The "REAL" price difference between a Phenom 2 and I7 System - Page 6

Last message on previous page:

You can't disable virtual memory in Windows. In fact, it won't even run without a page file. The only reason 4GB is inherently better than 3GB is because you can enable dual channel.

You're overpricing the i7 by $60 and your logic for comparing motherboards is crap-typical fanboy.

The server numbers are = to the DT so far, thats what Ive seen. If I find the info, Ill post it. Anyways, yes i million sold, including server. Otellini wasnt specific, just gave overall sales/numbers. Ill se if I can find those numbers.
What Id like to see is what % overall they are, Im thinking very low, ATOM or no ATOM

Hmm, if you are referring to the Xeon version of i7 as "server", those just got released. How could they affect the i7 totals in any significant way?

And speaking of server, I find it interesting to note that AMD has to release the 6-core Istanbul in a couple months as they know Xeon is going to eat their lunch bigtime in 2S. Hopefully that will motivate Intel to release the Westmere DT and server versions earlier than their roadmaps state.

a million of those is about half a million more than i would expect with the platform entry price and the dismal economy. i bet the million is speaking in whole, not just dt

Yeah you are right you definitely can. Under Vista go to control panel>system>Advanced System Settings>Settings under Performance>Advanced>Change under Virtual Memory>Click on no page filing and click OK. That is how simple it is.

Yeah I have problems with DOW II which wont run without page filing on. I edited the game to disable that check and I got better performance with it off that way. It is just that when you own 4GB+ of RAM you don't need the 4GB+ of wasted space on your hard drive(s) for most things.

Funny he didn't mention anything about the price of the PII being cheaper.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103471

First of all, Otellini said 'over a million shipped', not "sold", so unless Intel shipped half a million Xeons on day 1, I seriously doubt that a significant portion of i7 shipments in the first 5 months was for server.

As I mentioned before, i7 seems to be parallelling Intel's C2Q shipments for DT - over a million of them shipped in about 4 months, and Intel never looked back. And this in a recession. When the world economy recovers, Intel will be well-positioned to ride the wave.

Overall the i7 platform is still more expensive. Then again I can't afford a PhII system either.

I lol'd.

"Intel has revised its Core i7 sales guide for 2009 and it looks like Core i7 sales aren’t look that great. "


http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] 6&Itemid=1

Also, a W7 will save on ram

No, what the article is saying "by Intel’s own definition, every chip that hasn’t reached a production count of at least 1 million, cannot be considered a volume production part. "
Thats not FUaD, or TG, thats Intels standards.
I still havnt found my old link as well.

So, to take AMDs plans, which was to replace the AM2 with AM3, and construe what Intels standards are obviously 2 different things.

Facts are, i7 isnt selling, and havnt been selling. Its DT, and AMDs share has risen on DT. Its Intels own decision. They came out with i7, they planned C2 to hold the low end, but its found a competitor in AM2-3, and high end isnt selling now. Its like I said awhile ago. AMD is doing better in this economy than Intel, tho you and others were proclaiming Intel would continue to dominate even more with their current lineup. Intels figures has changed as far as market sales goes, concerning i7, and its %. Its just a good thing for Intel they have C2 to fall back on

I didn't notice any difference in responsiveness between a 2GB Vista x86 rig and a 4GB Vista x64 rig (same rig actually, just different OS and RAM amount). 1GB to 2GB is very noticeable, but after that I saw nothing. Perhaps if I really paid attention I could see a difference, but if I have to concentrate it isn't a big enough issue to matter.

The real difference was that the x86 rig, without a certain update that I can't remember the KB number of, would get out-of-memory errors very easily in World in Conflict before I got past the opening cinematic. Installed the patch, game worked fine after it.

Hmm, which is it now, Jay - DT or server? You were saying in a prior post that it was half & half. Besides, one quarter doesn't make for too much significance, esp. when DT as a whole is dropping as netbooks are rising. AMD's DT share only went up to 21% or 22%, depending on which article you read. That means just about all the other part - 77% or 78% - belongs to Intel.

Call me a nutjob, but with Intel actually making a larger-than-expected profit in Q1, whereas AMD posted yet another $400M+ loss, their 9th or 10th loss in a row IIRC, I would say the opposite is true . I'm no accountant, but to me the balance sheet bottom line is, well, the bottom line, unless you're standing on your head .

IIRC Intel only projected i7 shipments to be around 1-2% of their total CPU output for 2009 - I'll see if I can find the linky. Of course, that was before the Xeon reviews, esp. the EP review on Anand. And I've seen some Fuddy rumors that Intel may be bringing EX forward this year. I predict that AMD is going to hemorrhage significant marketshare in the high-margin 1P & 2P and maybe 4P server market this year, despite Istanbul next month, or else AMD will have to cut prices to the bone which will put Dirk's latest prediction of a return to profitability in dire jeopardy.

Frankly, I suspect Intel may decide it has had enough of the 'pesky little company' after the EU findings, and decide to cut C2 prices to just above profitability and risk the sanctions. So Meyer's comments about 'throwing a light switch' may turn out more like throwing the electric chair switch..

LOL - I realized what you likely meant was 'AMD doing better than AMD a while ago" but even that statement is not quite true. IIRC, AMD had pared its quarterly losses down to a bit over $200M in Q3-08. However the last 2 quarters have been way more than that.

