AMD Phenom & Spider & Intel QX9770 Comparo @ [H]

Glow said:
Kyle overall what do you think of the new 790 boards? How close do you find AMDs OCing software can get to what you guys OCed?
Click to expand...


I think they are going to be very solid, but there is always a maturing process with new platform. I think you do almost anything in AOD that you can do in the BIOS by hand.
 
Sniper_Merc said:
As far as the power usage section goes, I think it would have been more usefull to measure total system power at the wall IE Killowatt meter so that the Intel vs AMD platforms could be compared as a complete package, disabiling items in bios and running off couple of power supplies doesn't give a clue as to how the overall system performs. Yes I do understand that you wanted to isolate the power draw on the motherboard/cpu itself. Mebe in a followup article that little tidbit can be covered.
Click to expand...

My goal was to narrow it down to chipset and CPU, which IS the platform. Add 25% or so to the numbers and you will have wattage at the wall if that is what you need. I am not sure why you would want wattage at the wall????
 
KenF said:
The 'real' problem for AMD are the new Penryn-based quad Q9450 ($316) and Q9300 ($266) coming on January ~4.

Today, the AMD Phenom 9600 ($283) is fairly competitive with the Intel Q6600 ($266). But on January ~4, the Q6600 (2.4GHz) is replaced with the Penryn-based Q9300 (2.5GHz), and the Q9450 (2.66GHz, 12Mb cache) is just $50 more.

The difference will only grow as vendors release updates to applications and games with SSE4.
Click to expand...

We specicially pointed out the Yorkfield scaling into that territory on the conclusion page. The Q6600 made a better comparison based on clock and pricing IMO.
 
I guess I'm not following how this is a "disappointment"? Maybe that's because I'm more budget/market conscience than most here, but it seems to me that the performance vs price of these new AMD CPUs is unfathomably higher than that of the equivalently performing Intel CPUs. :D

Did I miss something? :confused:

This means that AMD will be offering the better deal from a budget/market aspect, regardless of the fact that they don't have something equivalent to the costs-more-than-gold model of Intel CPU. ;)
 
Optimus said:
I guess I'm not following how this is a "disappointment"? Maybe that's because I'm more budget/market conscience than most here, but it seems to me that the performance vs price of these new AMD CPUs is unfathomably higher than that of the equivalently performing Intel CPUs. :D

Did I miss something? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes.

See the post Kyle quoted above. In a little over six weeks, Intel revamps its lineup with newer, faster processors at the same price.
 
Optimus said:
I guess I'm not following how this is a "disappointment"? Maybe that's because I'm more budget/market conscience than most here, but it seems to me that the performance vs price of these new AMD CPUs is unfathomably higher than that of the equivalently performing Intel CPUs. :D

Did I miss something? :confused:
Click to expand...

You read another review?
This one says the Q6600 is $3 cheaper than the fastest Phenom, and is actually faster across the board aswell.
Hence Q6600 wins on price/performance, right?

Ofcourse then there's the issue of low yields with this big die from AMD.
You have to realize that at this point 2.3 GHz is the best they can do. So in production costs that will probably be roughly equal to the best that Intel can do, which is the 3 GHz extreme edition.
Q6600s are Intel's 'leftovers', their lowest speedbin, they can make tons of those.
So AMD is in lots of trouble getting any kind of profit from these Phenoms, especially when Intel decides they want to lower the prices even more.
 
Optimus said:
I guess I'm not following how this is a "disappointment"? Maybe that's because I'm more budget/market conscience than most here, but it seems to me that the performance vs price of these new AMD CPUs is unfathomably higher than that of the equivalently performing Intel CPUs. :D

Did I miss something? :confused:

This means that AMD will be offering the better deal from a budget/market aspect, regardless of the fact that they don't have something equivalent to the costs-more-than-gold model of Intel CPU. ;)
Click to expand...
Your like the fifth or sixth person person who read 100% different review. You read that they were faster, and cheaper. What? Does Anand and Hard have two different reviews up that alternate randomly when someone click on them or something.

