JimmySmitty I agree with you ... but its a start ... obviously they are able to bin better parts because even overclocked it still draws less power than the 9850.
The Q6600 is a bit of an unfair comparison becasue it is a 65nm Kenty ... not a 45nm ... a 9450 would have been a better comparison ... and I think it has lower idle and full load draw too.
royalcrown the E8400 is a dual core 45nm Penryn part ... right ??
These are quad core parts we are talking about ... low power ones.
Yes, it is A dual core part reynod, but for almost all applications, it can keep up with the Phenom.
I sure hope AMD's next parts are a lot better so I have something to put in my new AM2+ board. I just don't see the Phenoms as worhth it over my 5400 ...but then I don't encode much. If One of the Deneb variants is awesome, then I'll get one for sure (at least equivalent to Intels current 9 series quads), it's just gonna have to be faster than the 9850 by a bit and 95 watts or less.
"Now if the 4870x2 was actually notably faster than the 280 for about the same price, then I might even take a chance on it. However, that won't be the case."
Yeah ... like they are just going to pack up and close shop and selloff all the fabs and like spend the entire 100 plus Billion on a spaceship and head for Mars ... loaded up with caviar and Bollinger and XBOX games and ...
Sorry ... I was getting carried away.
---------------
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
Flood attempt detected. You cannot post this message.
I would say the two biggest disaster on the chip front was..
Pentium 60 and 66's were slower than a DX4 100 486....
Pentium 1 MMX - what a waste of time that was...
Pentium 4 and RAMBUS - another waste of time to the fact that when intel produced a board with sdram on it - it had bugs and had to be replaced by a motherboard and a rambus memory chip.. DOH...
I wouldnt call Prescott a money disaster - intel made a good little sum from that mistake...
The dual core pentium 4 was a no no, didnt even compare to AMD x's 2 chips...
Phenom is little better than ahtlon 64 in common uses
but in the server market I think it's performence well be better than core 2 quad which is made with 65nm
"Hey, just because your a biased PC user doesn't make any of your lies true! "
Errr.....I think your the one trying to permeate lies, the mouse you have shown is a late model one, for years apple DID have a mouse with one button even when the PC had programable multi button types. Nice to finally have things PC people have enjoyed for years isn't it? Let's not talk about all the other non original hardware shall we.......
Before you sing the apple's tune think about the higher than neccasary prices they charged you, the technology they didn't deliver to you and the stigma you had to endure simply for owning a fruit.
The K10 architecture IS 40% faster per clock on certain server based benchmarks (Which nobody really cares about). AMD just led us to believe that they meant 40% faster across the board, in gaming etc... (Which really pissed me off). Another I hate about the phenom is the fact that it only has one sensor for the entire cpu and that doesn't even report temperature (it reports a relative value that's used for throttling), compared to intel quad cores that have a temp sensor for each core.
One thing core2 really has going for it right now is the cache2 layout (not just the greater quantity of it).
We'll have to see what increasing the IPC, reducing the cache latency and increasing the L3 cache from 2 to 6MB will do for games. If it's cheap and performs acceptably I'll consider considering it.
