![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Now if nothing has Look what I found
The last Pentium D, 935 was released in Jan 2007 while Core 2 was released in July 2006. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_D_microprocessors
http://genius19.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/core-2-duo-e4300-vs-pentium-d935/
So did Intel release the Pentium D because they realised six months later that the Core 2 architecture is a failure?
WTF is wrong with you guys? Anything that AMD do is wrong but you said nothing when Intel did the same thing
Look what I found
The last Pentium D, 935 was released in Jan 2007 while Core 2 was released in July 2006. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_D_microprocessors
http://genius19.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/core-2-duo-e4300-vs-pentium-d935/
So did Intel release the Pentium D because they realised six months later that the Core 2 architecture is a failure?
WTF is wrong with you guys? Anything that AMD do is wrong but you said nothing when Intel did the same thing
bang
Look what I found
The last Pentium D, 935 was released in Jan 2007 while Core 2 was released in July 2006. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_D_microprocessors
http://genius19.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/core-2-duo-e4300-vs-pentium-d935/
So did Intel release the Pentium D because they realised six months later that the Core 2 architecture is a failure?
WTF is wrong with you guys? Anything that AMD do is wrong but you said nothing when Intel did the same thing
?err what does that have to do with anything?
Pentium D was on the roadmap all along. AMD had nothing on their roadmap about these new processors. Completely different situation.
but let us ignore that fact for now
The Pentium D was obviously meant for low-end emachines..... these new processors are AMD's top-of-the-line for the holidays and they are LAST generation cpus.
See the difference now?
or am I still "pwnd"
So it is ok to release a slower CPU as long as it is on a roadmap? May I know when did AMD put their Black Edition and energy efficient CPU on their roadmap?err what does that have to do with anything?
Pentium D was on the roadmap all along. AMD had nothing on their roadmap about these new processors. Completely different situation.
but let us ignore that fact for now
The Pentium D was obviously meant for low-end emachines..... these new processors are AMD's top-of-the-line for the holidays and they are LAST generation cpus.
See the difference now?
or am I still "pwnd"
AMD is relesing a die shrink of their previous CPU with less cache + 100MHz speed bump which is still slower than their 90nm 6400+and suddenly they are releasing a top-of-the-line cpu for the holidays?
And yeah, it does matter if it's on the roadmap. The 935 was the last hurrah for Netburst (in a recast value segment... remember it was Intel who started low cost dual core pricing several months earlier, not that they could charge much for those after Core 2) and a way to clear Presler inventory without eating into Core 2 segments. It came out a year after the 930, which included VT that the 935 lacked. January 2007 had Netburst ramping down rapidly, and now at the end of 2007, Netburst is virtually gone from all segments, as planned: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060629145725.html Those pesky roadmaps, or lack thereof.
So it is ok to release a slower CPU as long as it is on a roadmap? May I know when did AMD put their Black Edition and energy efficient CPU on their roadmap?
AMD is relesing a die shrink of their previous CPU with less cache + 100MHz speed bump which is still slower than their 90nm 6400+and suddenlyemachines they are releasing a top-of-the-line cpu for the holidays?
So do you think that the newer Brisbane is not meant for low-end ?
Our broker thinks that AMD will get more funding from the Arabs soon.As to them spoling thier own party,your right about that.
How can we lose when now we have more options for $300 quad core CPUs? Heck if you wanna buy a $1000+ CPU, good for you. I would just buy a cheaper CPU, and spend the rest of the money for a much better video card. I don''t know why a lot of people complain when they can't buy a faster $1000 CPU and a faster $600 video card. I'm happy that I can buy a quad core at 220 and a HD3870 at 200. If I go with an AMD platform, I could also get a highend 790FX mobo at less than 150. If there is a Q6400 at 150, I would just buy that.
It is not about having "more options" at that same price point but it is about having more cheap CPUs, if the Phenom is faster than the current quad, guess what the price would be. Btw Conroe and Penryn are not significantly faster clock per clock, it is faster but not significantly. Heck even if Intel's latest Yorkfield is faster than AMD fastest Phenom available now, I couldn't be bother by a 1000 CPU. I would just get a 200 quad and OC it. I doubt that an OCed 1000 CPU would be 5x faster than an OCed 200 CPU.
