backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by Sungpooz.. on Jan 16 at 3:36 AM


AMD's Dragon platform brings a lot of useful technologies to the table while arguably beating Intel and NVIDIA's offerings at its price point.  (Source: AMD)

The Dragon platform is powered by AMD's Phenom II CPU. While not besting Intel's pricier offerings, it represents the first time in some time that an AMD CPU is beating similarly priced Intel CPUs in early testing.  (Source: AMD)
AMD hopes that Dragon platform will heat up sales of its new Phenom II processor

On Thursday, AMD released its new Phenom II processors.  As DailyTech predicted the day before, the new processors came in a Phenom II X4 920 and an X4 940 quad core variant.  The X4 940, dubbed the "Black Edition", is clocked at 3.0 GHz, while X4 920 is clocked at 2.8 GHz.  Both processors have proved solid overclockers in early testing, falling just short of the Penryn and Nehalem (i7) Intel processors in terms of overclock, based on early testing.

The processors greatest advantage is price.  The X4 920 retails at $235, while the X4 940 Black Edition retails at $275.  A motherboard for the platform costs around $120 and memory comes at around $75.  Together this is much cheaper than Intel's i7 platform, which has a processor cost of $295 for the i7 920 2.66 GHz model and a cost of $565 at Newegg for the i7 940 2.93 GHz model.  It also does not require more expensive DDR3, which the i7 platform does.  So while the i7 trumps the Phenom II significantly in performance, this is largely offset by a higher price.

Price wise, the Phenom II X4 940 is most comparable with Intel's Penryn quad-core, the Q9400 (2.66 GHz), while the 920 is similarly priced to the Q9300/Q8200.  The Phenom IIs in initial testing appear to be the better pick at these price points.

Together with its already released 48xx series of ATI Radeon graphics cards and its 790 series chipsets, first released in November 2007, the new processor forms AMD's hot new Dragon platform.

The platform offers AMD's Fusion for Gaming technology, which suspends background tasks to channel extra resources into gaming.  It also features AMD OverDrive, which allows an overclock to be more easily applied with a single button press, during system operation.

DailyTech spoke with sources at AMD who said that they expect Dragon-based desktops to be shipping at under $900 by the middle of the year.  At this price point, and with its strong performance the platform could prove very dangerous to competitor Intel, already reeling from the beating NVIDIA's new Ion chipset is laying on its chipset offerings.

Coming off a turn-around victory with its 48xx series of graphics cards, AMD is looking to translate that success into the CPU realm.  And while expectations were low among many consumers and those in the reporting community, assuming it has no supply issues; AMD seems to have pulled off a surprise.  At their price points, the Dragon platform and the Phenom IIs appear poised to pull off a shocker, besting Intel's similarly priced CPUs, while continuing to outcompete NVIDIA's GPUs.  However, in terms of the high-end of enthusiast products Intel's i7 platform still holds an edge.

One of the first Dragon models to ship will be the XPS 625, with a Dragon-based model priced at $1,749.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

New vs Old
By Richeem on 1/10/2009 10:35:12 PM , Rating: 4
Let me get this right, AMD is going to burn Intel with these new chips that barely stand next to Intel's year old line. Dang I'm an AMD fan but that is pure Fanboyism there.

Don't get me wrong I think AMD released a great chip with the Phenom II line-up but these chips should have been out last year. Saying they compete is great but you are comparing the top AMD chip now to a chip that has been out for almost an entire year. The 940 is the top of line, I think they have one other chip due out this year that might be slightly better.

Its also great they put in backwards compatibility so users can run on some of the AM2+ boards and have the option for upgrading down the line to AM3 and DDR3. But again the comparison fails, as the chips you said are in the same price line don't need to run DDR3 either.

IMO if you've got a board now that supports the new chips then this is a great drop in upgrade. But if you are going for a new build then I see no reason not to buy a similarly priced, better performing chip from Intel.




RE: New vs Old
By jmurbank on 1/11/2009 12:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
I do not see it your way. I have a computer that I built back in 2002. Why I have not build a new computer yet is because it still performs well thanks to GNU/Linux. Since both nVidia and AMD/ATI have included their graphics expertise, IGP is looking interesting with out having to worry what video card I should get now. I would like to have the ability to decode HD content with out including a dedicated graphics card to do it at this time, so an AMD Phenom II X4 940 and AMD 790GX/SB750 will work for me. I found that Core 2 has problem providing performance in an 64-bit OS and Core i7 is just too expensive. AMD wins in this route when getting a true 64-bit processor at a cheaper price. I have to go for a 3 GHz or faster processor in order to decode HD content in GNU/Linux, but from what I read AMD/ATI might be including their own XvMC to GNU/Linux which should help decoding HD content with out using a fast processor.

Gamers can spin their heads around to find the next fastest processor, but I prefer picking a system for home theater use and it is overall the cheapest. AMD is still the cheapest. If you do not think so then send me an email at usersame at gmail.com and I can provide a URL of my newegg wish list that provides a high-end HTPC for less than $1000.


RE: New vs Old
By JKflipflop98 on 1/11/2009 1:33:36 AM , Rating: 4
Core2 has poor 64 bit performance?

You have no idea what you're talking about.


RE: New vs Old
By jmurbank on 1/12/2009 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 5
A Core 2 has 32-bit decoders and uops. Also its Macrofusion technology, a feature that makes Core 2 provides its well known performance, is enabled when 32-bit instructions are being processed. Macrofusion does not get enabled when 64-bit instructions are being executed, so the Core 2 processor loses performance. The reason why Macrofusion does get enable for 64-bit in Core 2 processor is because the Macrofusion version in these processors does not support 64-bit instructions. There are plenty of sites that states this. Reputable also states it too, such as xbitlabs and anandtech. A Core i7 just upgrades its decoders and uops to 64-bit. Also the Core i7 has Macrofusion technology that supports 64-bit. I am an AMD fan and I know this.

If a Core 2 is processing 32-bit instructions, it can execute up to 12 per cycle thanks to to Macrofusion. When 64-bit instructions are executed, the Core 2 can not process more than 2 or 3 per cycle. The Core i7 fixes this by using the latest Macrofusion technology that Intel was working on that can not handle 64-bit instructions and increase the width of the decoders and uops to handle 64-bit instructions.

I did not forget about Reclaimer77. Read the above or there is the same copy below.

A Core 2 has 32-bit decoders and uops. Also its Macrofusion technology, a feature that makes Core 2 provides its well known performance, is enabled when 32-bit instructions are being processed. Macrofusion does not get enabled when 64-bit instructions are being executed, so the Core 2 processor loses performance. The reason why Macrofusion does get enable for 64-bit in Core 2 processor is because the Macrofusion version in these processors does not support 64-bit instructions. There are plenty of sites that states this. Reputable also states it too, such as xbitlabs and anandtech. A Core i7 just upgrades its decoders and uops to 64-bit. Also the Core i7 has Macrofusion technology that supports 64-bit. I am an AMD fan and I know this.

If a Core 2 is processing 32-bit instructions, it can execute up to 12 per cycle thanks to to Macrofusion. When 64-bit instructions are executed, the Core 2 can not process more than 2 or 3 per cycle. The Core i7 fixes this by using the latest Macrofusion technology that Intel was working on that can not handle 64-bit instructions and increase the width of the decoders and uops to handle 64-bit instructions.


RE: New vs Old
By deadrats on 1/12/2009 6:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
you are both right and wrong in regards to "macrofusion technology", specifically you are right about it not working in 64 bit mode but the impact is no where near as dramatic as you make it out to be.

in short, the core 2 is capable of 4 instructions per cycle when macrofusion isn't able to fuse instructions together and 5 when it is (this is in 32 bit mode) and it's still capable of 4 instructions per cycle in 64 bit mode, it just can't fuse 64 bit instructions, so macrofusion doesn't come into play.

the lose of the macrofusion capabilities in 64 bit mode however are offset quite nicely by the ability to use the extra 64 bit registers (there are 8 additional general purpose registers and 8 specialized registers, i believe they are SSE related), so all 64 bit processors, amd's and intel's, see a substantial performance increase in 64 bit mode, for the most part.

here's an excellent article on the core 2 + 64 bit mode:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2...

note: the 4 instructions per cycle refer to core 2's (dual core) so i would assume that core 2 quads (quad cores) should be able to handle 8 instructions per cycle sans macrofusion and up to 10 with.


RE: New vs Old
By Cypherdude1 on 1/12/2009 10:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It also does not require more expensive DDR3, which the i7 platform does.

I keep reading how DDR3 is so much more expensive RAM. I'm not seeing that at Crucial.COM. Here's the DDR3 RAM modules for the X58-based Asus P6T Deluxe V2 Motherboard:
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=...

Notice how the fastest 3 GB kit (DDR3 PC3-10600 • 7-7-7-24 • Unbuffered • NON-ECC • DDR3-1333 • 1.65V), is $165. That's $55 per GB, hardly expensive. There are other 3 GB kits as low as $108, or $36 per GB, even less expensive.

Because of the performance the Intel i7 920 offers, I think it's better just to buy the 920 instead of AMD's slower offerings. This is especially true since you can now purchase the 920 on sale for $230. Expect the i7 920 to continue dropping in price.