Or is reading comprehension really this bad...?
 
jstnomega said:
Dude! You weren't paying attention! AMD saw the light years ago. From 12/26/2004...

http://www.sudhian.com/index.php?/articles/show/635
Click to expand...

QFT, it amazes me that more people didnt see the monster in the making with the Dothan... around 2004 I had a friend that OC'ed his Dothan to 3Ghz on air and it was absolutely faster than anything else, AMD or Intel. And that was from a laptop CPU without a real desktop platform or performance enhancements...

seriously, I'll never understand why more people didnt see it coming way back in mid 2004...
 
osalcido said:
anyone see them listed for sale anywhere?:confused:
Click to expand...

Why? :p

Didn't you read the review?

I guess if you already have an AM2 motherboard, and on a very tight budget you MIGHT get a Phenom.

But I'd rather drop $90 on an Abit P35 + $ 270 on a Q6600, and clock it to 3Ghz easily VS. a Phenom that at >= 2.4Ghz might lock up when all 4 cores are 100% load from some "errata". And when they're overclocked the wattage REALLY shoots up.
 
Not a good day to be an AMD Fanboy at all, I was looking faward to a lil competition but hey who know maybe they will do better next time.
 
The first thing I thought when looking at the game charts was, "why would you NOT use the most CPU-demanding game, Supreme Commander?"

No use testing games which only see a difference when playing at 640x480 with min. details. Supreme Commander actually NEEDS a quad-core just to avoid being a slideshow with multiple AI players...and you guys did those great quad-core vs. single/dual-core tests with it too. I'd love to see it added to the review to find out how well the different architectures work with games.
 
Get a AM2+ mobo now and get a Phenom a bit later when they are a bit less and have higher clocks. My mobo is cheep and OC-ing sux.

This will keep me upgrade proof for a while since the AM3 chips are said to be able to work in AM2+ boards.

This a good idea>? I can get a great 790 board for $170 and be set for a long long time.
 
Big D. said:
The first thing I thought when looking at the game charts was, "why would you NOT use the most CPU-demanding game, Supreme Commander?"

No use testing games which only see a difference when playing at 640x480 with min. details. Supreme Commander actually NEEDS a quad-core just to avoid being a slideshow with multiple AI players...and you guys did those great quad-core vs. single/dual-core tests with it too. I'd love to see it added to the review to find out how well the different architectures work with games.
Click to expand...

Using games like Supreme Commander causes a problem as the GPU bottlenecks before the CPU's (especially at any decent resolution). The reason for the low resolutions is deliberate so the GPU does not bottleneck first and the CPU has to do a lot more work.

You are confusing CPU and GPU gaming benchmarking.
 
Big D. said:
The first thing I thought when looking at the game charts was, "why would you NOT use the most CPU-demanding game, Supreme Commander?"

No use testing games which only see a difference when playing at 640x480 with min. details. Supreme Commander actually NEEDS a quad-core just to avoid being a slideshow with multiple AI players...and you guys did those great quad-core vs. single/dual-core tests with it too. I'd love to see it added to the review to find out how well the different architectures work with games.
Click to expand...

Hard to get repeatable data out of it.
 
As a AMD fanboy,I think it was not smart of them to mention a 40 % advantage of anything and not show proof,that really leaves a bitter taste.these Phenom only suck in there price point,which they already new,but since they had no problems,they where pushed out the door to hold the fans at bay.the 790 chipsets are great with all its goodies along with the 3850/3870 gpu's,now here is what as a fan I'm pissed at;NO DRIVERS FOR QUADFIRE!!:mad:.Hell that could have been there saving friggin grace.Anyway still sweating a 790fx,tri-core and Q-fire with 4G ddr2:(
 
Kendrak said:
If you build a large base with a bunch of air flying around and save the game. Then let it run for 30 sec. That should be repeatable IMO.
But I can understand the comment. Always wondered why SC wasn't on there.
Click to expand...