AFAIK, AMD doesn't make a VLIW-type server chip, so Itanium sales or the lack thereof shouldn't affect the x86 server marketshare. AMD, and rightly so, is worried about i7 eating their marketshare in that high-margin space, which is why they are bringing the 6-core Istanbul to market next month. And it will probably be Intel setting what price AMD will be able to charge for it. So I would not say AMD is in control of its own future, by any means.

As for the restructuring at AMD's top, at least Meyer realizes a missed market opportunity, albeit about a year too late. He now says AMD is planning on an Atom competitor - I guess canceling Bobcat was a mistake.

From what I've read about the netbook market, it's size, portability and battery life that are more important than processing power. Netbook buyers don't expect to be getting a desktop-power system in ultra-portable format. With Intel releasing the next gen of Atom with the IGP integrated on the same die, AMd will have to bust their nugget in order to catch up - question is, will it be worth it to them at this point? An underclocked 45nm K8 probably ain't gonna cut it, due to the power needed for good OoO execution. So I'd guess AMD will come out with some simplified, in-order version, in which case we can all say AMD is copying the innovator Intel once again .

I thought the 2-3-4 core activation was just about dead, since AMD has taken steps to eliminate that freebie upgrade. And really, the only 'appealing' going on is the low prices, since the vast majority of PC purchasers look at that aspect first. And when the economy picks up, and low price starts to matter less vs. brand-appeal, and if Intel does a little TV & radio advertising (a concept foreign to AMD marketing apparently), then the i7 (& i5) may start getting above the 1% marketshare level.

I really haven't heard much about BD lately, except for Theo or maybe Fuad's article on it which turned out to be outdated. Supposedly it'll be fusion with integrated graphics, but Intel will have the lead there with the i5. Since this is a new arch, and seeing as how it took AMD 3 tries with K8, K10 and now K10.5 to compete with C2, I'm guessing it'll be BD v. 3 before it's competitive with Sandybridge .

With 'Hector Ruin' as CEO of GF, what makes you think he won't 'ruinz' it like he did Motorola and AMD?

And HD on note'netbooks are a desire, regardless of what Intel innitially told us, and they have to outsource for them. So should we speculate on how well that will go? and mention how Intel doesnt fully grasp its own note/netbook market? And its continued monopolistic actions in that regard, preventing nVidia etc etc.
Intel is skating a very dangerous line. nVidia lawsuits may happen, as well of course AMD, and who knows who else? This could amount to billions also.
I like someones answer in a feedback column about the ATOM vs the ATOM+igp+chipset costs. Since both MS and Intel have been accused of wrongdoing, I think itd be like MS saying, well, we have to include our MS Media Player, of course, we are offering our OS without it for 40% more money

The news I've seen, supposedly it's going to be decent, given the extra transistor budget due to the shrink.

Time will tell, of course.

What will be even more interesting is when Intel puts Larrabee on an integrated 32nm core.

Impressive system - did you get a D0 stepping on that i920?

As for benchies, I hear SuperPi is extraordinary .

And nVidia didn't "get it" either when they refused to permit Intel to include SLI on their non-X58 chipsets. Payback is a *bee-yotch* as somebody once said .

As I said before, nVidia could always go with somebody else's ultra-low-power CPU, or else use an AMD solution if & when AMD has the foresight to develop one. Or just an underclocked Sempron. Or develop their own CPU. Oh wait - Jen Hsun says the days of CPUs are numbered - so scratch that.

To me, the Atom is not in the same 'monopoly' category as, say, AT&T's wired telephony system in the '80s, or more currently my local Comcast cable ISP that I believe is purposefully throttling service so as to make competitive VOIP service not as good as their own (which uses a higher, dedicated band). Not much I can do about it until Verizon gets their (gl)ass in action and installs FIOS in my neighborhood. So Comcast effectively has a monopoly on what could be considered an essential service. Netbooks, however, are nice but not essential - you *could* lug around a notebook instead.

Unfortunately, its a c0/c1 as reported by CPU-Z. Which is fine since I don't plan to overclock too far past 3.0 or 3.2. But I ran Prime95 for 12 hours with all speeds at stock, and not one issue; all load temps hovered around 62C. So now I just need to do my homework on i7 clocking and keep an eye on temps


as far as the topic is concerned, I still say it's worth it as this chip is AWESOME I can run Prime95, calculate pi to several million digits and youtube, while barely slowing down

So, your cheapo mobo for your AMD didnt work?

Please forgive me for saying something not quite related to this subject. I think it would benefit all users by supporting AMD. Without a viable competitor like AMD, Prices of Intel produces would go thru the roof. At the end of the day, Intel fanboys or not, all would end up losers, except the well heeled diehards

So according to you, it's OK for a company to spend hundreds of millions in developing a product for a new market, and then force them to open it up to those who didn't have the foresight or willingness to spend the seed money to start the market in the first place?

I can see (and cede the point) that if Intel engaged in illegal anticompetitive actions such as bribing OEMs to not use AMD products (which still hasn't been proved in a court of law, just some self-serving EU commission), that the government should step in. However forcing Intel to carry nVidia's lazy arse, when nVidia didn't do squat to develop that market, is anti-innovation. Sorta like somebody who spent time and $$ inventing something, then telling them they can't get a patent but instead must allow every numb-nut to use the invention. There's reduced or no financial incentive to do the work in the first place..

As for the regulation you mentioned, that's a joke in Comcast's case here in northern Virginia. I think they'll continue to get away with it for the foreseeable future.