after seeing today's phenom II 940 go to a $160 sale price on newegg/zipzoomfly, im thinking my next rig be amd, they're pretty generous, and i think i want to give them my money

simply can't beat core 2 dua's

wtf?

i prefer an AMD/ATi chipset over a Nvidia solution any day - thank god AMD has the platform now which Intel has had for years (but with crap for video)

I think this article was about chipsets. And yes 790gx beats the hell out of any Intel chipset with or without integrated graphics on any level especially power usage (just check the thermals on those x58 and you'll see what i'm talking about). About c2d...phenom II x4 ~ q9400, X3 beats e8400 ...that's enough for now.

The Phenom II has never been $160, maybe talking about the Phenom II 720?

FYI
Tricore 720 > E8600 > 8500 > 8400 it's a tricore and hey it's cheaper $134

Quad 940 > Q9550 and hey it's cheaper $50 less at least

Q9650 vs 940

http://foro.noticias3d.com/vbullet [...] p?t=278294

nope phenom II 940.
think im lying eh?

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Prod [...] e=10009843

go check right now... im typign this at 1:06AM EST, price is $168.99. blown away yet?

Oh!! and if you go to newegg [here's the link]

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

and type in this -$20 coupon code AMD41420

you get it for $169.99 =]

i got mad connects yo

AMD has to have the most convoluted processor positioning. Who would want a 940 anyway? I can't imagine why AMD would make their high-end processor AM2+ instead of AM3.

It's good AMD is concentrating on their IGPs, since they can't compete with Intel with processors. By the same token, Intel can't compete with AMD for IGPs. Whoever thought ATI was a bad idea for AMD was a fool. Maybe they overpaid, but what possible reason would anyone have for buying AMD were it not for the exceptional IGPs from ATI. For a lot of the market, they can make AMD solutions very competitive.

The reason is overall cost. the 940 is no high-end processor. Amd doesn't have any of those at the moment. The 940 is a good upper mainstream processor, and am2+ is great, since it means you can build an upper mainstream pc today for like no money. If they'd demand ddr3 like i7 does, it'll be in the same boat. ie. people dream about it, but then decide to go with the old tech as it's much cheaper. imo a system with 4gb ddr2 is much better than a system with 3gb ddr3 at twice the price.
If you're building a cheap workhorse you'll go with a 780g or 790gx chipset and a 940 with 4 or 8gb ddr2 memory depending on your needs.
If you need a gaming rig you'll go for something that can overclock well, and that means intel again.... so 940 as am2+ makes sense.

Neiro, there's are a few points in your argument I'd disagree with. The most important is, AM3 can be used with DDR2, and even in AM2+ sockets. It is AMD's high end processor, and, agreed, next to Intel it's very mediocre, but I'm not even talking about Intel. If you want an AMD processor, you've decided they have the platform you want, and they make a better solution for you, what do you get? Who'd want the 940???? It's got a slow memory controller, slow L3 cache, but represents the fastest AMD sells. You could get the 720, but then you're going with slower clock speed and one less processor. But you get the faster memory controller, same L3 cache, good clock speed, and can use the faster/lower power modern memory. But, then again, you can get a quad core that uses the fast memory controller and can use DDR3, with the 810. Hmmmm, but then, you have lower clock speed, and smaller L3 cache.

Who thought of this? Someone at AMD much be on crack. It's widely known that creating confusing and ambiguous product lines is bad for sales. A confused customer isn't a buying customer. AMD has a confusing product line, and they need to crown a real king of it. Not the 940, which is more of a queen.

That's why you wait for the 950

By the way, the 940 beat or competes with Q9550, so I wouldn't call that "mediocre", as it represents the mainstream market. I believe Tom's did a review when the 940 came out too, check it out.

It's foolish to upgrade virtually any element of your computer during 2009.

As the PC is getting a complete overhaul and redesign from the groundup, updating your platform in '09 would be akin to buying a car knowing that next year's model will have 20-100% improvements in mpg, 0-60, and be designed for double or triple the lifespan.