If you feel this of value, you could try and create it for Kyle and crew and show that it can be repeated. Be a way to give back to the community as well as sorta give yourself a big pat on the back.
 
You posted the following in the review:

I was a bit surprised at the power numbers, but it is quite possible we are seeing a good bit of leakage at those higher Phenom speeds.
Click to expand...
Higher frequencies do not produce more leakage current. Leakage is constant power loss, and while it is affected by voltages (Vds), the increase is nowhere near as much as you see with dynamic power. You've ignored the two variable components of dynamic CPU power:


P = CFV^2


Where C is the capacitive load (constant), F is the frequency, and V is the voltage.

How could a base Phenom (2.3 GHz, 1.1v), peaking at 155w system load produce a drain of 236w (81 watt increase) with 1.35v and a 500 MHz frequency bump? Is this reasonable according to the formula?

First off, you need a baseline power consumption: let's assume worst-case 95w (TDP), which is not at all unrealistic given the measured 155w system load. The peak predicted power, moving from 2300 to 2800 MHz, and 1.1 to 1.35v is:


Estimated power consumption = 95w * (2800 / 2500) * (1.35^2 / 1.1^2) = 160w

Actual measured power consumption, assuming 95w TDP = 95w + 81w = 176w.


Throw in 5w to account for the higher memory, bus speeds and higher northbridge voltage, and you're left with about 10w extra leakage. That's pretty good for modern processes. The dynamic power, on the other hand, balloons by a massive 65w!

One of the reasons you folks aren't used to such massive power consumption just to reach 2.8 GHz is because most Intel chips can do this without a voltage increase. Since voltage increases affect dynamic and leakage power consumption, it is the thing you want to minimize.
 
Wow they actualy toped the 2900XT in failness. letssee there crapping power consumption again, crappy performance and now they can't even get the pricing right. The Q6600 beats down on every one of the phenom's even though its only in the price range of the 2.3ghz model. WTF AMD?
 
defaultluser said:
You posted the following in the review:


Higher frequencies do not produce more leakage current. Leakage is constant power loss, and while it is affected by voltages (Vds), the increase is nowhere near as much as you see with dynamic power. You've ignored the two variable components of dynamic CPU power:


P = CFV^2


Where C is the capacitive load (constant), F is the frequency, and V is the voltage.

How could a base Phenom (2.3 GHz, 1.1v), peaking at 155w system load produce a drain of 236w (81 watt increase) with 1.35v and a 500 MHz frequency bump? Is this reasonable according to the formula?

First off, you need a baseline power consumption: let's assume worst-case 95w (TDP), which is not at all unrealistic given the measured 155w system load. The peak predicted power, moving from 2300 to 2800 MHz, and 1.1 to 1.35v is:


Estimated power consumption = 95w * (2800 / 2500) * (1.35^2 / 1.1^2) = 160w

Actual measured power consumption, assuming 95w TDP = 95w + 81w = 176w.


Throw in 5w to account for the higher memory, bus speeds and higher northbridge voltage, and you're left with about 10w extra leakage. That's pretty good for modern processes. The dynamic power, on the other hand, balloons by a massive 65w!

One of the reasons you folks aren't used to such massive power consumption just to reach 2.8 GHz is because most Intel chips can do this without a voltage increase. Since voltage increases affect dynamic and leakage power consumption, it is the thing you want to minimize.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! I was trying to explain this to Kyle earlier, but he wasn't having any of it. Of course you explained things in a far more thorough manner than I could... I never was that good at maths. Kudos. :cool:
 
defaultluser said:
You posted the following in the review:


Higher frequencies do not produce more leakage current. Leakage is constant power loss, and while it is affected by voltages (Vds), the increase is nowhere near as much as you see with dynamic power. You've ignored the two variable components of dynamic CPU power:


P = CFV^2


Where C is the capacitive load (constant), F is the frequency, and V is the voltage.

