Last message on previous page: Mu_engineer, you must be smoking some good weed...at the same clock the phenom loses to a intel quad in tasks like encoding and rendering, pricewise they may compete, absolute performance, no way !
"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."
Mu_engineer, you must be smoking some good weed...at the same clock the phenom loses to a intel quad in tasks like encoding and rendering, pricewise they may compete, absolute performance, no way !
From Tom's CPU Chart AMD/Intel Quads @ 2.4GHz
Divx 6.6.1
2 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE (Encoding 720x576 16:9 @ 25 fps)
Premiere Pro 2.0
MPEG2 (24 Sec. HDTV 1920 x 1080) to (WMV9 (1920 x 1080))
q6600 = 154 sec
Phenom 9700 = 158 sec
Pinnacle Studio 11 Plus
Private MPEG2-Cam-Movie (Encoding and Transitions Rendering to MPEG-2/DVD)
q6600 = 88 sec
Phenom 9700 = 89 sec
As both AMD/Intel move toward improved SSE4/5 instruction sets it will most likey be the 'programmers who get paid' that determine the outcomes in the ""performance wars""
Premiere Pro 2.0
MPEG2 (24 Sec. HDTV 1920 x 1080) to (WMV9 (1920 x 1080))
q6600 = 154 sec
Phenom 9700 = 158 sec
Pinnacle Studio 11 Plus
Private MPEG2-Cam-Movie (Encoding and Transitions Rendering to MPEG-2/DVD)
q6600 = 88 sec
Phenom 9700 = 89 sec
As both AMD/Intel move toward improved SSE4/5 instruction sets it will most likey be the 'programmers who get paid' that determine the outcomes in the ""performance wars""
Intel will not be implementing SSE5 as it's a AMD derivative of the extension set.
This is a bit funny, I think the prescott launch went fine and the Phenom launch was the second worst ever.
The worst IT launch I can remember is the Pentium D ( Pentium 4 dual core ). Everybody knew it was a rush job, clock frequency had to be scaled down a lot and AMD had obiously done a better job with their dual core chips.
When Tomshardware benchmarked the dual core Pentium 4 in a maraton article, that I can't find anymore, the Pentium system stalled several times because the editors had mounted to small a heatsink on it ( the dual core heatsink looked a lot like other Intel reference heatsinks ).
The TDP of these suckers reached 130 watt beating even the Prescott and setting a new record, only to be beaten later that year by dual core Xeon chips at 165 watt.
The amount of application capable of using dual cores at that time was limited to synthetic benchmarks and encoding. This made dual core a small niche back then, and with the low clock speed of these chips, compared to single core from Intel, made them insuficient for gaming.
Nothing went wrong with the actual launch, the product was just clearly rushed out the door, to slow to beat anything, except for areas such as encoding, and AMD had already shown the superiority of their product, making the whole situation around the launch incredibly awkward and left people asking why.