Consider the following:

USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 will have major impacts on peripheral and add-in components both from a performance and future proofing standpoint. PCIe 3.0 GPU's will be more built on a mature 40nm process, DX11 compatible, and will be designed with Open CL and power savings in mind. Both USB/PCIe 3.0 should be supported on host chipsets in 2010.

AMD in 1H '10 will be introducing quad channel memory access with the Magny Cours upgrades. This will be a 32nm based CPU sitting inside an AM4/G34 socket that offers more pins for the 40 GB/sec + quad RAM bandwidth.

The effect of Intel's Larrabee should not be underestimated. Perhaps you won't buy one yourself, but you can be sure that AMD and Nvidia will be forced to make very aggressive moves to reassure shareholders that the 800 lb gorilla won't stomp them so easily.

Speaking of Intel...Q1 '10 will see Intel pushing Westmere 32nm CPUs as part of their Larabee platform, with 8 core CPUs to follow. As Intel wrote the USB 3.0 xHCI host specs and influenced PCIe 3.0 heavily, you can expect them to push AMD and Nvidia very hard on the platform level.

IMO, PCs are in the PC doldrums now, but there's a fresh breeze coming and whitecaps are on the horizon.

P.S. Oh, there might just be a very cool new case concept on the market in 4Q 2009...and yes, Toms Hardware will be the first to review.

I'm not sure I understood your point here, but just to sum up my opinion real quick - am2+ makes sence, cause almost nobody would use ddr3 with it anyway even if they had the option (cost), and I don't consider it a highend part, as it simply isn't highend. It's the same as not calling a smart roadster a racing car just because it's smarts fastest car. ps. people don't decide to go intel or amd, but to go for a certain budget or performance level. Most don't care about cache or the like anyway. They just care about the pricetag and the end result.

So essentially you're saying that nobody should buy something for the next 9-12 months, because something new and potentially better will be released q1-q2 next year?
I'm planning on giving my parents a new pc for their wedding anniversary, and I hardly think they can wait 9 months for their present ... or it'd be rude anyway. Also, I'm quite sure I can't keep all the old computers at work running for another 9 months without replacements ....

so while it's nice to know there's something new on the horizon, it isn't really going to matter until november or december where you can read rumors of release dates. And these will probably not be announced before xmas sales are over anyway.

Eddie, By definition, mediocre means nearly average, not poor. But, let's be real. AMD can't compete effectively against Intel's previous generation except by lowering their costs. Intel's previous generation is better than AMD's current, and by a lot. So, calling it mediocre was generous. I could have called it poor, but, I agree it's a mainstream part.

Also, I'd much rather have a Q9550 than a 940, wouldn't you? It's faster and more power efficient. On the other hand, I'd really like the 790GX based motherboard, and the G45 leaves me a bit cold.

Waiting is exactly what people won't do. It's a great way to lose sales. If I need a computer, I'll get it now, not wait and hope AMD comes out with a more coherent product line.

Neiro, my point is, the processor shouldn't be AM2+, it should be AM3. You could still put it in an AM2+ if you wanted to shackle it with obsolete memory to save cost, but you wouldn't have to. You're also not considering that the memory controller runs at 1.8 GHz, instead of 2.0 GHz, and the L3 cache as well. You're equating the processor being AM2+ with using DDR2, and it's just not that simple.

For me, I will be considering a new motherboard and processor soon, and I wouldn't even consider DDR2, but I am looking at AMD, and that's why I'm so frustrated with them. I wouldn't want DDR2 mainly because it's a higher voltage part, and I don't have any machines that use it, and I'd rather standardize on DDR3. Especially with IGPs, the greater bandwidth can make a difference, but more than that is the faster memory controller and L3 cache.

I'm not really into shooting down space aliens, so AMD's IGPs are very, very attractive to me, but their processors blow. They don't make a proper dual-core, and they are so inferior to the Core 2 in power consumption it's hard to accept. Their product line has too many holes and is incoherent and non-linear. They need a real best processor, not one that is good at this, but inferior at other things. It's bizarre and very unusual. On top of that, they need a proper dual core. There are some people that are smart enough to know quad core is a waste for what they do, and dual core is more than enough. Quad core costs more, and can be slower since it's generally not going to be as overclockable, and chews up power. The K8 is their answer for this market?