How could a base Phenom (2.3 GHz, 1.1v), peaking at 155w system load produce a drain of 236w (81 watt increase) with 1.35v and a 500 MHz frequency bump? Is this reasonable according to the formula?

First off, you need a baseline power consumption: let's assume worst-case 95w (TDP), which is not at all unrealistic given the measured 155w system load. The peak predicted power, moving from 2300 to 2800 MHz, and 1.1 to 1.35v is:


Estimated power consumption = 95w * (2800 / 2500) * (1.35^2 / 1.1^2) = 160w

Actual measured power consumption, assuming 95w TDP = 95w + 81w = 176w.


Throw in 5w to account for the higher memory, bus speeds and higher northbridge voltage, and you're left with about 10w extra leakage. That's pretty good for modern processes. The dynamic power, on the other hand, balloons by a massive 65w!

One of the reasons you folks aren't used to such massive power consumption just to reach 2.8 GHz is because most Intel chips can do this without a voltage increase. Since voltage increases affect dynamic and leakage power consumption, it is the thing you want to minimize.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, for the third time in this thread. :) Yes, I have now done the match too.
 
harpoon said:
THANK YOU! I was trying to explain this to Kyle earlier, but he wasn't having any of it. Of course you explained things in a far more thorough manner than I could... I never was that good at maths. Kudos. :cool:
Click to expand...

?????? I was simply telling you I exerted an opinion on the spot and did not check the math. Never stipulated anything else. It was just a gut call and I wrote it down. The numbers were all there to do the math, so there you have it.
 
Kyle, I didn't know you were Working for Intel. What a Load of Trash, instead of looking at what AMD Did Right, you did nothing but Flame them over what, an Intel Processor that's Way Over Priced, and can't be used in Spec. I'm Sorry you don't like what you Saw, but It didn't look that way to me.
1. AMD Has their work Cut out for them, to get Drivers up to snuff. All in All, Not Bad in my Estimation for a Problem Processor that will compete quite well in the Budget Sector.

2. Intel has had over 18 Mos Head Start, Creating Bloated Overheated Chipsets that don't offer any real increase in Performance over the 975, C'mon where's your Fair Play?
 
Jaguar Jim1 said:
Kyle, I didn't know you were Working for Intel. What a Load of Trash, instead of looking at what AMD Did Right, you did nothing but Flame them over what, an Intel Processor that's Way Over Priced, and can't be used in Spec. I'm Sorry you don't like what you Saw, but It didn't look that way to me.
1. AMD Has their work Cut out for them, to get Drivers up to snuff. All in All, Not Bad in my Estimation for a Problem Processor that will compete quite well in the Budget Sector.

2. Intel has had over 18 Mos Head Start, Creating Bloated Overheated Chipsets that don't offer any real increase in Performance over the 975, C'mon where's your Fair Play?
Click to expand...

*gets the popcorn and await's Kyle's response to this one* :D
 
Jaguar Jim1 said:
Kyle, I didn't know you were Working for Intel. What a Load of Trash, instead of looking at what AMD Did Right, you did nothing but Flame them over what, an Intel Processor that's Way Over Priced, and can't be used in Spec. I'm Sorry you don't like what you Saw, but It didn't look that way to me.
1. AMD Has their work Cut out for them, to get Drivers up to snuff. All in All, Not Bad in my Estimation for a Problem Processor that will compete quite well in the Budget Sector.

2. Intel has had over 18 Mos Head Start, Creating Bloated Overheated Chipsets that don't offer any real increase in Performance over the 975, C'mon where's your Fair Play?
Click to expand...

lol why do you use caps on so many words? Also you are dumb.
 
