funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,887
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
My Phenom II benchmarks
- Thread starter Table21
- Start date
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,887
Right. And the name of this thread is?
Anyways, were all in the right time zone now, so one more try. Merry Christmas!
Do you have any valid arguments yes/no?
And yes I have seen your trolling
But you seem to be unable to communicate a proper response, so I will ask you again:
How about we compare CPU's that have similiar performance?
Why would that pose a problem?
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,887
"trolling"? I'm in the AMD forum. Where you at eh? Hmmm, and AMD forum?? How peculiar.
Performance is always relative to $$$. Without it we would all be screaming about how awesome our favourite super computer is regardless of price.
But anyways yes lets talk about cpu's with similar performance. No problem. What do you want to discuss?
Performance is always relative to $$$. Without it we would all be screaming about how awesome our favourite super computer is regardless of price.
But anyways yes lets talk about cpu's with similar performance. No problem. What do you want to discuss?
Let just compare the sub $200 Q6600 to any Phenom.
It would be unfair to use the dieshrink (from kentsfield to penryn) as that is where Phenom II is supposed to try and fight...not even going to include i7 as it is in a perfomance leauge of it's own(truly next-gen)
Let the price/preformance ratio begin...with facts, not cheap derailing attempts, if you please.
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,887
We all know the reality there.
Please reread the topic of the thread and preferably some of the posts. This isn't a fanboy game on my side so lets keep to the discussion. We are talking about projected PhII performance against C2Q's, and i7's based on a $$/performance ratio. You want to talk about PhI vs. Q6600? WTF?
irrelevant. phenom 2 not widely available in retail.
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,887
Irrelevant? So why the hell are you in this thread?
To answer your question though. They are much the same. I was a big fan of the Q6600 in its early days. But its O/C'ing glory has seemed to have eased up lately and other chips have come down in price. Still a good bang for the buck, and does hold a slight per/clock lead over PhI chips. 9950be has improved its stock in my eyes lately due to a little more O/C headroom with 750sb and mature process. Combined with a AM2+ MB that gives me an upgrade path, and free HD3300 on the GX MB, I like the 9950be in a $$/performance ratio. If they were never going to CPU upgrade I would probably give the Q6600 the nod.
It's simple, unless you can't understand logic.
Phenom vs Kentsfield
Phenom II vs Penryn.
I7 vs. NONE...as it has no performance competitor.
So you can drop your "sainthood", you started insulting people, don't whine when suddenly faced with argumentation, from one not take the bait.
Now that the field is mapped, feel free to post your price/performance ratio's...I am looking forward to real data, not just empty talk from you topped with badly hidden insults.
And don't hide behind the false "pretense" of this being the AMD forum.
Unles you are going to tell me that AMD's performance/cost ratio against Intel suddenly is a no go..which would made you a hypocrite:
funkydmunky said:He he. And what does a top C2Q cost now? Apparently you don't know how the price/performance ratio is obtained. Or is that the new math faulty Intel Co-Proc maybe?
I could have taken the bait and said TLB...but that is a useless argumentation, so instead I hold you to your own words....to bad if you don't like, but you made the bed yourself.
stainremover
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,840
wow this thread has gone bad real quick. i just wanted to see if there were anymore benchmarks
And how exactly is AMD supposed to develop what Intel is developing when Intel has a research budget larger than AMDs total income?
Don't you think it is a bit stupid to EXPECT AMD to be able to keep up with Intel on this front? So AMD is inferior because on a research budget of 10% of Intel's they can't keep up with Intel?
What a bunch of Intel fanboy morons. If it weren't for AMDs "pitiful" competition, Intel fanboys wouldn't be able to afford Intel products, and in fact Intel wouldn't even bother trying to sell to you morons since there would no longer be any point. Their processors would all cost twice as much and they would only sell high end into Servers. Desktops and laptops would contain very low end procs which would still be much more expensive (because they could), and Intel would be richer than they already are.
LOL, and you want me to spend my hard earned cash on Intel just because they are a little bit faster? Blow your wad on bragging rights, and then come on over to the AMD forum and troll.