RE: New vs Old
By OCedHrt on 1/13/2009 12:55:58 AM , Rating: 4
It is expensive when you can get DDR2 at $55 for 4 GB, or < $15/GB.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: New vs Old
By Lightnix on 1/13/2009 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 3
That's a poor comparison, DDR2 is very cheap compared to SDRAM on a MB:Money scale, if buying new at least.


RE: New vs Old
By just4U on 1/13/2009 1:36:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
PC133 is cheaper than DDR2 as well. What's your point ?


Uh... what are you smoking? PC133 is NOT cheaper then DDR2. Neither Is DDR.. Older obsolete ram goes way up in price NOT down. Don't believe me? Go price out 4Gigs of DDR memory. Go Price out 2Gigs of PC133... NEW ofcourse.


RE: New vs Old
By just4U on 1/13/2009 11:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
Fact is people are going to opt out for 6Gig Sets in most instances... and even the cheapest of that ram in the value segment is going to run you a premium.

The boards it runs on again .. NOT cheap. Going to such a setup right now for most (even enthusiasts) is a hard pill to swollow. So most are opting out for DDR2 solutions.


RE: New vs Old
By calyth on 1/14/2009 6:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the macro-fusion part isn't the most important bit of performance anyways.

If Intel's anything like the AMD64 chips, it should have the standard 8 from x86 (eax-edx, esp, ebp, and 2 others), and then should have 16 64-bit registers (r0-r15)... The SSE registers should be separate and something like (xmm0-xmm7 (or15))


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: New vs Old
By kilkennycat on 1/11/2009 3:05:57 AM , Rating: 1
For your HTPC, maybe you should take a look at a Intel Q9550, slightly faster than X4 940 ($319, likely to drop soon to X4 940 price ) coupled with a Gigabyte GA-E7AUM-DS2H GeForce 9400 uATX motherboard ($134) for your HTPC, with HDMI and DVI, 7.1 channel audio. Or the Asus P5N7A-VM 9300 uATX Motherboard ($119) which adds Display Port. Full Blu-ray decode in the MCP7A video processor and with less than 25% CPU involvement. The 9300/9400 "chip-set" (aka MCP7A)is a complete single-chip (Integrated Graphics+NB+SB) solution for Intel motherboards and free from the crippling Intel integrated-graphics efforts and horrible drivers. Dx10 compatible, also the 16 stream-processors do very nicely on WoW, with its still-modest graphics demands without any additional GPU. The MCP7A also supports Hybrid-SLI in Vista if a discrete nV graphics card is added. Either of the listed motherboards supports 2 pairs of DDR2 DIMMs and up to 16Gbytes of RAM.

( BTW, Apple has adopted the MCP7A core logic for all their future Core2 laptop/notebook efforts. Intel is not happy. And the pairing of the MCP7A with Atom in the nVidia Ion platform is making Intel even more unhappy. )

Sorry, I really do not understand your comments with regard to 64-bit processing in the Core2/Penryn series. Maybe you could clarify?

HIGH-PERFORMANCE HTPC cost, Intel version:-
Blu-ray ROM/ DVD-ROM drive $100
Hard Disk 640Gbyte $80
Q9550 Penryn Quad $319
Gigabyte 9400 uATX MB, Integrated graphics, video,audio $134
4Gbyte RAM Dual-channel Corsair 5-5-5-18 $25
($55 before rebate )
uATX Case+Fan $50
Power Supply 500watt OCZ $60 ($20 rebate)

TOTAL $768

plus:-
* Your choice of OEM Operating System
* Your choice of Discrete Graphics Card for 3D-gaming
( not necessary for HTPC )
* Optional additional (standard) DVD Burner


RE: New vs Old
By Penti on 1/11/2009 5:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
The MCP7X chipset is not that superior though. If you need 7.1 channel LPCM integrated then sure. But it's not really much better then 790GX in games anyway. If you just want a bluray-player there is cheaper solutions around.

It isn't the shit just because Apple chose to implement it in their lineup. I'm sure they could have done fine with GM45. It's not that you can game on them anyway. Plus Intel is much more open source friendly if that's something you care about. All three mayor chipset vendors AMD, Intel and nVidia has full BD acceleration now days anyway. Apple still doesn't have a BD player though.


RE: New vs Old
By Mitch101 on 1/11/2009 7:21:27 PM , Rating: 3
I would rank the NVIDIA 9400 series equal with the 790GX chipset especially if you get your AMD based mobo from Gigabyte which uses the Realtek ALC889A audio chipset which is better than the Realtek ALC1200 found on some of the other boards. But unless you have a receiver that can do LPCM the argument is moot. Cant really go wrong with either.

AMD is right to a degree.

CPU to CPU Comparison Intel still has the advantage but price wise AMD will be competitive so dollar per IPC will be relatively close and even overclocked the two might remain competitive. CPU level might be a bit of fanboism its the motherboard chipsets that can set them apart and give AMD an edge.

Where AMD is right is if you were to pair your Intel with a P45, which is an excellent chipset I have one of those with my E8400, to an AMD with a 780/790 chipset which has an excellent integrated GPU for a motherboard chipset. We know applications like Photoshop can use a GPU to speed up the application. Video encoding can also be improved if you leverage the GPU. So If AMD can leverage the GPU/CPU combo against an Intel CPU because Intels graphics chips really aren't GPU's like those from NVIDIA/ATI then YES AMD's dragon can stand a chance if you get a few applications that can leverage the extra computing power on the GPU. However if you pair the Intel CPU with a NVIDIA 9300/9400 mobo well then its probably moot again.

I would expect that a few more applications should be written to use the GPU a little more since they are getting common on motherboards. How about it Winrar?


RE: New vs Old
By Totally on 1/11/2009 9:49:49 AM , Rating: 4
but his point is still valid that AMD provides a equivalent solution for less, he can replace the QX9550 with an X4 940 and pair it with a GA-MA78GM-S2HP for $85, and come in $100 less, which could be put to use towards an add-in card.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: New vs Old
By kilkennycat on 1/11/2009 12:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the proposed PERFORMANCE X4-based HTPC is more a video workstation and high-end gaming machine (with an appropriate graphics card) don't you ? For a focussed 'performance' HTPC the Q9550 @ $319 in my "Intel-based" HTPC scenario can be substituted by the 3GHz E8400 Dual-core @$165 (identical to one of the 2 chips in the Q9650), the individual core performance of which far outstrips those in the X4 940. AMD has nothing in their dual-core line that can price/performance compete with the E8400.


RE: New vs Old
By cheetah2k on 1/11/2009 5:39:00 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, but its almost time we stopped thinking about dual core CPU's and moving forward, Quads are pretty much seen these days as the base, even for a HTPC. Sooner or later, dual cores will be limited to Atoms or Celerons for netbooks and the like and you can already see Intel pushing more quads out than duals.

In terms of bang for your buck though, AMD seems to be going for the "as cheap as chips" award, pardon the pun ;-)


RE: New vs Old
By Suntan on 1/13/2009 3:20:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Agreed, but its almost time we stopped thinking about dual core CPU's and moving forward, Quads are pretty much seen these days as the base, even for a HTPC.


Image that. People on a computer hardware obsessed website thinking you need “way more than you actually need” for a HTPC. While people on an actual HTPC website realize that having “enough to do what you actually want to do” is more important.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=10...

-Suntan


RE: New vs Old
By SlyNine on 1/13/2009 9:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
The same debate was raged back when dual core CPU's were becoming an item.

If you bought a 939 chipset with a X2 4200 and upgraded to a 3850AGP when that was big you have your self a good gaming system. But if you got the single core that was "faster" back then, well you would be slower in all games and some would not be playable.

Dual Core might be faster in today's apps but in the end your money might be better spent on a quad.


RE: New vs Old
By jmurbank on 1/12/2009 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 3
I prefer going the AMD route because of reliability and stability. nVidia chipsets or any 3rd party chipsets for Intel processors always have problems. I can not recommend the new version of an Apple Macbook because of the use nVidia motherboard chipset.

Latency rules in memory, I suggest reconsider lower timing memory instead of looking at memory that are clocked high.

At this time AMD still has Intel beat in the HTPC area. AMD may not have any processor that equal performance and cost nor do they beat in Intel in low consumption. AMD beats Intel completely to provide a choice for 3rd party chipsets or go with chipsets from AMD with out compromising stability and reliability. Also an AM2+ processor can fit in a AM3 which will help for future upgrades until 2011+.

My setup I prefer using GNU/Linux to get away using Windows. Windows is where I started, but it is gotten horrible over the years. GNU/Linux works better for HTPC because of Elisa and MythTV.

IMHO, Blu-Ray is not a great medium compared to the change from VHS to DVD.HDCP and DRM ruins Blu-Ray and HD DVD. I prefer downloading movies from zml.com or other similar sites.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2009 9:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I found that Core 2 has problem providing performance in an 64-bit OS


What are you talking about ???


RE: New vs Old
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2009 12:26:08 AM , Rating: 5
That's the point. The AMD is cheaper than even 45nm Core 2 parts. And overclocks just as well. Not to mention the motherboards are cheaper too.


RE: New vs Old
By ali 09 on 1/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: New vs Old
By inighthawki on 1/11/2009 3:00:58 AM , Rating: 4
First may i ask why this is the only "proper" review? What makes this one any more reliable than the others?