It's bad enough they don't have a high-end processor, but to have so many holes, and weird situations where they have no real "best" processor, is just unsupportable. Whoever is doing marketing has to be fired, and soon. It's a confusing product line, and they really need to get some decent dual core processors out there soon.

I don't mean to be so hard on AMD, since the 720 is a decent processor and would no doubt be what I bought if I had to buy an AMD. But, the mistakes they are making are those of an incompetent management that seems to lack a coherent and effective vision of what their product line should be, and just throws out products without a clearer strategy. Their ATI product line, I think, is better thought out.

Going through my peer group, unless someone has no computer whatsoever, I would in almost all cases recommend not buying anything new until Xmas at minimum.

As to your situation, it's actually quite considerate to have a good reason to delay a gift. Personally, I have told someone I'm buying them a tech gift but they'll have to wait a bit because there's a big hardware refresh. In every case, the recipients appreciated the advice as much as the gift because most people are frustrated by tech obsolescence. In most cases, I freely tell them what they're going to get, and how it can affect the way they use their digital cameras, etc. For example, you might want to tell the in-laws to avoid buying consumer devices as well until USB 3.0 and faster SDHC cards appear.

Perhaps your in-laws would appreciate the dramatic power savings of Intel's upcoming GPU on a Nehalem CPU - they've achieved 65 watts for the whole Core i5 computer! That should be out before Christmas. USB 3.0 alone brings enormous improvements to the PC experience but you could use an add-in card.

So unless you're buying a laptop, waiting for Xmas at minimum means Win 7 + new Intel CPU's and mobos (USB 3.0 chipset is theoretically possible) with DX11 graphics. Then you can give the gift as a combo anniversary-xmas present that is far superior to and much more future proof.

And if you're buying a laptop and money's no object (or you have a $2k budget), then you will certainly wow them with a 14.1" OLED screen. OLED is definitely worth waiting for...it's literally night and day (contrast ratios are that much better). Of course, the same OLED laptop will include the Nehalem core and DX11 graphics with OpenCL support and Bluetooth 3.0.

Laptop or desktop, there's so much refreshing going on with DX11 games, applications, OS's, and hardware that it's simply too easy to justify waiting. AMD bringing out a feeble update to it's chipsets certainly doesn't justify buying new.

Good PC's will come to those who wait.

BTW, I'm specifically referring to Intel's Arrandale (mobile) and Clarkdale (desktop) - both are dual core 32nm 'Nehalem' CPUs with integrated GPU's that supporting discrete GPU switching. Clarkdale has the 65 watt max thermals - great for a non-compromised full desktop experience.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you put together a laundry list of what you want in a 'new' PC, you'll find that you'll get most of the things on your list (and 2012's list) by waiting until Xmas.

Buy now and in 2010 it's soon to be e-junk.

$189 for the PII 940!!?? Now I'm not sure if I still want to wait for the 955, especially since I was gonna have to open up my computer this week anyway to add another 3850 and a better cooler. That's nice that they are releasing new chipsets and all, but I'm not about to ditch my 790X based board anytime soon so I don't really care ^_^. On the other hand I guess it will be affecting what I choose when building machines for others. As it is my budget mainstay, the ASRock 780GFullHD, got replaced now that the SB710 is out.

I'm considering am2 = ddr2 because it doesn't make sense in my world to use ddr3 at all. You seem interate about what you're talking about, and thus it puzzles me why you put so much value into cache and bandwidth speeds? If memory bandwidth is important go i7, and if L3 cache is important ... well then you've got a really special system, cause as benchmarks show, cache has almost no influence on realworld applications. See the tricore unlock article for a few numbers on that, or one of the mhz by mhz comparisons they made when intels 45nm parts were released.