Don't you think it is a bit stupid to EXPECT AMD to be able to keep up with Intel on this front? So AMD is inferior because on a research budget of 10% of Intel's they can't keep up with Intel?
What a bunch of Intel fanboy morons. If it weren't for AMDs "pitiful" competition, Intel fanboys wouldn't be able to afford Intel products, and in fact Intel wouldn't even bother trying to sell to you morons since there would no longer be any point. Their processors would all cost twice as much and they would only sell high end into Servers. Desktops and laptops would contain very low end procs which would still be much more expensive (because they could), and Intel would be richer than they already are.
LOL, and you want me to spend my hard earned cash on Intel just because they are a little bit faster? Blow your wad on bragging rights, and then come on over to the AMD forum and troll.
And how exactly is AMD supposed to develop what Intel is developing when Intel has a research budget larger than AMDs total income?
Don't you think it is a bit stupid to EXPECT AMD to be able to keep up with Intel on this front? So AMD is inferior because on a research budget of 10% of Intel's they can't keep up with Intel?
What a bunch of Intel fanboy morons. If it weren't for AMDs "pitiful" competition, Intel fanboys wouldn't be able to afford Intel products, and in fact Intel wouldn't even bother trying to sell to you morons since there would no longer be any point. Their processors would all cost twice as much and they would only sell high end into Servers. Desktops and laptops would contain very low end procs which would still be much more expensive (because they could), and Intel would be richer than they already are.
LOL, and you want me to spend my hard earned cash on Intel just because they are a little bit faster? Blow your wad on bragging rights, and then come on over to the AMD forum and troll.
I owned Intel CPU's before AMD started making x86 CPU's, and they were no more expensive (inflation taken into consideration) that current top of the line CPU's.
Next time, lets stick to the facts, eh?
(not even mentiong the price of AMD's topline, when they had the preformance crown)
Riccochet
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 29,924
I think Dan D left out the fourth type of people that will buy Phenom 2's. My type. The type that simply doesn't give a shit if it performs good or not since they already have a powerful system. I just want to push the damn thing hard, make components pop off the mobo and totally bench the piss out of it before handing it over to my wife. I could care less if it games better or worse than my current rig. It's cheap, it's fast and my wife will enjoy it replacing her aging E6300 system. Sure I could upgrade my rig and give her that. I have no need to upgrade my rig though, I only game at 1680x1050. I play with PC's as a hobby and work on them for a living. Not everyone NEEDS bleeding edge technology. Only a smacktard would pay out the ass for an i7 right now to get that extra 3 FPS's in GTA4. Good for them. Mommy's basement must be quite cozy and razors are cheap to keep their palms shaved.
(in my best lispy slurred tongue nerdy speech) "with my new i7 my Excel spreadsheets now open exactly .0747296929372887 seconds faster than my Core 2 Quad system" ... Really now. Unless you're crunching GB's of data and video daily or gaming on a 30" monitor at extremely high resolutions with multiple video cards and you have a disposable income the price premium for an i7 system just doesn't make sense.
I guess calling people cheap bastards for buying an AMD system is not something I'd expect from an editor for HardOCP. Especially when you can build an Intel system for the same price, whether it be a C2D or C2Q. Maybe we're all cheap bastards for not buying an i7 rig.
So remember people, don't be cheap, penny-pinching bastards by buying AMD products.
(in my best lispy slurred tongue nerdy speech) "with my new i7 my Excel spreadsheets now open exactly .0747296929372887 seconds faster than my Core 2 Quad system" ... Really now. Unless you're crunching GB's of data and video daily or gaming on a 30" monitor at extremely high resolutions with multiple video cards and you have a disposable income the price premium for an i7 system just doesn't make sense.
I guess calling people cheap bastards for buying an AMD system is not something I'd expect from an editor for HardOCP. Especially when you can build an Intel system for the same price, whether it be a C2D or C2Q. Maybe we're all cheap bastards for not buying an i7 rig.
So remember people, don't be cheap, penny-pinching bastards by buying AMD products.