Also, why would you HAVE to upgrade to DDR3, and what makes you think that memory is at its best pricing right now? I bet if you give it a year you would feel stupid about how much you paid for DDR3 now.

And which motherboards are you comparing? A good AM2+ motherboard might run you $100, but ive seen i7 motherboards for $200-$300+. Many AMD boards support SLI/crossfire natively too so i have no idea what you're talking about there. Better, maybe? it would help if you could clear that up...


RE: New vs Old
By ali 09 on 1/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: New vs Old
By cheetah2k on 1/12/2009 12:25:53 AM , Rating: 5
Wrong, wrong and... ummm... wrong....


RE: New vs Old
By inighthawki on 1/12/2009 1:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
Triple SLI as a problem solver for a bottleneck is just ridiculous. Current gen cpus are not at all bottlenecked in any games, and as far as i know, in other applications either.

DDR2 is not at all obsolete. It's still doing fine, and while something slightly better exists, it doesn't mean its not worth anything. As long as there are any motherboards being sold with DDR2, it won't be, which accounts for the majority of motherboards, and will for a while, especially with the price of DDR3.

Also, can you predict the future? A small recession in the economy does not, by any means, say that there will be a severe enough slow in demand to increase costs, and if anything, since the technology will be older and easier to make, it will be CHEAPER. You have no way of providing evidence for this, and i know i dont for my claim as well, but at least what i say is far more feasible.

And sadly, AM2+ motherboards with SLI/XFire support dont even come close to half of the i7 motherboards available.
A quick sweep on newegg showed the cheapest i7 motherboard at $210, and the cheapest AM2+ with 2 pci-e was $90. Surely i'm not saying they will be equal in performance, but surely the $120 in between can find an AM2 board with equal or better performance.


RE: New vs Old
By MrPoletski on 1/12/2009 6:13:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Current gen cpus are not at all bottlenecked in any games, and as far as i know, in other applications either.


That's only really because games have to run on a wide variety of processors and having 'detail levels' for in game features involving CPU calculation is a lot more difficult than GPU wise. So because they can't adjust the CPU requirements much, they can't put the cpu demand too high or they will cut off a number of customers.

You can have 2 computers in a game together, one has 8xAA the oehter not. No problem. But if you want to make up for the slower processor on the other you can't choose to calculate a simpler AI routine and use a simpler phsyics routine because the two computers will end up out of sync. One might calculate the grenade getting stuck in a wall, the other might calculate it properly bouncing around the corner or something.

yeah you've got the physx idea, but i'd say physx has been such a dissapointment so far because it's not been properly adopted, you basically would have to design the physics environment twice, once for and once without physx support. You also have to deal with the fact that you might have any number of with/withouts joining some online server... they have to be compatiable or else you will get sync issues.

Also a reason that the vast majority of all added detail in physx enabled games is generally not detail that will affect gameplay (i.e. debris that hurts when it flies through the air and hits you) otherwise another client without the physx capability just won't have this information OR overload the cpu so much it only gets 5fps and isn't worht playing anyway.


RE: New vs Old
By inighthawki on 1/12/2009 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument is valid, but this is not a bottleneck, we're talking about simple hardware requirements. Once you get a cpu that is fast enough to do what the game wants, there's really no way to do it better. A better cpu might give u an extra few fps depending on how the games works, but it's not a bottleneck. I agree that adding in extra gpu's in sli/xfire might lower the cpu demand for physics, but again, it's not a bottleneck, rather, just a boost in performance.

When you have a bottleneck, one component in your pc prevents another from doing better due to a limitation. In this case, adding 2 more gpus wont make the cpu do any better, with the exception of physics if the game was designed to make use of gpus for physics. Most modern games will only use a small fraction of the cpu power as well.


RE: New vs Old
By MrPoletski on 1/13/2009 9:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well, like I said, it isn't a bottleneck, but because of what I talked about.

The bottleneck we are facing right now is GPU memory. Believe it or not, but my 2GB radeon 4870X2 does not have enough RAM. It certainly has the rendering power to do super high rez withlots of AA, but it doesn't have the memory space when you start using high detail games like crysis.

So, for me, in crysis right now, the bottleneck is my graphics card memory cpacity. do remember though that my 4870x2 has only effectively 1GB as it is multi chip. No amount of adding extra 4870x2's is going to improve my framerate in an effective manner in crysis at 1920x1200 8xAA. My maximum will increase, perhaps my average very slightly (bench's show this) and the minimum will even drop somewhat due to the extra overhead.

At the end of the day, I could have a GPU comprised of deep blue, the cray 3 and 500,000 core I7's running at 30Ghz each. I could have all this rendering graphics, my performance will still tank to the single digits when I have to pull half my textures over the PCIe bus from system memory.


RE: New vs Old
By Galactic on 1/11/2009 3:08:22 AM , Rating: 3
While what you have said might be true, the fact is that overclockers are a minority. This is a thing everyone seems to forget. Yes, Q9400 overclocked will beat X4 940 stock and if both are overclocked Q9400 comes first, but at stock speeds - the speeds most of the people are using - X4 940 is better.


RE: New vs Old
By just4U on 1/11/2009 3:27:34 AM , Rating: 5
I've read that review ...

The testing platforms ...

The Phenom2 Based system sported 2Gig DDR800
The Core2Quad 4Gig of DDR3 1600
The i7 6Gig of DDR3 1600

You call it the only "proper review". Give your head a shake!


RE: New vs Old
By Penti on 1/11/2009 4:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
Phenom II should definitively have 4GB DDR2-1066.

Lost circuits had it in his/theirs review. It's still not competitive though. But fairs quite well.

AMD needs to get their next platform out, as well as some more improvements to the K10. AM3 doesn't seem to be able to compete either though. AMD needs to turn up the memory bandwidth too. We'll see how dual channel DDR3-1600 fairs against Intels triple channel DDR3-1600 in a few months I guess.


RE: New vs Old
By Goty on 1/11/2009 5:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm... there aren't even any AM3 motherboards on the market, so how can you say if AMD's AM3 CPUs will be able to compete or not?


RE: New vs Old
By Penti on 1/11/2009 5:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't say there wore, I did say We will see how it fairs in a few months. ?


RE: New vs Old
By Penti on 1/11/2009 5:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
I see what your getting at, It's still a Deneb-based CPU that will be shipped for the AM3-platform at launch, a new IMC won't do that much.


RE: New vs Old
By Penti on 1/11/2009 9:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
My bad Deneb IS the CPU that will run on AM3 boards. So the only thing that could help performance is 3.2GHz HT3 and the DDR3 part of the improved IMC. This is just a AM2+ version of the same chip. Both will have the same codename. As said no miracles to be expected.


RE: New vs Old
By carl0ski on 1/12/2009 1:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
C'mon lets hope AMD skips the tri channel DDR3 fad of Intels.
<br> give us Quad Channel DDR3 please AMD.
<br> 3 is just a bizarre figure to choose.


RE: New vs Old
By Penti on 1/12/2009 2:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed they need more, but they will run dual-channel so that's even worse.

I have no problem with trichannel (3x64bits). No problem with FB-DIMM either except it's slow latency wise. FB-DIMM is six channel.

AMDs IMC has always been weak with 4 DIMMs too, so I wouldn't expect something like that for years. Not until some new memory to replace DDR3 is out at least. Opteron won't get DDR3 till 2010.


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/12/2009 8:44:25 AM , Rating: 3
Nothing to do with RAM, but if 3 is a bizarre figure to choose, then why do AMD have triple-core processors?


RE: New vs Old
By inighthawki on 1/12/2009 1:11:57 PM , Rating: 3
The triple core processors are quad cores that actually have one failed core, this way instead of losing money on bad chips, they can sell them to less-than-hardcore customers that want something good but not too expensive and still make money.


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/11/2009 5:52:15 AM , Rating: 2
You have a good point there. I do think it's unfair that superior hardware was used on the Intel chips.
You can possibly excuse the i7 due to it's lack of support for DDR2, but the C2Q should have been tested with the exact same RAM.
That said though, excluding the i7's, I should think damn well that the Phenoms actually put up some competition on year old+ hardware! The AMD "Fanboys" are all rushing in here bragging about performance that Intel users have experienced for the past year! What's more is Intel users have also been able to experience DDR3 on top of that performance!

Enthusiasts/Overclockers may only consume a small proportion of the market compared to ordinary consumers, but the amount they pay for hardware is much more than the regular consumer, making them just as valuable to a company as anyone else.
Just because there are not as many enthusiasts as regular consumers (and anyone who states it is just stating the obvious!) it doesn't mean their requirements should not be met along with everyone elses.


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: New vs Old
By foolsgambit11 on 1/11/2009 4:44:23 PM , Rating: 5
I think the AMD fanboys (and most everybody but the blindly loyal Intel supporters) are encouraged by Phenom II's performance not because it is superior, but because it is competitive enough to deserve the term 'competition'. Something we've been sorely lacking for the last couple of years.

As for the performance that Intel users have had for a year.... so what? Intel users had to pay a pretty hefty premium to get that performance a year earlier. Besides, I could likewise say that the i7 was nothing special because I could have gotten the same performance from a supercomputer years ago. The point is that the Phenom II puts a certain level of performance in more peoples' reach, and will most likely make Intel parts more affordable, as well.

As for the DDR3 experience being 'on top of that performance' - huh? It's part of what makes the i7 perform as well as it does. You don't experience DDR3 'on top of' the i7's performance.