Jaguar Jim1 said:
Kyle, I didn't know you were Working for Intel. What a Load of Trash, instead of looking at what AMD Did Right, you did nothing but Flame them over what, an Intel Processor that's Way Over Priced, and can't be used in Spec. I'm Sorry you don't like what you Saw, but It didn't look that way to me.
1. AMD Has their work Cut out for them, to get Drivers up to snuff. All in All, Not Bad in my Estimation for a Problem Processor that will compete quite well in the Budget Sector.

2. Intel has had over 18 Mos Head Start, Creating Bloated Overheated Chipsets that don't offer any real increase in Performance over the 975, C'mon where's your Fair Play?
Click to expand...

I am a Fan that believe in AMD,but come on,PLEASE READ THE WHOLE REVIEW!!and some others.Lets put it this way,just look at the Phenoms vs. the Q6600.AMD missed the mark on this release,BIG!.Stil can't wait to see tri-core;)
 
Jaguar Jim1 said:
Kyle, I didn't know you were Working for Intel. What a Load of Trash, instead of looking at what AMD Did Right, you did nothing but Flame them over what, an Intel Processor that's Way Over Priced, and can't be used in Spec. I'm Sorry you don't like what you Saw, but It didn't look that way to me.
1. AMD Has their work Cut out for them, to get Drivers up to snuff. All in All, Not Bad in my Estimation for a Problem Processor that will compete quite well in the Budget Sector.

2. Intel has had over 18 Mos Head Start, Creating Bloated Overheated Chipsets that don't offer any real increase in Performance over the 975, C'mon where's your Fair Play?
Click to expand...

How dare you call Kyle intel biased, I was just about to call him AMD biased for the Radeon 3870 review.

:D:D
 
I'd be interested to see an approach thinking about the incremental costs of getting more FPS out of a Phenom. Phenom starts with such a low Frames Per Dollar (I made some graphs here : http://picasaweb.google.com/rsenykoff/HFPDChart ), would an enthusiast be able to increase their FPS with a decent SLI / crossfire setup and still get more Frames per Dollar than an Intel? Given the price difference, and assuming you're going to buy 1 video card anyways, the incremental cost of a second card is still less than the cost of the Intel CPU.

With the Intel CPUs being so expensive, this gives us a LOT of room to work with to build a super tweaked system. We could possibly get an awesome SLI / Crossfire system out of this. Since higher resolutions end up taxing the video card more, where is the happy medium between CPU performance, and money spent on the rest of the system, end goal being sufficient FPS and max FPD?
 
freat said:
I'd be interested to see an approach thinking about the incremental costs of getting more FPS out of a Phenom. Phenom starts with such a low Frames Per Dollar (I made some graphs here : http://picasaweb.google.com/rsenykoff/HFPDChart ), would an enthusiast be able to increase their FPS with a decent crossfire setup and still get more Frames per Dollar than an Intel? Given the price difference, and assuming you're going to buy 1 video card anyways, the incremental cost of a second card is still less than the cost of the Intel CPU.
Click to expand...

Would you put the Q6600 in there for comparison, please?
 
Jaguar Jim1 said:
Kyle, I didn't know you were Working for Intel. What a Load of Trash, instead of looking at what AMD Did Right, you did nothing but Flame them over what, an Intel Processor that's Way Over Priced, and can't be used in Spec. I'm Sorry you don't like what you Saw, but It didn't look that way to me.
1. AMD Has their work Cut out for them, to get Drivers up to snuff. All in All, Not Bad in my Estimation for a Problem Processor that will compete quite well in the Budget Sector.

2. Intel has had over 18 Mos Head Start, Creating Bloated Overheated Chipsets that don't offer any real increase in Performance over the 975, C'mon where's your Fair Play?
Click to expand...

Hehe, was waiting for that response! Yeah! I am now officially an Intel fan-boy. Did anyone notice the "daily saying" on the front page? :D

As for what you have to say him JJ, it is apparent you did not RTFA, but only the title. And yes, I am sure those AMD CPU drivers will get it up to snuff really quickly. :rolleyes:

This post was a joke right?