There are lots of people who buy AMD systems, simply because they work quite well, for the intended purpose, for less money.
I have two SQL Servers with Phenom I chips in them, 8 gigs of RAM and terrabyte RAID arrays. I could spend a ton more for marginal performance improvements, but I will leave that to the Intel Fanboys.
I will probably drop a Phenom II into the systems after they drop in price a bit. Performance for the $ is what matters to me. OTOH, if it doesn't make sense to spend the $ for the performance increase, I will just stick with the Phenom I that is in there.
I have two SQL Servers with Phenom I chips in them, 8 gigs of RAM and terrabyte RAID arrays. I could spend a ton more for marginal performance improvements, but I will leave that to the Intel Fanboys.
I will probably drop a Phenom II into the systems after they drop in price a bit. Performance for the $ is what matters to me. OTOH, if it doesn't make sense to spend the $ for the performance increase, I will just stick with the Phenom I that is in there.
Fair enough. No one used the phrase "i7 killer", but many people seemed to have expected better performance than what a die shrink and more L3 cache could possibly offer. I seem to recall comments about wondering how it would fare against Core i7, but I'm not going searching for that right now. That has been my point all a long. And no, I don't need to spout the joys of "overspending" on the i7 platform.
By the way, with comments like "overspending on a i7 platform", "cheap bastard" seems to fit. Not everyone thinks that $300 for a motherboard and $300 for a CPU is all that expensive. I've been buying motherboard and processor combos for around that or much more for YEARS. All without living with my parents. Additionally if you are the type to buy a computer and keep it for a number of years why would the socket matter? By the time you actually get around to upgrading the motherboard you've got, regardless of the socket probably won't be compatible with newer CPUs. That isn't a valid point.
Cheap is relative, I didn't mean to wound anyone's inner child.
Again my point is that since there are Intel offerings priced very close to Phenom processors, and there are plenty of inexpensive boards, I don't think the cost difference is huge. I think many people are hiding behind that statement, and not backing it. Q6600's are sub $300. There are plenty of great boards for $100 to $150 that will push that Q6600 beyond any Phenom you can buy today with the possible exception of Phenom II. (I'm not sure how well Phenom II will overclock.) So against that, Phenom still doesn't stack up in performance vs. price.
Again, Intel systems aren't much if any more expensive than AMD processor based systems in many price brackets. This is especially true in OEM sales. Dell for example sells plenty of $400 machines with Intel processors in them. On the do it yourself side, I've already explained, the Q6600 is close to the price of the Phenom. You can get boards for $100 to $150, the same price bracket many AM2/AM2+ boards are at. The only place I think AMD has Intel beat is the sub $100 processor market. There, AMD has much better offerings when you factor in the motherboard cost.
I have to disagree with this. In general, AMD has been far better about their sockets and motherboard chipsets spanning generations of processors. Look at how long socket 462 (Socket A) lasted. How long as AM2 been around? How many generations of processors are compatible with it? Athlon 64, Athlon X2, Phenom, etc. With Intel LGA775 has been around forever, but many LGA 775 Pentium 4 boards couldn't handle Smithfield processors. Newer Presler chips required a newer board/chipset as well. Same for some of the Extreme Editions. They required a higher frequency FSB which meant going from the 925X chipset to the 925XE. Core 2 Duo? Another chipset. Got 45nm Quad core? You need a newer motherboard. (In some cases.) So really I don't think that Intel has done the consumer any favors over AMD in this area.
That's about what I said. Though I'm not familiar with anything below the $100 mark to any large degree. (I don't shop in that price range.)
Phenom II won't get the job done. I'm fairly certain that's the case.
Well again, there is absolute bottom dollar, and what you get for your money. This is always subjective as for some people a modest increase in price for substantially greater performance isn't worth the price increase.
This thread is about Phenom II. While not widely availble today, it is still the central topic of this thread.
No, I covered that group. That is paying bottom dollar regardless of the performance. Whatever the reason behind that is, you simply want to pay the least amount of money for computer parts.
Again, I didn't cover how the thing was to be used.