While enthusiasts do pay more than the regular consumer, and margins are larger for manufacturers on their 'prestige' parts, enthusiasts are still a small part of the balance sheet of a company like Intel. They are nowhere near 'just as valuable to a company as anyone else'. Having a halo product like the i7 definitely helps Intel sell more of its lower-end products, though, so there is a good reason to be the best. AMD can't currently compete with Intel (or nVidia, for that matter) when it comes to top-of-the-line products, and that affects their sales across the board. That's where AMD will suffer from not being competitive at the top end with Intel.

And by the way, don't flatter yourself that Intel made the i7 to meet your 'requirements'. They want the best processor now for the halo effect. They made the chip so that it would meet the average user's needs in a year or two, when it should be at 32nm, and thus more economical to make - economical enough to be in the average user's price point.


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/11/2009 5:00:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Something we've been sorely lacking for the last couple of


I wholeheartedly agree. I welcome the new Phenom II's and hope that they do well. It will be interesting to see what happens next

quote:
As for the performance that Intel users have had for a year.... so what? Intel users had to pay a pretty hefty premium to get that performance a year earlier


I disagree. I paid £165 for a Q6600 almost a year and a half ago. A quad-core, of which AMD had absolutely none available at the time. Prices of Intel processors are always judged by the Extreme Editions. Yes, we all know the Extreme Editions are overpriced.
The point is, the technology was still there for people who want, or in your opinion, can afford it.

quote:
The point is that the Phenom II puts a certain level of performance in more peoples' reach, and will most likely make Intel parts more affordable, as well.


I agree with the first part of the statement. Check price/performance comparisons, and you will see that there is absolutely nothing in it in regards to price/performance. It is more-or-less parity. I don't see how you can work out how Intel processors that are with in the same performance range of their AMD counterparts are less affordable.

quote:
As for the DDR3 experience being 'on top of that performance' - huh? It's part of what makes the i7 perform as well as it does


I wasn't talking about an i7 with DDR3, I was talking about Core 2 Quads with DDR3 RAM being available for over a year, allowing enthusiasts to experience DDR3.

quote:
And by the way, don't flatter yourself that Intel made the i7 to meet your 'requirements'.


What on earth are you talking about? I was talking about processors in general, not just the i7!
I was talking about general CPU requirements that will attract not just a certain segment of the market, but everyone. Be it regular users, or enthusiasts.

I feel you have seriously misconstrued everything i've said.


RE: New vs Old
By foolsgambit11 on 1/12/2009 5:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
You would have to pay a premium a year ago to get the same performance you'd get from a Phenom II computer. But partly because you'd have to buy an EE processor to get that performance. The Q6600 doesn't count as comparable to the Phenom II. It's more comparable to the 9300 or 9400, depending on part. The difference between the 6600 and 9300 is somewhere around 7.5%, depending on the task at hand. And the 9300 was only released 7 months ago, at a street price of $300 - which is $50 more than the comparably-performing Phenom II X4 920's street price. That's a 20% premium (smaller when looking at total system costs, though, of course) 7 months ago.

I'm not sure why you disagree with the assumption that AMD releasing competitive chips will encourage Intel to reduce the pricing of their lineup. I think you must have misunderstood what I was saying. As of release, Intel and AMD stand pretty even on a price/performance comparison. Intel has room to reduce the prices on their chips, for various reasons. So it's pretty safe to assume that Intel will reduce the prices on their processors so that they are the obvious choice from a price/performance standpoint. That would make Intel's parts cheaper, and a better choice. That's what I was asserting when I said that the Phenom II's release would "most likely make Intel parts more affordable". Do we agree? I bet we do.

I'm going to back down on the DDR3 'part and parcel' argument I made. You're right that it's definitely a perk for enthusiasts to get that extra performance out of their C2Q platforms. I got carried away with being contrary. But for Intel parts a year ago to be comparable with AMD's parts today, you really do have to factor in DDR3's advantage.

And even if we don't talk about the i7, the point remains that top of the line parts are made for lifetime profitability - with the vast bulk of that profit coming from mainstream sales a year, two years, several years, after initial release. The design criteria that are used are not chosen to please enthusiasts. If they were, then the original Core, if not the Pentium 4, would have had an integrated memory controller, for example. Although enthusiasts do make themselves very happy with what they get.


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/12/2009 8:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You would have to pay a premium a year ago to get the same performance you'd get from a Phenom II computer.


You've misconstruded again. My point about the Q6600 was that it was out some time before the original Phenoms were introduced, but didn't have, as you describe it "a hefty premium". I was not trying to compare it to Phenom II.
But if we were comparing it to the Phenom II, overclocking could come into play. Regardless of whether overclockers only make up a small proportion of the market is irrelevant in this case. The overclocking ability of the Q6600 to achieve the performance of the Phenom II's is very much achieveable with even the original B3 steppings.
I can see what you are getting at with the price of the Q6600/Q9300, but time plays a major factor within pricing, so if the Phenom II's were released around the same time as the Q9300 they would probably hold a much more hefty price tag than they currently do.

quote:
I'm not sure why you disagree with the assumption that AMD releasing competitive chips will encourage Intel to reduce the pricing of their lineup


It's not so much as I disagree with that assumption, it's just the way you wrote it on your previous post inclined to me that you assumed that Intel chips were less affordable than AMD chips at their current prices.
Yes, after reading what you have now written I can say that we very much agree on that one.

quote:
But for Intel parts a year ago to be comparable with AMD's parts today, you really do have to factor in DDR3's advantage.


I agree in some respects, although previous Extreme Editions, i.e the QX6950, released more than a year ago, would not need the advantage of DDR3 to outperform AMD's latest offerings. But that is an Extreme Edition, which does have a hefty price tag.

quote:
And even if we don't talk about the i7, the point remains that top of the line parts are made for lifetime profitability


I agree. I also agree with the rest of the paragraph. It's obviously a very advantageous strategy for Intel. It works extremely well, yet keeps Intel's mainstream chips in-line with AMD's latest offerings, but also allows enthusiasts to experience what is to come.


RE: New vs Old
By Shmak on 1/14/2009 10:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And even if we don't talk about the i7, the point remains that top of the line parts are made for lifetime profitability - with the vast bulk of that profit coming from mainstream sales a year, two years, several years, after initial release. The design criteria that are used are not chosen to please enthusiasts. If they were, then the original Core, if not the Pentium 4, would have had an integrated memory controller, for example. Although enthusiasts do make themselves very happy with what they get.


The thing that make me sad is that, If AMD actually put up a fight with the previous Phenom chips, core i7 would be the new mainstream. The prices on the core 2 line would have been dropped on release, and in turn premiums on core i7 related components (like ddr3 and mobos) would not hold for so long. Regardless of its future potential, right now core i7 is just a luxury brand for enthusiasts. We get a halo product released in smaller volume, just so Intel can show how dominant they are. I just bought a e8500 which would have been a good bit cheaper if there was any competition.


RE: New vs Old
By Goty on 1/11/2009 5:00:42 AM , Rating: 3
Aside from the fact that Kyle can't explain why 2GB of RAM is suitable for the Phenom-II system but not the C2Q system (read the forums), there is also the fact that there is some other bottleneck present in all but the i7 system. This is readily evident if you look at the graph on the last page; a 17% core overclock on both the Phenom-II and C2Q systems nets less than a 10% performance increase in a supposedly CPU-bound environment. Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not), but shouldn't performance rise almost 1:1 with clockspeed if the test is CPU-bound? Yeah, I thought so.

Add in the hostile, unprofessional tone of the article to these obvious inconsistencies and you'll quickly come to realize (unless you're one of HardOCP's blind followers) that Kyle's "review" is nothing more than Intel lip service.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: New vs Old
By Goty on 1/11/2009 1:21:55 PM , Rating: 3
When you are in a truly CPU-bound case, you're being limited by the number of operations the CPU is able to complete in any given amount of time, causing some other component in the system to have to "wait" on the CPU, so increasing the number of operations the CPU is able to do in this given amount of time will necessarily increase performance in a linear manner. Diminishing returns only set it when the CPU is no longer the limiting factor, which is my whole point: HardOCP's test systems are obviously not truly CPU bound.


RE: New vs Old
By ali 09 on 1/11/2009 11:35:18 PM , Rating: 1
It is easily explainable. The standard memory sticks they use for test beds are Corsair 2GB DDR3 1600 modules. The Core 2 Quad board with dual channel will use 2 sticks, hence 4GB. Core i7 is triple channel, hence 3 sticks and 6GB. Phenom II used 2GB as different sticks were used (Corsair 1GB DDR2 800 sticks), and either bigger sticks or more of them would result in decreased performance, as latencies increase. Never was more than 2GB of RAM utilised!!! Hard disk (in this case an Intel SSD) was nil!! Many don't understand this - obviously you are one of these people.

You also contradict yourself, when you say " 17% core overclock on both the Phenom-II and C2Q systems nets less than a 10% performance increase in a supposedly CPU-bound environment". The C2Q system is obviously not RAM limited. Yet we get diminishing returns. So, it is not a RAM effect.


RE: New vs Old
By carl0ski on 1/12/2009 1:16:05 AM , Rating: 3
Phenom introduced DDR2 1066 support why wasnt that used?