As for the second part I quoted - why is it that you want ddr3? it's the same issue I have as above - it just doesn't make sense to me. Bandwidth is a minor factor compared to processor speed or amount of memory. Sure you can measure a difference, but honestly it doesn't matter in reallife! My company computer runs 667c5 because the hp bios doesn't respect the xms2's spd settings - but while it's annoying to know it could run 800c4 it doesn't actually affect the overall speed of the system by any significant amount.

ps. the 790gx didn't impress me much. I built a system using a msi board and that chipset not so long ago, and ye it works, and the guy who uses it doesn't play any games. But it's completely inadequate for any family with kids or any gamer. It does perform better than the p45, but then neither of these are actually any good.



In my world I don't believe it being a good enough reason to delay a gift. I understand what you mean, but I just don't think it's reasonable enough. By that account everybody should only upgrade every 3-4 years anyway, cause that's the frequency at which groundbreaking advances are introduced in this sector.

Personally I'll wait a bit before I refresh my X2-3800+/s939. A 2 GHz dual core in 64-bit with 2 Gb of RAM on an OS that uses 400 MB fully loaded with browser, IDE, mail client and IM loaded fit very well on that kind of environment. And on those games I play (mainly WoW), the Radeon HD 4850 I fit on it last year goes very nicely.

By 2010, this hardware platform will definitely need an overhaul. But then, milking 5 years off a platform isn' too bad in my books. This AMD roadmap looks very nice, and I think that coupled with a 3-core CPU it will be more than acceptable for my use (I don't use apps that scale well with more CPU cores than 2-3, but I dislike systems that hum due to high power loads nor fan noises).

Interestingly, it's something I couldn't have done with an Intel platform: in 2005, Intel had nothing (NOTHING) durable to propose.

What resolution etc do you run wow in on that rig?
My backup gaming rig runs an x2 on am2 with 3gb memory, and somehow neither a 8800gtx nor 4870 does seem to do well with wow on that rig (1680 all @ max)

1680x1050@max (except decor density, but that's because I don't like having to look through tall grass), full AA/AF - Dalaran, when busy with more than 200 players, does have lag (I think it's more a matter of high density textures saturating the 512 Mb of RAM on my GC than anything else). If it's a quiet hour, it runs quite smooth. CPU use hardly reaches 100% (more like 50-80%). I get more than 40 fps outdoors or in raids, which is plenty enough for a MMORPG IMHO.

On the other hand, I run that on an extremely bare Windows XP partition (WoW, an AV and a firewall are the only processes running; Windows itself has been reduced to 2000-like features), since I use it only for gaming: I otherwise spend my time in Linux (and I'd run WoW under Linux too if Ati could fix their OpenGL vertex buffer object, and Blizzard ported the Mac OS X OpenGL code to the PC version!)

Nice knowing something new is brewing in next year but to me I am upgrading now because of necessity. My 7-yr old desktop is one of those earlier socket 754 AMD and all my aging inner components have either been discontinued or manufacturer did not post any software/bio updates since 2004. But then again, I see everyone's points, they are valid in their rights.

Hmm. Wierd how it runs well on yours and not on mine. I stopped before lich king though, so I don't know about dalaran, but shattrath did lag, but also when flying over terokkar and other places with many objects - after 3.0.2 patch. And my windows was quite bare too (700mb total install size with ie7 and sp3)

I still waiting for AMD or Nvidia come out with a mobo built in video chip could withstand ultra-high definition quad displays by default for gamers and graphic design students usage alike.

That'd be an extended atx board with 3kg of heatsinks, 2x pcie 6 pin connnectors, 2x pcie 8 pin connectors, 8 pin cpu power connector, 24 pin atx connector and probably a molex or two for the rest. And it'd be required to be installed in a desktop chassis to not break..... wont happen.

should i wait for the new chipset for my new rig?

Only if you need the added features.
I'd pick one of those with sb750 available now instead of waiting. But I suppose waiting till i5 is out might save you some bucks. But then, if you can wait that long, why buy anything at all?