Again not everyone thinks of Core i7 as being that expensive. Especially not in regard to the Core i7 920. I think $290 for a processor is mid-range. The motherboards are of course all insanely high right now. On that you'll get no argument from me.
Not at all. I think my statements are being taken the wrong way. Perhaps my fault, but still the comments weren't meant in that fashion. The cheap "bastards" if you will don't care about performance, and want bottom dollar. I believe that is what I said all a long. In that area, you can get much cheaper AMD motherboards than you can Intel processor compatible boards. At least if you want something good. The processors on the other hand are a wash because Intel has offerings in nearly all the same price brackets.
Guys buying $60 motherboards and $42 processors are cheap. However, that doesn't matter. As long as the products fit their needs, then who cares? I'm a cheap bastard too when it comes to certain things. Computer hardware just isn't one of them.
ROTFL.
Trolling.
Did I lie about prices back before AMD's i386?
No...and I dare you to disprove me.
Did I lie about AMD taking top $$$ when they had the perfomance crown?
No...and I dare you to disprove me.
Not lets see who the troll is
There are lots of people who buy AMD systems, simply because they work quite well, for the intended purpose, for less money.
I have two SQL Servers with Phenom I chips in them, 8 gigs of RAM and terrabyte RAID arrays. I could spend a ton more for marginal performance improvements, but I will leave that to the Intel Fanboys.
I will probably drop a Phenom II into the systems after they drop in price a bit. Performance for the $ is what matters to me. OTOH, if it doesn't make sense to spend the $ for the performance increase, I will just stick with the Phenom I that is in there.
You are confusing two seperate things. Either you want bottom dollar, or you want price vs. performance. These things are two different concepts.
Bottom Dollar:
The cheapest total part cost/system cost with no regard or thought to performance with no thought to spending anymore money for additional performance regardless of how much performance you get for however little cost increase.
Price vs. Performance:
The most bang for your buck. The goal is to get the most performance possible for a set amount of money. For these people a modest increase in cost for a large gain in performance is often warranted or at least worth consideration.
Not lets see who the troll is
trolling is about going to a forum for a chip you don't use, to attempt to start an argument to make you feel better about yourself.
That would be you eh?
Trolling
trolling is about going to a forum for a chip you don't use, to attempt to start an argument to make you feel better about yourself.
That would be you eh?
Trolling
I disagree with this. I don't have any AMD processor based systems and haven't used their products outside of the context of work for some time now. Yet, I appreciate a healthy discussion on various technical topics. It is also fun to discuss the speculation about upcoming products. Especially given how irrational fanboy arguments are on either side.
I don't think anyone who owns a Core 2 is coming into the AMD forum to make themselves feel better about their choices. In fact in the AMD forum I see quite often how people rationalize buying their favorite brand of product when the competition's product was probably a better buy. The reverse was also true when most of the enthusiasts ran AMD processor based systems during the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 days.
I have no desire to let your trolling ruin this informative thread or waste my time on post containg no documentation and only ad hominem..so welcome to my ignore...troll along nowtrolling is about going to a forum for a chip you don't use, to attempt to start an argument to make you feel better about yourself.
That would be you eh?
Trolling
I have no desire to let your trolling ruin this informative thread or waste my time on post containg no documentation and only ad hominem..so welcome to my ignore...troll along now
Oohhh he ignores me? As if anyone cares.
Trolling.
Dan,
I have seen rational thought processes going on in your posts. I cannot really say the same about most of the other Intel guys here. In the end however notice that none of the Intel Fanboys have answered my thoughts about intel's research budget vs AMD's entire income. It is in fact true. But the fanboys still come in to this forum to "discuss" how AMD is a company that makes no contributions and why oh why would anybody buy them?
The question is, why oh why do you feel compelled to convince those who like AMD processors that they are idiots and need to run over to Intel? IOW, what is it (REALLY) that brings you to the AMD forum?
commissioneranthony
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,274
How does the 9950be compare to thr phenom 940? I'm just wondering because I'm thinking of getting one down the road as a possible upgrade (in a year or 2, when they go down in price)
flippin_waffles
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 178
I'm certainly looking forward to Phenom II regardless of how hard 'the borg' and it's surrogates try to sway peoples opinion here and numerous other places around the web. Nothing has really changed in that regard it seems, but it's certainly something i'm used to seeing. One thing that has seemed to change though, is the effect that said 'borg' is having.