As for chipsets, I would love to see Intel bring the power of theirs down.
 
freat said:
I'd be interested to see an approach thinking about the incremental costs of getting more FPS out of a Phenom. Phenom starts with such a low Frames Per Dollar (I made some graphs here : http://picasaweb.google.com/rsenykoff/HFPDChart ), would an enthusiast be able to increase their FPS with a decent SLI / crossfire setup and still get more Frames per Dollar than an Intel? Given the price difference, and assuming you're going to buy 1 video card anyways, the incremental cost of a second card is still less than the cost of the Intel CPU.

With the Intel CPUs being so expensive, this gives us a LOT of room to work with to build a super tweaked system. We could possibly get an awesome SLI / Crossfire system out of this. Since higher resolutions end up taxing the video card more, where is the happy medium between CPU performance, and money spent on the rest of the system, end goal being sufficient FPS and max FPD?
Click to expand...

Well, first off, your graph is a crap with leaving out the CPU, the Q6600, that has price parity.

Also, and this is the thing about "Dollars per Frame" and trust me we look at doing it all the time, it is hard to get a metric that represents what we find when using the product. IE, the graph does not represent the value associated with the experience the hardware delivers.
 
freat said:
I'd be interested to see an approach thinking about the incremental costs of getting more FPS out of a Phenom. Phenom starts with such a low Frames Per Dollar (I made some graphs here : http://picasaweb.google.com/rsenykoff/HFPDChart ), would an enthusiast be able to increase their FPS with a decent SLI / crossfire setup and still get more Frames per Dollar than an Intel? Given the price difference, and assuming you're going to buy 1 video card anyways, the incremental cost of a second card is still less than the cost of the Intel CPU.

With the Intel CPUs being so expensive, this gives us a LOT of room to work with to build a super tweaked system. We could possibly get an awesome SLI / Crossfire system out of this. Since higher resolutions end up taxing the video card more, where is the happy medium between CPU performance, and money spent on the rest of the system, end goal being sufficient FPS and max FPD?
Click to expand...
Troll?
You mean like when you leave out Intel's cpu that actually competes head to head with the 9700, the Q6600?

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pTvLfmdRyz7r1nu7k_HXBTQ

Even then... Not sure it's still completely valid for making choices, it even completely ignores the rest of the system cost. Both sides have inexpensive motherboard options, and both can use really cheap DDR2, so not sure that factors in much. Then again gaming isn't where CPU's shine these days, it's media encoding.
 
Hey I simply overlooked the other CPU. Sorry about that. :( I've created a new graph and eliminated the others, which shows the Q6600 in there as well. I'm trying to figure out for myself what I should be focusing on w/ a new system. Questions I'm asking myself are, is it OK for me to spend a little less on CPU and get better vid card(s)? As you point out it depends on usage. The only stuff I do that really taxes my system is gaming anyways, but obviously other users will have their own priorities.

So here's the link to the chart, showing Q6600 is almost identical (actually slightly better) in the 'Frames per Dollar' comparison. I think the thing that made me do this to begin with is that I was astounded at the price difference in the processors that were being compared. I had been making up my mind while reading and then got to the end of the article and was like 'oh crap' at the price chart. The title being Phenom vs QX9770 made me focus on that aspect of it... not realizing until the end that we were comparing it to something 4 times the cost. I agree though, that if this is AMD's flagship CPU... something needs to happen.

http://picasaweb.google.com/rsenykoff/HFPDChart
 
freat said:
Questions I'm asking myself are, is it OK for me to spend a little less on CPU and get better vid card(s)? As you point out it depends on usage. The only stuff I do that really taxes my system is gaming anyways...
Click to expand...