RE: New vs Old
By Goty on 1/12/2009 8:58:34 AM , Rating: 3
Rabid HardOCP Fanboy, Exhibit A.

If no more than 2GB of RAM was ever utilized in ANY system, then why not use the same memory in both the Phenom-II system and the C2Q system? It makes no sense unless you want to try and argue that using 2GB of RAM would penalize the performance on the C2Q system. (gasp!)

Also, your second either proves my first point or shows that you really don't understand computer hardware, I'm not sure which. You say, "The C2Q system is obviously not RAM limited," which implies that the Phenom-II system might be (gasp! again), and the CPU and RAM aren't the only two components in the system that can affect performance in games. My argument bears even more weight when you see that the i7 system gains more than a 13% performance boost by the same clockspeed increase at the same supposedly CPU-bound resolutions, almost double the improvement experienced by the C2Q and Phenom-II

Lastly, since you mentioned the DDR2-800 memory used on the Phenom-II, isn't it odd that Kyle decided to use a motherboard that he himself would never recommend to a single person for this CPU? Isn't it also odd that this shoddy motherboard just happens to be the one reason why he couldn't get his memory to run at 1066MHz? Hmmmmm...


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2009 1:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rabid HardOCP Fanboy, Exhibit A.


I'm staying out of the HardOC debate cause I don't believe it relevant.

Every SINGLE review site shows how underpowered the Phenom II is. And this is when compared to year old Intel lines. NO site has been able to benchmark a Phenom II coming close to the i7.

Are you telling me they are all biased and making the 'marks unfair ? Or by slamming HardOC and proving they weren't playing fair, this makes the above fact null and void ?


RE: New vs Old
By inighthawki on 1/12/2009 1:15:49 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody is trying to say that a phenom 2 is comparable to an i7, but i've seen benchmarks showing is comparable to higher end core 2's, which is the goal. It's really not that underpowered at all when you think about it, and where it's meant to ACTUALLY compete.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2009 5:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
How can you say its comparable to a 2 year old CPU, and that means it's NOT underpowered ?? Please define for me what, if anything, would classify the PII as underpowered if that isn't it.

You know I'm just really trying to understand you AMD guys. Performance, Intel. Price vs performance, again, Intel. You guys are acting like there's something to be so freaking excited about. Am I just too much of a realist or what ?


RE: New vs Old
By inighthawki on 1/12/2009 7:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
Because its not in the same price bracket, nor is it trying to compete with that range either. First of all, i have nothing against intel, in fact over the years i've given in a little after seeing how well they've done after conroe. Price vs performance, however, I'm going to have to say you're wrong. You can get a much better AMD setup than the equivalent priced intel setup with the new phenom IIs.

The major problem with your PII analogy is that PIIs are not trying to compete and are obsolete in terms of functionality, performance, and design. Phenom IIs offer the most up to date instruction sets, memory management, etc, but since they are not trying to design a hardcore top of the line cpu here, they simply designed it to be offered as a mainstream cpu instead of high end. Is this because AMD CAN'T come up with anything as good? Probably, but this doesn't stop them from making the next best move and competing where they should be.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2009 8:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can get a much better AMD setup than the equivalent priced intel setup with the new phenom IIs.


Why should Intel strive to match prices with a desperate company thats been bleeding huge amounts of cash for years ?

Your statement is flawed. Dollar for dollar Intel setups blow away AMD's at the moment. If the Phenom II was on par with Intel CPU's, then yes, you would be correct. But they are not even close, and let's be honest about that. They are just slightly cheaper, that's it. This does NOT give them the price vs performance crown, no matter how many times you guys say it. Simply being cheaper doesn't mean you win price vs performance if your product is severely lacking.

quote:
but since they are not trying to design a hardcore top of the line cpu here, they simply designed it to be offered as a mainstream cpu


Oh really ? According to AMD the Phenom II was just that. Now, because it's a dissapointment, you fainboi's are rushing with this cover up story about how they really weren't trying develop a top CPU. Give me a break !


RE: New vs Old
By inighthawki on 1/13/2009 1:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
I don't recall AMD ever saying it was trying to compete in the high end market, but i DO remember AMD mentioning that their goal was NOT to compete there. I don't have a link with a proof of that comment, but you didn't give me anything either yet.

"Why should Intel strive to match prices with a desperate company thats been bleeding huge amounts of cash for years ?"

Why would intel need to do anything? Did i mention something about how intel should lower prices? No.

"Your statement is flawed. Dollar for dollar Intel setups blow away AMD's at the moment."

I looked at some benchmarks for the phenom 2 940, and it seems to average between the q9400 and q9550. A quick check on newegg shows:

Phenom II 940 = $275
Q9400 = $270
Q9550 = $325

So even in its not so better results, its almost dollar for dollar against a Q9400, and beats the 9550 by a long shot in terms of price, so what am i missing? Cause $50 is a lot to me at least. And at very worst case scenario it definitely does not "blow" the AMD setup away.

Not to mention, AMD tends to have cheaper motherboards, but thats really a completely different discussion, depending on a lot of variables.


RE: New vs Old
By deadrats on 1/12/2009 6:30:15 PM , Rating: 1
Read this review:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY...

HardOCP have done the only proper review yet of Phenom II, and show how terrible it actually is clock for clock with the Core 2 Quads and the Core i7s. Also, Phenom is almost as expensive as i7 if you factor in that someday you WILL have to upgrade to DDR3, and memory prices are currently extremely low, so now is the time to do it.
If you desperately want to stay with DDR2, the Q9400 ($270) outpaces the Phenom clock for clock, and overclocks higher. Read the HardOCP article for more details.
The motherboards for AMD are slightly cheaper, however the X58 boards have significantly more functionality from the bottom board, with native SLI and Crossfire.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a AMD hater. The 4870X2 is a brilliant card, as is the 4850. However, they have let the IT world down with this.

Core i7 (2008) > Core 2 Quad (2007) > Phenom II (2009)


let me guess, you are really kyle, the guy that did the review in disguise, right?

i have read at least 30+ phenom 2 reviews, from sites with significantly better tech credentials than <snicker>hardocp</snicker> and none of them came to the same conclusion as hardocp.

hardocp took 3 processors, clocked them at 3.2ghz and benchmarked them, but the core i7 costs $1000 and the motherboard costs $500, the qx9770 is in the region of $1400 and it's motherboard costs about $300 and the phenom 2 costs $275 and the motherboard about $150, so how the hell is it fair to compare a $1500-$1700 cpu/motherboard combo to a sub $450 cpu/motherboard combo and rip the cheap cpu for not performing better?

if they wanted a fair comparison they should have taken a shanghai based dual opteron setup and compared that to the core i7 and then see who wins.

regardless, the fact remains that all 3 options, a phenom 2 based setup, a core 2 quad based setup and a core i7 setup are all a dead end street as far as upgrades are concerned.

amd is moving to am3 sockets and more importantly is rumored to be releasing 6 core processors the second half of this year, which will need new chipsets and motherboards, the core 2 quad's are at eol (end of life) and intel has already announced that they will be releasing the core i5 in the second half of this year, which is going to use a different socket and different chipset, support only dual channel ddr3 (instead of triple channel) and have an integrated PCI-E controller on die, which means new motherboads, not to mention that there are rumors of a 8 core 16 thread core i7, which is already rumored to require a new chipset.

so no matter which way you go, in 6 months you will be the proud owner of an expensive, outdated platformed that gets slapped around by a setup costing a 3rd of a current core i7 setup.

man, does the cpu market need a 3rd player badly.


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/13/2009 6:37:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if they wanted a fair comparison they should have taken a shanghai based dual opteron setup and compared that to the core i7 and then see who wins.


We all know it's an unfair review, and it should be left at that. You're taking it too far. If you're going to say things like that then lets throw in a Skulltrail 2x QX9750 setup and see how that performs.

quote:
the core 2 quad's are at eol (end of life)


Seriously, if that was the case, how come Core 2 Quads are still selling?
Not everyone buys the latest and greatest and no one is forced to. As long as Core 2 Quads are still on the market (which they will be for quite a while yet) people will always have that choice.

quote:
intel has already announced that they will be releasing the core i5 in the second half of this year, which is going to use a different socket and different chipset, support only dual channel ddr3 (instead of triple channel) and have an integrated PCI-E controller on die, which means new motherboads, not to mention that there are rumors of a 8 core 16 thread core i7, which is already rumored to require a new chipset.


I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at saying this. The fact that there is no upgrade option for the i7 or i5? So what? People still have the option to buy Core 2 Quads with DDR2 RAM or even DDR3 if they want to. Do you think that Core 2 Quads are going to be taken off the market due to the release of i7 and i5? If so you're very much mistaken.

quote:
so no matter which way you go, in 6 months you will be the proud owner of an expensive, outdated platformed that gets slapped around by a setup costing a 3rd of a current core i7 setup.


Outdated? You're seriously mistaken. Comparing to the i7, it's debatable that the Phenom II's were outdated on their release! We all know that's not the case though, they perform well in the mid-range section.
How on earth would ANY AMD setup in 6 months time slap around an i7 setup?
You're seriously misunderstood, blinded due to your unwarranted and unwavering opposing of Intel. Hence the reason your post has been rated down.

quote:
man, does the cpu market need a 3rd player badly.


Just because it's not to your taste, it doesn't mean it won't attract other people. Not everyone holds the same opinion as you.