To 'the borg': I will not be asymilated..........ever.
To 'the borg': I will not be asymilated..........ever.
Dan,
I am a business. I very carefully weigh total costs and where my money goes, and it simply does not go to Intel for a variety of reasons. I have examined Intel, over and over, and always determined that a few dollars spend to double my RAM would far outweigh the benefits of far more dollars buying a state of the art processor.
I spent megabucks on a coprocessor RAID card... because THAT mattered to processing my databases. I spend more dollars maxing out my RAM because THAT mattered to processing my databases. I am one of those who run very inexpensive AMD motherboards, and medium power AMD processors. I have a budget, and I VERY carefully weigh where each dollar goes to make my work time more
Would my systems be faster if I went with the best possible? Of course. OTOH I didn't NEED state of the art. All too often those pushing Intel are doing so on a few FPS on a video game. CORES matter to me, 64 bit (OS and SQL Server) matters to me, RAM matters to me, RAID array size matters to me, RAID speed matters to me. Bragging rights do not matter to me. By the time I spent my budget on what I needed there was no money left for bragging rights.
To make a blanket statement that anyone who does not "buy the best" is an idiot is offensive to say the least. Look at the auto market. There are Toyota corollas and there are Ferraris, there are 4x4s and there are vans and there are 4 door vanilla. And there are people who know what they need and buy that. Each of those things sell precisely because there are different needs.
I don't come into the Intel forum and call you idiots for buying that product. If you want that, and you can afford that, by all means, enjoy.
Come into my office, work with my budget, pay my bills, and see what you end up with. Your answers would likely be entirely different. You may be absolutely sure that it wouldn't but I am here, spending my budget, and I am quite happy with what I got for my money.
I am not "rationalizing", I can assure you that I spent waaaaaaaaay more time evaluating my needs and my budget than you did yours. I NEED the fastest SYSTEM I can get FOR MY BUDGET, but that is NOT always just the fastest processor.
OldSchool,
This is true for linear circuits, but not so directly for digital circuits. In digital it is the gate switching speed that matters and the number of times switched. Most of the power is used up (in heat) trying to switch the ones to zeros and v.v. as quickly as you can, you can see that simply by looking at the way the power goes up as you increase the clock speed. Underclock a 2.0 gig 65W processor to 1 gig and see what the power consumption drops to. Overclock it to 3 gigs and see what the power consumption rises to.
I will give you a example. I do some uController stuff interfacing to motors (just a hobby). I use MOSFETS to turn on and turn off the motors, rather quickly. These MOSFETS are designed to have a very low ON resistance, and a very high OFF resistance. What this means is that if you switch the MOSFET off then no current flows through the motor. If you turn it all the way on, then a lot of current flows. In either case, IF the on resistance is low, very little current is used in the MOSFET.
Switching quickly DECREASES the power consumed in the FET. It happens that as these devices turn on they pass through a "partially on" region, and as this happens the switch itself has a very measurable resistance and consumes a LOT of power IN the switch. But notice that power consumption is not high if it is all the way on or all the way off, only if it is partially on.
What this means to you and me is that if you "STOP" a uProcessor it consumes very little power because all of it's gates are either on or off, neither of which consumes much power. It is only when you switch the gates that much power is consumed. The more times you switch the gates, the more power is consumed by the gate i.e. the more time is spent in the "nonlinear" region, even if only briefly.
I found (somewhere in these forums) an article about the physical construction (engineering) and process of the AMD gates in their microprocessors which explains why they have in the past "won" the Power / Performance race. Dropping the "nanometer" manufacturing process will often drop the power, however the benefit is too often used to push clock rates.
IOW drop a 65 nm part to a 45 nm part and leave the clock speed alone and often (though not always) the power drops. Again, to some extent that depends on the materials and processes used at the gate level.