Drop $250 to $300 on your CPU and OC it and you will have an easy 3GHz+ machine up in running in no time with many of the Intel parts. That base will last you through several if not more video card upgrades. I have not seen any game that is going to bottleneck a 3GHz quad core processor at any real gaming resolutions along any time soon with a decent video card.
 
freat said:
Hey I simply overlooked the other CPU. Sorry about that. :( I've created a new graph and eliminated the others, which shows the Q6600 in there as well. I'm trying to figure out for myself what I should be focusing on w/ a new system. Questions I'm asking myself are, is it OK for me to spend a little less on CPU and get better vid card(s)? As you point out it depends on usage. The only stuff I do that really taxes my system is gaming anyways, but obviously other users will have their own priorities.

So here's the link to the chart, showing Q6600 is almost identical (actually slightly better) in the 'Frames per Dollar' comparison. I think the thing that made me do this to begin with is that I was astounded at the price difference in the processors that were being compared. I had been making up my mind while reading and then got to the end of the article and was like 'oh crap' at the price chart. The title being Phenom vs QX9770 made me focus on that aspect of it... not realizing until the end that we were comparing it to something 4 times the cost. I agree though, that if this is AMD's flagship CPU... something needs to happen.

http://picasaweb.google.com/rsenykoff/HFPDChart
Click to expand...

Now the chart shows why I went Q6600.
When Phenom superseeds my CPU, I'll start to O.C....and still win ;)
 
so the AM2+ Phenoms will work with AM2 boards as long as there is a BIOS update for it?

is the Bulldozer core going to be AM3?

Basically how much upgrade-ability does current AM2 boards have with the newer AMD CPU's?
 
Deviationer said:
so the AM2+ Phenoms will work with AM2 boards as long as there is a BIOS update for it?

is the Bulldozer core going to be AM3?

Basically how much upgrade-ability does current AM2 boards have with the newer AMD CPU's?
Click to expand...

AM3 CPUs will work in AM2 boards, just cant use DDR3 unless u have a AM3 board.
 
I find it interesting that everyone is so disappointed with the performance of the Phenom. Although it would have been great if it could have pushed the new Intel chips it certainly is not necessary for the survival of AMD, At this time, they have set the Phenom at a price point that can certainly compete with the Intel dual cores or the Q6600 and the performance of this chip is in that ballpark too even if it is limited to 2.4GHZ at this time. AMD survived and grew for years with the K6 and the K7 by offering a decent processor a a decent price when compared to Intel. They can survive for now by doing the same thing with Phenom.

I cannot afford the high end ultra performance of the new Intel quads but I can afford a Q6600 or a Phenom 9600 or 9700. Most of the gamers I know are in the same financial position. So it comes down to Q6600 and P35 and nVidea 8800GT or Phenom 9600/9700 and 790fx and ATI 3870. For the money, I think AMD is in the game and makes it a very difficult choice.

We will just have to sit back and wait for the next K8 type advancement that will take it to Intel. But then be prepared to pay the big bucks to AMD for that performance just like you do now to Intel.

For the record, I build systems using both AMD and Intel and utilize both ATI and nVidea Vid cards. I will admit to hoping that AMD can pull it out if for no other reason than to keep Intel honest and apply pricing pressure to the giant, We don't need another Microsoft.
 
Hopefully Bulldozer will give Intel more of a fight once it is released in 2009.

Speaking of Bulldozer is there any word on what socket it will be using? I'm curious if it is going to be with AM3. I hear that AM3 processors will be usable in AM2+ motherboards. That in my opinion would be an incentive for going with AMD.For more of a upgradeable path. Due to Intel's next processor not supporting any of its current motherboards.

I'm planning on buying a new system in mid 2008. I was planning on going with AMD for that reason. If not I'd rather just buy a Intel quad system in January with the Yorkfields and keep that for awhile. Get my money's worth out of it since Intel is releasing Nehalem in late 2008 (At least thats what the rumor sites are saying).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top