If people want fastest performing machine they can possibly afford then they are there for the taking. It's called "choice". Something you AMD fanboys bang on about day-in day-out.


RE: New vs Old
By deadrats on 1/13/2009 10:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, if that was the case, how come Core 2 Quads are still selling?
Not everyone buys the latest and greatest and no one is forced to. As long as Core 2 Quads are still on the market (which they will be for quite a while yet) people will always have that choice.


by end of life i meant that there will be no faster models released that you can upgrade to if you already own or buy a core 2 quad setup, the qx9770 is the best you can hope for and that's slower than the cheapest i7. eol does not refer to the products being taken off the market, it refers to the architecture reaching the maximum performance it will ever achieve.

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at saying this. The fact that there is no upgrade option for the i7 or i5? So what? People still have the option to buy Core 2 Quads with DDR2 RAM or even DDR3 if they want to. Do you think that Core 2 Quads are going to be taken off the market due to the release of i7 and i5? If so you're very much mistaken.

again, noone is saying that the processors will be taken off the market just that a person using that platform won't have any upgrade options, cpu wise.

Outdated? You're seriously mistaken. Comparing to the i7, it's debatable that the Phenom II's were outdated on their release! We all know that's not the case though, they perform well in the mid-range section.
How on earth would ANY AMD setup in 6 months time slap around an i7 setup?
You're seriously misunderstood, blinded due to your unwarranted and unwavering opposing of Intel. Hence the reason your post has been rated down.


i'm opposed to intel?!? nothing is further from the truth, i am really looking forward to the core i5, seeing as how it will have the integrated PCI-E controller, larger caches (if you check out anandtech's interview with an intel engineer that worked on the i7's you will see that even now there are those within the team that feel the i7's don't have a large enough L2 cache, something they plan to fix with the i5).

as for how an amd setup released 6 moths from now will slap around an i7 setup the answer is easy, most reviews have the 3 ghz phenom 2 reasonably close to the 920 in most benchmarks, now what do you think will happen if amd in fact does release a 6 core phenom 2 based cpu with a larger L3 cache, say something in the 12mb range? you really think that a core i7, any core i7, is going to be faster than a native 6 core, 12mb L3 cache having, phenom 2 based cpu?

Something you AMD fanboys bang on about day-in day-out

if i'm a "fan boy" of anything it's ibm's cell processor, or better yet sun's ultra sparc t2, seeing as how sun has released the design, blueprints and technology behind the processor to the open source community and there are several universities working on so-called "open sparc" cpu's, i'm hoping someone takes that technology and releases an x86 compatible 8 core 64 thread monster cpu that takes both intel's and amd's offerings to school.

but i know that will never happen...


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/14/2009 8:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by end of life i meant that there will be no faster models released that you can upgrade to if you already own or buy a core 2 quad setup, the qx9770 is the best you can hope for and that's slower than the cheapest i7. eol does not refer to the products being taken off the market, it refers to the architecture reaching the maximum performance it will ever achieve.


Incorrect. The QX9770 actually outperforms the cheapest i7 in many tasks which are not given the advantage when HyperThreading comes into play. But now I do understand what you mean by EOL.

quote:
i'm opposed to intel?!? nothing is further from the truth, i am really looking forward to the core i5, seeing as how it will have the integrated PCI-E controller, larger caches (if you check out anandtech's interview with an intel engineer that worked on the i7's you will see that even now there are those within the team that feel the i7's don't have a large enough L2 cache, something they plan to fix with the i5).


What we have to remember is, this is Intel's first shot at a CPU with an IMC. I feel they have done a pretty good job of it to be fair.

quote:
as for how an amd setup released 6 moths from now will slap around an i7 setup the answer is easy, most reviews have the 3 ghz phenom 2 reasonably close to the 920 in most benchmarks, now what do you think will happen if amd in fact does release a 6 core phenom 2 based cpu with a larger L3 cache, say something in the 12mb range? you really think that a core i7, any core i7, is going to be faster than a native 6 core, 12mb L3 cache having, phenom 2 based cpu?


If what you were previously saying about the Core i5 having larger cache than the i7 was true, also taking into account that the i7 and i5 are both Hyper Threading, and my doubt that AMD will actually release a 6-core processor before Intel due to their struggles to actually get 45nm processors on the market more than a year after Intel, i'd pretty much consider your opinion as moot. I'd also argue that if AMD were to bring out 6-core processors, I very much doubt they will be able to acheive very high clock speeds without shocking TDP's. Just as the 65nm Phenoms only managed to achieve 2.6GHz at their EOL.
Hypothetically, if AMD actually release a 6-core processor, they will be more expensive than the cheapest i7 in 6 months time, making the i7 competitive not just with performance, but with price.
Also the fact that you're stating the obvious, because in 6 months time, it's only obvious that technology will advance, not just for AMD, but also Intel.

quote:
if i'm a "fan boy" of anything it's ibm's cell processor, or better yet sun's ultra sparc t2, seeing as how sun has released the design, blueprints and technology behind the processor to the open source community and there are several universities working on so-called "open sparc" cpu's, i'm hoping someone takes that technology and releases an x86 compatible 8 core 64 thread monster cpu that takes both intel's and amd's offerings to school.

but i know that will never happen...


I probably worded that wrong. I didn't necessarily mean you are a fanboy, I was talking about fanboys in general. Though what you posted sounds like a good idea, I would like to see something like that happen. It would be nice to see a newcomer to the market. But as you said, it won't happen.


RE: New vs Old
By themaster08 on 1/11/2009 6:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
Where is your proof the overclock just as well?

Seriously, though. Why do you think they are cheaper? Their performance is overall inferior compared to their Intel counterparts! You're not going to pay more for less performance are you?! Only Fanboys do that!

If you can defy my statement, then please state an AMD chip that is within a similar price range of it's Intel counterpart which it outperforms.

FYI, you can purchase a P35 board for a similar price of an AM2+ board with the same specs, such as crossfire support etc.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2009 9:10:48 AM , Rating: 1
Review sites are only able to get a 25% OC on the Phenom II on air cooling. My Core2 has been running a 50% OC on air for a year now.

So where are you getting that AMD OC's just as well ?


RE: New vs Old
By Targon on 1/11/2009 9:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that many of the review sites are not using the same configuration, or may be seeing some problems with overclocking. I would love to see some more research done on the overclocking potential and see if something is going on to limit their overclocking.

It may be the 790GX chipset has issues when the 790FX does not for all we know. The 790GX DOES have some limitations caused by the integrated graphics from what I have been reading.

The initial overclocking numbers were showing the Phenom 2 getting to over 4GHz on air, with liquid(nitrogen) getting up to the 5GHz mark). Since the review sites are not seeing that, but most are using a 790GX to test, that MAY be the issue.


RE: New vs Old
By energy1man on 1/11/2009 9:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
From Anand

The scary part is that Intel could easily mitigate AMD's gains here with some simple price adjustments. Even more worrisome for AMD is that Phenom II is its only foot forward until 2011 when the first Bulldozer based CPUs arrive. There's headroom in AMD's 45nm process, but what happens when Core i7 goes mainstream? We must not forget that Phenom II is competitive with a 45nm derivative of a 2+ year old architecture.

We have waited a good while for AMD's response, let's wait a just a little bit for Intel's counter-response before we decide a winner.


RE: New vs Old
By Chaser on 1/11/2009 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 4
And then the counter counter response. Yay!

The point of the article is that AMD is competitive again. They are using the same approach in price/performance as they are with their video card line up, and its working.


RE: New vs Old
By Bruneauinfo on 1/11/2009 5:36:46 AM , Rating: 5
OMG people are arguing about AMD/Intel again. AMD must be catching up again.


RE: New vs Old
By Richeem on 1/11/2009 3:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
That is actually a good point. At least AMD has brought something to the table this time that we can talk about, even if its not on par with some of Intel's older CPUs. The Pii line is still a move in the right direction for AMD. I just wish they had put these out last year instead of falling a year or two behind what Intel is offering.

AMD's biggest selling point use to be cheaper chips that provided equal or better performance. While they do provide good performance numbers, when comparing price/performance they aren't any cheaper. And you are still talking about 1-2 y/o chips betting them out. Intel simply need to drop prices (which they will) and then AMD's new product will look even less attractive.


RE: New vs Old
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2009 9:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me get this right, AMD is going to burn Intel with these new chips that barely stand next to Intel's year old line. Dang I'm an AMD fan but that is pure Fanboyism there.


That's it in a nutshell IMO.

Phenom II are getting burned by Core2's in a lot of tests. What exactly is there to be excited about if you are NOT a rabid AMD fan ?

I don't expect them to compete with the i7. But come on, one year old or more CPU's are beating your latest offering ?

You are done. Nothing to see here honestly.


RE: New vs Old
By just4U on 1/11/2009 12:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
Who out there is really buying DDR3 based solutions right now? The masses? No. Intel's main sellers range from the 7X-9X cpu's based around DDR2 solutions. Why? Because they are affordable and powerful on top of it.

Lets face it. Amd was dead in the water when it came to Cpu's in the $200 range... a very lucrative segment. Now their not. THIS is what most of the review sites are noting when they discuss these new parts since Amd can once again compete in that price range.