So with uPprocs it is much more complex than just E=I*R and P=E*I.
BravO)))
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 6,636
Can we get back on topic. I would like to see some benchmarks on games.
Add 5-10% clock for clock to the Phenom performance and you have it?
(at maximum, as we are talking a mere dieshrink + little added cache)
CommanderFrank
Cat Can't Scratch It
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 75,399
Stick to the topic of discussion or the next off topic post closes the thread.
Dan_D
How is this for a suggestion? [H]ardOCP could build an AMD system and an Intel system for a set dollar amount. Maybe let the AMD Phenom II set the price benchmark because it is the challenger. So slap in a CPU, MB, RAM, OS and all the extras then build the best possible Intel rig for the exact same price and put both systems through all the benchmarks and real world gaming and see who is the "value" champion. It would be the old Chevy Camaro Z28 vs. Boss Mustang 302 competition. Neither car was the pinnacle of performance in their time but each was built to destroy the other in real world, race on Sunday drive to work on Monday, performance market.
Just a suggestion to spin some positive fun out of this ongoing argument.
For anyone not old enough to remember the era of the 69 Camaro Z28 and the 70 Boss 302 Mustang I feel sorry for you in that you have been deprived of seeing that wonderful rivalry.
How is this for a suggestion? [H]ardOCP could build an AMD system and an Intel system for a set dollar amount. Maybe let the AMD Phenom II set the price benchmark because it is the challenger. So slap in a CPU, MB, RAM, OS and all the extras then build the best possible Intel rig for the exact same price and put both systems through all the benchmarks and real world gaming and see who is the "value" champion. It would be the old Chevy Camaro Z28 vs. Boss Mustang 302 competition. Neither car was the pinnacle of performance in their time but each was built to destroy the other in real world, race on Sunday drive to work on Monday, performance market.
Just a suggestion to spin some positive fun out of this ongoing argument.
For anyone not old enough to remember the era of the 69 Camaro Z28 and the 70 Boss 302 Mustang I feel sorry for you in that you have been deprived of seeing that wonderful rivalry.
AmongTheChosenX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 7,156
i totally understand this whole value thing.
my moms new rig that i built for her.
ok fine so it was only an X2 3800+ cpu.
however, it was not an easy choice decided intel or AMD.
the intel E2160's were faster at stock settings yes (this was to be a low power build, thus overclocking was not a factor in the purchasing).
For me to go for an intel board, it would have been $40 for a board, and then another $40 MINIMAL for the CPU.
I was able to get an AMD combo for $20 less.
now granted, its only $20 less, but we're only talking about a $100 build here. amplify that to a $500 build, and I jsut saved $100.
This is where AMD can win. and i really hope they do. the sooner they start making money, the sooner the real competition comes, and then we all win with price wars and faster chips.
And again, i'm not biased to any brands. My moms rig is an ALL AMD rig (AMD740G Board, AMD X2 3800+ CPU, Corsair RAM, Radeon X1650 Pro).
My rig is an ALL NVIDIA rig. intel e8400, evga 680i SLi, and an 8800GTX GPU. 4GB's of OCZ Titanium.
but my sisters rigs both consist of Nvidia 610i/630i boards, and Intel CPU's. however, both use Radeon 3850 GPU's.
Its all about the value. not everyone has $1000 to blow on an i7 system. I know i dont, even though i make $16 an hourm working 40 hours a week. i see no reason to blow that much on just the barebones of a system.
if AMD can do that for me at even 25% less than intel (if i ever felt like upgrading), then they are going to at least win some marketshare back.
my moms new rig that i built for her.
ok fine so it was only an X2 3800+ cpu.
however, it was not an easy choice decided intel or AMD.
the intel E2160's were faster at stock settings yes (this was to be a low power build, thus overclocking was not a factor in the purchasing).
For me to go for an intel board, it would have been $40 for a board, and then another $40 MINIMAL for the CPU.
I was able to get an AMD combo for $20 less.
now granted, its only $20 less, but we're only talking about a $100 build here. amplify that to a $500 build, and I jsut saved $100.
