the chip be anything less than horrifically expensive. The motherboard makers of the day could choose to put L2 cache on the motherboard and it ran at bus speed, which wasn't terribly fast compared to core speed. Intel tried to boost L2 cache performance by making an MCM out of the Pentium Pro to run the L2 cache at full speed. One die was the PPro core and the other was the L2 cache, connected by a backside bus. This was fast but very expensive to manufacture. The slot was a "meet in the middle" approach between the MCM L2 cache running at full speed and the on-motherboard cache running at bus speed. The CPU sat on a little daughter card with L2 cache chips very near it so that they could run at 1/2 core speed. This was the best option for performance for the price at the time, which is why they did it. When the 180 nm chips were developed, there was enough transistor budget to put the L2 on-die and run it at full speed. Thus, slots were no longer needed but they hung around a little while just because it was what mobo makers were making and the chips weren't yet running hot enough that thermal and weight issues of the slot were insurmountable. Not to mention system integrators liked the things as they didn't have to goof with putting HSFs on processors- just plug in the cartridge and go.
The reason that slots went away was that chips drew more power than the number of power pins in the 242-contact slots (both A and 1) had, also the cartridge didn't lend itself to cooling as well as a socket would. SO it is not a surprise that once the process nodes got small enough to put the L2 on die, out popped Socket 370 and A, and the slots went away for good.
Quote :
That is pretty neat I have a lot of respect for people who can recycle stuff in useful ways.
It's also quite a conversation piece as well.
Wow you have good eyes......I see them now at the corners............
Thanks for the history lesson that is pretty interesting.
turpit the reason it is pretty much all Intell chips in the table is because unused AMD chips are hard to find beacuase they are still in use.............