RE: New vs Old
By wingnutheadboy on 1/12/2009 7:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for posting this article. I have no idea whether it will be true or not. But to watch the totally warped arguments from all these fanbois is just the most entertaining display of naivete and adolescence I have seen in a long time.


RE: New vs Old
By dlapine on 1/12/2009 12:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
You do understand the threat to Intel is in price? I7's are still top performer, but now Intel doesn't kill AMD at all levels.

From AMD's description of the Dragon platform:

"Dragon platform technology consisting of the new AMD Phenom II X4 processor, ATI Radeon™ HD 4870 1GB graphics card, the AMD 790GX motherboard and 4 GB of DDR2-1066 memory can be purchased for approximately $900 USD. By comparison, a competitive platform consisting of an Intel Core i7 3.2 GHz, x58 motherboard, 3 GB of DDR3-1333 memory and the same GPU can be purchased for just over $2100."

The point being that a faster Intel I7 system is not competitive in terms of value, as it sure isn't 2.3x as fast as a Dragon setup. With reasonable, air-only overclocks on the 940 getting it up to 3.7Ghz, the I7 was about 25% faster. That's not worth and extra $1200 for most people.

More importantly, From the benchmarks I've seen, the older Intel Core2 systems using DDR2 are still more expensive than a Dragon platform with the same performance.

Q9550 $324
Asus P5E deluxe $220

P940 $275
Asus M3A78 $190

Ram the Same
Video the Same

That's $80 cheaper for the same performance.
Nothing fanboy about that. So if you have the bucks to buy I7, you do that. If cash is an issue, you now have choice between a Phenom II or Q9550 system with a slight to AMD for price and Intel for performance.

Choice is always good.


RE: New vs Old
By calyth on 1/14/2009 6:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
The math for the i7 is still too expensive - I don't remember where I read it, but board memory + i7 920 ~= $700

There's no point in getting a C2Q because you'd be lock in, and has no upgrade path.

AMD could try and keep the upgrade path going for the successors of the AM3.

I see you point about the tone of the article, but I think i7 setups (CPU+board+RAM) needs a good price slash to really lock buyers in.


The big question...
By wwwebsurfer on 1/10/2009 9:13:45 PM , Rating: 1
For me at least I'm not looking to AMD to crush Intel with a screaming processor that overclocks to 5Ghz with a stock fan. I'm looking for them to finally put out something that is bug-free and competitive with Intel at the price point. I've loooong been an AMD fan in the server and video editing realm, but it's high time they put out something that can at least hang with i7 while Intel pisses away at chipsets and Atom processors.




RE: The big question...
By PrinceGaz on 1/10/2009 9:46:41 PM , Rating: 4
Erm, the Phenom II is as bug-free as processors these days come, and is competitive with equivalent Intel processors at that price point.

AMD doesn't have anything to go head-to-head with i7, but then again, i7 is a lot more expensive than Phenom II so it is not a direct competitor. I think we'll have to wait until 2011 for AMD to come up with something truly different that stands a chance of challenging Intel for the performance-crown.


RE: The big question...
By V3ctorPT on 1/11/2009 4:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
AMD is slower clock per clock, even with overclock... Core I7 will never be mainstream... That is why Intel made the 1166 pins processor (Core I5), instead of the 1366 pin (I7).

AMD is coming back, but Intel can just readjust their prices, because their core duo are 1 year old and they made the profit that was there to be made.

Hope that AMD can put the buldozzer in the 2010 frame or they'll bust.


RE: The big question...
By aj28 on 1/12/2009 3:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD is slower clock per clock, even with overclock...


Aside from that statement not making any sense, clock-per-clock comparisons mean absolutely nothing. Processors should be tested and compared at the frequency they ship at and only that frequency. Overclocking comparisons are important when it comes to the enthusiast market, but this clock-per-clock stuff is an architecture comparison, not a SKU comparison, and that's what we're talking about here.

quote:
AMD is coming back, but Intel can just readjust their prices, because their core duo are 1 year old and they made the profit that was there to be made.


Nobody whose job isn't on the line for saying it knows anything about margins on either the C2D line or the P2 line, so don't pretend like these companies are generating huge profits on everything and can magically drop prices whenever necessary. For example, nVidia's recent price drops on GTX hardware cost both them and their partners huge amount of cash... That's not to say that Intel wouldn't be willing to take a loss on the C2D, but keep in mind that we don't know how much the P2 costs AMD to produce either.

Bottom line on the price story though, the most probable outcome is that everything will stay the same for a little while so everybody can keep making money. Intel won't drop its prices unless it becomes economically advantageous to do so, and as long as their C2D processors are selling at their current prices, they won't drop any further.

As a final note, OEM's will decide the fate of these companies, not the enthusiast market. That's why Intel's i7 hardware is nothing more than a fun talking point that will amount to virtually nothing as we look back on it years from now... Aftermarket consumers may have a say in the add-on graphics market, but when it comes to processors, it's all about OEM desktop, laptop, and server shipments.


RE: The big question...
By Targon on 1/12/2009 6:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment about not comparing clock for clock comparisons on performance is right in some ways, and wrong in others. It is a LOT easier to compare which processor is faster if you don't need to do the math to figure out that it takes a Phenom 2 at 3.1GHz to match the performance of a 2.9GHz Core 2 processor. Since each core revision is going to change the performance of the processors a bit, trying to keep up with the true comparative performance between chips becomes more difficult as time goes on.

The higher the clock rate, the more power it will require, so being able to do more work per clock at lower clockrates, it allows for systems that run cooler at the low end, which also makes for a quiet computer. My own machine(an older Athlon 64 X2 5600+) is a bit loud due to the fans that make a LOT of noise. Going to a Phenom 2 at 3GHz would not only give me a faster processor, but it would help on the noise front.


RE: The big question...
By Jack Ripoff on 1/10/2009 10:34:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm looking for them to finally put out something that is bug-free


You'd be surprised to know how buggy Intel's Core actually is:

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=2007063...

http://kerneltrap.org/node/8472


RE: The big question...
By JumpingJack on 1/10/2009 11:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
All chips are buggy, there is no avoiding it. The first batch of Phenoms last year was unfortunately that one of the bugs was severe enough to hold back their server shipments. The desktop chip would rarely to never demonstrate it, as is the case with most errata.

Chipmakers (both Intel and AMD) thoroughly test their chips to ensure they function with all commercially viable software ... errata are triggered under very unique conditions, and are often benign or have viable and simple workarounds. Otherwise, no computer would ever really work as well as they do.


price
By xsilver on 1/10/2009 9:15:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The X4 920 retails at $235, while the X4 940 Black Edition retails at $235.


the economy is pretty bad but offering different products at the same price? ;)




RE: price
By PrinceGaz on 1/10/2009 9:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I thought. He'd probably had a few pints of refreshment (it is Saturday night after all), so a slight mistyping can be forgiven.


RE: price
By mmntech on 1/10/2009 10:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
The X2 940 is going for $275 on Newegg while the 920 is $235.


RE: price
By mmntech on 1/10/2009 10:03:40 PM , Rating: 3
I mean X4 940. I guess I've had a bit too much myself. :p


RE: price
By quiksilvr on 1/11/2009 12:46:39 AM , Rating: 1
And once again, AMD releases a product that adds some competition to Intel and Intel will respond by dropping their prices, making the switch to AMD not worth it. AMD is between a cock and a hard place right now; lets hope they won't go to the land of Circuit City and give Intel virtually complete control over the entire CPU market.


RE: price
By akmsr on 1/11/2009 9:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD is between a cock and a hard place right now

yup, you too had some refreshments i see. lol


Market speech
By Jaramin on 1/11/2009 5:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
When AMD/ATI first started to talk about Fusion, I was all excited. With the little info we had back then, speculation went the way of cpu/gpu integration. Then AMD gave us Hybrid Crossfire, and it seemed like a first step towards that. But it never got off, because it was only compatible with 2 low-mid gpus. Then AMD came out with the 780G and wow, a first for serious onboard graphics. After that? Well, 790GX. A re-hash. Go take a look on AMD's site what Fusion is about : it's about air, it's pure marketing speech, no technology. Today we get told the dragon platform will allow other applications to be throttled while gaming. The way I see it, either close them yourself before launching your game, or hope ventrilo or some other useful program doesn't get choked while you're playing.

Socket AM2+ is on it's way out, no point buying a Phenom II unless it's an upgrade. For a new system, it's going to be a wait for AM3. And AM3 better bring something new to the table beside DDR3, or I see no reason not to go with a good affordable C2D.




RE: Market speech
By Totally on 1/11/2009 9:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm suprised at the abundance of people who don't know what they are talking about, these are the AM3 chips that are coming out later this year minus the the support for DDR3. They'll, PII 925/945, most likely come in at the same price points as the 920/940 but with the obvious performance increase of the DDR3 memory why would it make sense to go with C2D over AM3?


RE: Market speech
By Jaramin on 1/11/2009 6:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
You must've misread me. When I'm talking about AM3 bringing something new to the table, I'm talking about the platform, the chipsets. If an AM3 motherboard is simply an AM2 motherboard with support for DDR3, it's going to be a disappointment, as we have no reason to believe DDR3 will bring a phenomenal increase of performance to Phenom II.