This is where AMD can win. and i really hope they do. the sooner they start making money, the sooner the real competition comes, and then we all win with price wars and faster chips.
And again, i'm not biased to any brands. My moms rig is an ALL AMD rig (AMD740G Board, AMD X2 3800+ CPU, Corsair RAM, Radeon X1650 Pro).
My rig is an ALL NVIDIA rig. intel e8400, evga 680i SLi, and an 8800GTX GPU. 4GB's of OCZ Titanium.
but my sisters rigs both consist of Nvidia 610i/630i boards, and Intel CPU's. however, both use Radeon 3850 GPU's.
Its all about the value. not everyone has $1000 to blow on an i7 system. I know i dont, even though i make $16 an hourm working 40 hours a week. i see no reason to blow that much on just the barebones of a system.
if AMD can do that for me at even 25% less than intel (if i ever felt like upgrading), then they are going to at least win some marketshare back.
This is something I would like to see happen, it would show the real performance differences between the two and why or why not it is worth to upgrade or keep the same.
I never said that. How can you be offended by something I said when I didn't say it?
I didn't say that you did and I never called anyone an idiot in this thread either. You took what I said to mean something other than what I intended it to mean. I didn't even type the word "idiot" any place in this thread until this very post.
You haven't a clue how I evaluate my purchase decisions, how I do it or how long it takes me to do it. Don't pretend to know how I came about choosing the hardware that I use in my machines. What I would purchase for a business, or what I recommend for business differs greatly from what I recommend for gaming and general home PCs. What I recommend for others isn't the same as what I do for myself either. Tons of criteria are factored in.
It would be an interesting read indeed, yeah.
Essentially, I wouldn't expect much out of Phenom II. If the rumors are indeed accurate, a die-shrink and more L3 cache won't make much of a difference when compared to existing Phenom processors. I don't forsee it matching Yorkfield and I don't even think Core i7 needs to be brought into the picture.
Every AMD thread degerates into a cost/performance ratio thread for some reason. That part does get old. However, relating to that topic, motherboards aside, Intel is very competitive with AMD on a cost basis when comparing the Q6600 to any Phenom, and
Phenom II is likely to be priced close to where we see the highest end Phenoms priced at today.
AMD Phenom 9950 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
You can see that these processors are priced very close to each other, and I think the Q6600 is the better buy today. More powerful, better overclocking, and I prefer Intel chipsets over any others. So I think you get a superior motherboard out of the deal should you choose wisely when deciding on your board. However I do agree that the Intel setup may cost slightly more, but I think the performance is worth it. Some wouldn't, but I do. That's always the part of the subject that ends up subjective. Beyond that the Phenom II may end up priced close to where the existing Phenom is, which would make it a better buy than Phenom I, and if it overclocks well enough, it could certainly end up being a better choice than Q6600. However when Core i7 production ramps up some more I'd expect to see the prices of Yorkfield Core 2 Quads take a dive in price which will put some more competition on Phenom II.
Every AMD thread degerates into a cost/performance ratio thread for some reason. That part does get old. However, relating to that topic, motherboards aside, Intel is very competitive with AMD on a cost basis when comparing the Q6600 to any Phenom, and
Phenom II is likely to be priced close to where we see the highest end Phenoms priced at today.
AMD Phenom 9950 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
You can see that these processors are priced very close to each other, and I think the Q6600 is the better buy today. More powerful, better overclocking, and I prefer Intel chipsets over any others. So I think you get a superior motherboard out of the deal should you choose wisely when deciding on your board. However I do agree that the Intel setup may cost slightly more, but I think the performance is worth it. Some wouldn't, but I do. That's always the part of the subject that ends up subjective. Beyond that the Phenom II may end up priced close to where the existing Phenom is, which would make it a better buy than Phenom I, and if it overclocks well enough, it could certainly end up being a better choice than Q6600. However when Core i7 production ramps up some more I'd expect to see the prices of Yorkfield Core 2 Quads take a dive in price which will put some more competition on Phenom II.