As for why pick a C2D over a Phenom II, well, go take a look at Anand's benchmarks, you'll see that a E8400, currently priced at a mere 165$ on Newegg, wins over the Phenom half of the time. If your're more a gamer than a video producer, the choice is clear : the bang for the buck is with C2D.


RE: Market speech
By thebeastie on 1/12/2009 12:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
I have a feeling your be wrong about DDR3 on AM3, as indicated by Anand's review the Phenom II is quite similar to Intel core i7, its internal cache is just a little slower.
If Intel released the i7 under DDR2 ram I think the performance would be quite similar to AMDs Phenom II
DDR3 looks like it should give a nice healthy boost to the Phenom II, as memory performance of this chip appears to be one of its most serious issues aside from internal cache latency.

While AMD has been good to give AM2+ MB users an upgrade it seems reasonable to say this has been the worst way to launch a new CPU.


AMD vs Intel
By 2bdetermine on 1/11/2009 3:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Price vs real world performance that's what really count. Synthetic benchmark really doesn't mean sh*t.




RE: AMD vs Intel
By themaster08 on 1/11/2009 3:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
And how can you use "real world performance" as a comparison?

You can't.

Synthetic benchmarks aren't all 3DMark06, you know.

Most synthetic benchmarks represent real-world scenarios, such as the time it takes to encode certain video clips. It's the closest thing we have to compare with.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By adiposity on 1/11/2009 4:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody, but benchmarkers, use synthetic benchmarks as an application they need to run in the course of their day. If a review benchmarks actual applications that are used by actual consumers on an actual basis, then it could be called a "real world performance" measurement. Obviously these numbers are not useful to people who don't use those applications, but if I want to see how Crysis will run with a given hardware setup, and the review shows me that, then it is very significant!

Real world benchmarks allow people to discover how hardware works on the applications they care about. Synthetic benchmarks only provide a guess. Depending on the tests synthetic benchmark provides, it may be a very good average, it may be slanted towards one type of application, or it may be slanted toward one implementation of a particular application. For example, a benchmark may include video encoding but neglect certain codecs. A benchmark that says, "it took this long to encode this video in h.264 at 720p" however, is much more telling.

And this is how "real world performance" can be tested, and compared to synthetic bencharking suites which give an average that may or may not indicate the performance of applications you care about, and is found superior.

Of course, to my mind, Intel is winning the "real world performance" test...

-Dan

disclaimer:
Last CPUs
Intel P133
Intel P3 500Mhz
AMD T-bird 1.4GHz
AMD XP 1800+
AMD Athlon 64 3000 (Clawhammer-512 version @2GHz)
Intel Core2Duo 2.7 @3GHz


RE: AMD vs Intel
By themaster08 on 1/11/2009 4:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree. Although when people talk about benchmarks, regardless of the type, those that come out with statements such as "only real-world performance counts" don't realise that they do consist of real-world tasks.

A synthetic benchmark actually makes it easier for a regular consumer to determine what is best.
As you say, some implementations of certain tasks may be ruled out, but I doubt a regular consumer would want to sit there comparing a hundred different figures as you would in "real-world" benchmarks.

A synthetic benchmark tests a number of scenarios, then gives you a total, usually in points, making it easier for your average user.

Real-world benchmarking is obviously superior, as it gives you an in-depth view of all scenarios and leaves you, the consumer, to make the choice. Synthetic benchmarks give you a single figure of overall performance over a certain amount of benchmarks.

I believe that "real-world" can truly be decided by the user, regardless of figures given. Benchmarks are just a guide.


Ion's "beating"
By ChoadNamath on 1/11/2009 7:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
Ion may have a big performance edge, but where are the netbooks that use it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there only been one netbook announced that uses it?

I'd love to see Ion in more netbooks as much as anyone else, but as long as Intel is still able to convince manufacturers to stick with their crappy IGP, it doesn't really matter in the long run.




RE: Ion's "beating"
By kilkennycat on 1/11/2009 12:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
Up to now, Intel has been insisting on packaging their crappy IGP chip-set with Atom and afaik, has not made Atom available separately so far. The netbook manufacturers are putting pressure on Intel to sell Atom separately. The Intel chip-set costs the OEMs $20, so if our favorite monopolist Intel does not play ball, some OEMs might just buy the combo and scrap the Intel chip-set. The significantly enhanced performance of Ion is probably well worth adding $40 to the netbook MSRP to cover the total cost of throwing away the Intel chipset.


RE: Ion's "beating"
By aj28 on 1/12/2009 3:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may well be given my limited knowledge of the subject), but I'm pretty sure the Atom isn't socket-based in it's current implementation, in which case that's gonna be a rough transplant for OEMs, and not one I can see many picking up on...


Lawsuit
By EglsFly on 1/11/2009 3:10:56 AM , Rating: 2
What ever came about from the AMD vs Intel lawsuit several years ago?




RE: Lawsuit
By just4U on 1/11/2009 3:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's still ongoing.


AMD has lost it's crown again
By Quiescent on 1/13/2009 2:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know. When I'm going to be building my computer for a huge upgrade, I'm really looking for performance and speed and nothing more.

When I was looking at the variables of comparing the 920 i7 to the Phenom II, it seems that, for me, that the i7 is still going to be my best bet.

Why?

I use software like Fruity Loops Studio. This software is very floating point intense. In the tests ran from a non-OCd i7 versus a non-OCd Phenom II, the i7 was 70-80% faster in terms of FP intense performance. So I really need that boost so I can work on my songs without worrying about the skipping I get now when it gets a little too complex for my songs.

I see that AMD is desperately trying to steal the crown back again, but for me, an AMD processor is just not what I'm looking for.




RE: AMD has lost it's crown again
By Quiescent on 1/13/2009 3:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Also, another thing I am looking for in my next upgrade is how long I can keep this machine before I need to upgrade again. I have seen the i7 being tested with real world applications (WoW and whatnot) and it wasn't even used to it's full advantage. Forking out the extra $2.5k for my system is going to be worth it, because I will have a system that I can upgrade for quite awhile, and I will also have a system that can do what I want for quite awhile until any of the parts have been taken full advantage of.

The i7 is going to play a key role, including getting myself some yummy triple channel DDR3 RAM.


By DEredita on 1/11/2009 4:13:42 PM , Rating: 3
I think the new platform is very reasonable:

For $975 after $50 mail-in rebates, you can get the following:

AMD Phenom II X4 940 (3.0GHz Quad-core)
ASUS EAH4870 DK/HTDI/1GD5 Radeon 4870 1GB video card
BIOSTAR TFORCE TA790GX A2+ AM2+/AM2 AMD 790GX motherboard
G.SKILL 8GB (4 x 2GB) DDR2-1066 (PC2 8500) Ram
(2) Seagate ST3640323AS 640GB 7200 RPM Hard Drives
OCZ GameXStream OCZ600GXSSLI 600W power supply
Antec Three Hundred Computer Case
LG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner

The above seems to be a full complete build with fairly good specs for a gamer on a budget of $1000. Not everyone has $1500+ to do a new computer build. And, if the person wants one of the top of the line gaming card, it would cost a total of about $1130 after $85 mail-in rebates if the person wants the above system with a 4870x2 video card. To me, that seems like am amazing deal.





The next processor I buy
By ajvitaly on 1/11/2009 12:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
For the money, these are pretty good processors. They won't put AMD back on top, but much like the radeon 3xxx series of graphics cards; performance records weren't shattered but it at least but them back in a competitive spot at the prices points they're offering.

Sometimes it simply doesn't make sense (which is why I currently have a core2duo), but personally whenever I upgrade I'd RATHER buy AMD just for the simple fact that they're the only company who can keep Intel in check and prices down.

I'm glad to see they're competitive again with good processors that can overclock. It's hopefully a sign of more good things to come from them.




By themaster08 on 1/11/2009 12:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
My personal view on the prices is Intel have fairly priced their chips to make the consumer happy, as well as pocketing some profit.
I feel AMD have cleverly priced their chips so they cost a little less than their Intel counterparts, yet provide near-equal performance.
But I feel AMD's pricing is out of pure desperation and are probably praying with everything they have that Intel do not yet reduce their prices until AMD can afford to do so. Intel has a lot of leeway to do what ever it feels like, and could "bully" AMD by reducing their prices.
With the current situation, I feel as though Intel have the potential to obliterate AMD entirely from the consumer market. Albeit, their actions would be immoral, and frowned upon by most, but the potential is still there. I feel if Intel leave their prices, it would be fair play to Intel. They have enough market share to give AMD some leeway so that Intel seem like fair players, but will it really happen? I hope so.
I am neither a "fanboy" of AMD or Intel, but my preference is with Intel. This doesn't mean I want to see AMD fail. The fact there is an alternative is better for all of us, even Intel. It keeps them on their toes, giving us the consumer the best quality CPU's thyey can deliver at fair prices. I just hope Intel actually realise that they need AMD.
With all due respect to AMD, I feel their fate is entirely in Intels hands.




One step forward but...
By Sungpooz on 1/16/2009 3:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
still another step behind.

At least they're making progress-I commend AMD on that. Especially at the bang-for-your buck, which is even more important for customer/consumer buying decisions these days. It's competition at its best here.

...but then again I commend Core i7 for how it obliterates (and I mean OBLITERATES ) Phenom II in all but a special few benchmarks. (Not comparing direct prices)




I'm sorry...
By cscpianoman on 1/10/09, Rating: -1
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki