How about Boredom! LOL :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by halo112358
Printable View
How about Boredom! LOL :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by halo112358
Phenom 2 introduction in January with 125W TDP and then in Feb they will introduce new ones with a TDP of only 95W?
talk about getting punished for early adoption, anyway, if the 95W ones oc as good as intel cpu's then they might mark the beginning of the Comeback of AMD in the Enthusiast Community.
The ones in january doesnt support DDR3 either. So its abit of a short upgrade path with those. The ones in february is also 200Mhz lower tho...Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
How about faildom?Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Nah that's a little too harsh. Don't want them to fail. Just wanna see some screenshots. :)
That would be Pheildom :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Omastar
might be a bit of short upgrade, but that's up to those to decide if a move to ddr3 is in a shorttime frame or not. At least later versions are ddr2+dd3 compatible, for a system with onboard mem controller that's great added value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
the ones in february do not list the 125tdp package either, so not a full list, will be depending process wise and competition wise this is never done.
as usual in AMD threads a MOD is needed time to time to clean up. Looking at your sig I would rather call it wastedomQuote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
I wander if you said the same at the i7 threads, they have the same early adoption TDP rate :DQuote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
pics + numbers
95W...finally something from AMD to kill the q6600 :p:
a nice rig, and cheaper than Nehalem i will guess.
It is a nice upgrade path for those whom already have an AM2+ motherboard, my little brother wouldn't mind to see his 5000+ BE being replaced by something like this. If you have to buy a new motherboard to support this CPU, then yes it is a very short upgrade path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Don't feel so offended by T_Flight, he's just joking and not being serious. Can't we just have some fun and sarcasm around here once in a while? There is no need to defend some company when someone makes a joke about it. I don't mind it if someone gets a bit defensive when someone is spreading some false information about some company, but a simple joke should be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
so does anyone know if PhenomII + R600 will do 30,000 in 3dmark?
sure, if you can find a phenom clockable to 5.5 ghz, and r600 @ 1.1ghz crossfire
or 5ghz with dual 4870x2@ 850mhz (around)
I really hope AMD is back on track with this... my old AMD rig needs to be replaced soon...
I just hope that somewhere out of the bloom they release a similar chipset to X58.. no more pondering whether to go XF or SLi... but seeing them owning ATi hell will freeze over first...
Regardless... if the new line up touches the I7 I'm sticking with AMD... if not I'll be going to the other side... :(
:up:;)Quote:
Originally Posted by clonez
There is nothing special about X58 that makes it support both SLI and CFX, that was merely a decision made by NVIDIA because they would otherwise loose the high-end market to ATI as NVIDIA does not have a chipset with a QPI interface. NVIDIA could easily allow SLI to run on an AMD 790FX chipset if they wanted to, but they just don't want to as this will make their own AMD chip sets less attractive. The same goes for the X38 and X48 chipsets, there is nothing in the chips that makes it impossible for SLI to run on those chips and it's a decision made by NVIDIA to not provide SLI support on those chips. This restriction is made at the driver level, the chipset drivers for NVIDIA chipsets don't allow CFX to run on NVIDIA's chipsets and the video card drivers of NVIDIA don't allow SLI to run on anything but NVIDIA chipsets and certain Intel X58 motherboards.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightCrawler
BTW, the Intel Smackover board does not have SLI support as Intel simply did not want to pay NVIDIA to allow SLI certification. If you certify your X58 to be used with SLI, you get a special BIOS code by NVIDIA which you have do integrate into your BIOS and then NVIDIA's drivers will check for this code to allow SLI. Maybe someone can hack this code into Intel's Smackover BIOS, although I don't think it will be easy to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Nothing for nothing man but I cannot understand this local mentality of Phenom = Failure:confused: I have the First AMD SB600 board released and a Phenom 9600 (B2) and its all at stock currently and has been that way for a while now due to no time to O.C because of shortage of time in life in general currently. I can honestly say I have had not issue one with this Board or CPU not once! Even at stock its not by any means slow in any respect ......encoding video, music , gaming , etc ,etc, so I have no idea why most of you fellas have such reverence and hatred towards AMD.........WHY??????????:shrug:
mainly because they all play SuperPi all day long brother ;) LOL
We have a launch even today for i7 and I bet they show SuperPi there...as if in the whole scale of things it friggin matters.
volume sales are what matters, cost Vs performance...AMD proved with 4XXX GPU cards they could win at this, and I am sure they have a plan for Phenom 2 going in the same direction.
XS news is not really the place to talk about AMD anymore...every thread in the news section usually ends up going the same way
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Yes very true indeed Tony! XS News has become the equivalent of the AMERICAN MENTALITY of SURVIVOR T.V Show......Its a Public Biatch out Session which in short is just to create DRAMA....and Anarchy....Nothing more!
Don't say to us old timers bye-cracky, hehehe! That's just my resent history to prove a point. My first real computer was a Commie 64 in 1983, then an Atari 800XL, 286, 386 both built from the scrap in while I learned computers but they didn't belong to me. My next modern was an Pentium 100MHz about 15 years ago. I'm not exactly sure but the rest look something like, AMD-PR 150, Intel 133 & 166, Intel 200, 200 Pentium Pro, K-5 300, K6-2 380 replaced by a 400MHz K6-2 that really that actually worked at the advertised FSB, K6-3 400MHz as well I think. So add those before the other history. Either way, I've own more AMD than processors than Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
I'd also take trade-in on upgrades and have 3 to 12 computers waiting to be given away or sold. I donate them to various organizations like the Boys & Club, Local Recreation Centers, Women's shelters and etc.... I usually run 4 computers in my home. That's why i'm not so in a hurry for Quad Core.
ROFLMAO!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Katanai
Go AMD!
I think that stands for chilled air. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Would be great if they manage to overclock that well though.
They should denote why the "*" is there in the first place. Most of the time that means they used a 3rd party Cooler like the Thermalright Ultra 120 or something. Otherwise they'd have said stock cooling like HardOCP did with both coolers they used.Quote:
Originally Posted by motopen1s
Why do you always bring this up? Are you even serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Their cpu is 15-25% slower across the board and consuming way more power. The launch featured more bad PR and lies than Iraq's information minister? Even though it was a nice chip after it matured a bit and was priced competetively, but it still almost ruined them. It was a failure, stop beating the horse, get over it.
Your equation of anarchy = bad is even more characteristic for the "illiterate American" than you think. :p:
They see me rolin', they hatin'... :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
You always say the same to justify the lack of perfomance. Phenom underperforms in almost everything compared to a similar clocked C2Q, not only in SuperPi. And C2Q are usually clocked much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I think most would agree that it is good that the Intel chips that cost 3x or even 5x as much money are 15%-25% faster across the board than the $180.00 AMD chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
No it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Clock for clock the Q6600 is very rarely substantially faster than the 9950 (both of which are similar in price here). And on a SB750 motherboard both will do 3Ghz+.
The original Phenom's were duds, no doubt. But the newer chips combined with SB750 motherboards make for a very nice quad core platform.... SuperPI excluded.:p:
uh noes..... her we go again... phenom (even b3) is slower clock for clock then kentsfield for desktops apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
nice that you show this with your own data (phenom need 2.6ghz to beat a 2.4ghz kentsfield...)
So whats your point with the question? Xtreme Systems Forum has changed considerably for the worse compared to what it used to be. I should think that since you joined in 2006 you would have noticed this. Don't know about you but I come hear to Read and learn and help others and talk to friends. As it would appear the recent and current majority are a bunch of wise mouthed disrespectful kids that think they know everything and they are quite rude about it and also more often then not insulting with their remarks. I don't know about you but personally I find it insulting towards Intelligent Ethical People ! Take for example what StarGazer just said towards Tony that is quite insulting considering that Tony is a legend and rightfully so as he posses more knowledge about all of this stuff and has forgotten more about it then most will ever hope to learn!..........This is a Perfect Example of what I am eluding upon.........But hey most of you are just kids so in the grand scheme of things you all have no idea what I am talking about because you just don't have the life experience to grasp my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
Not againnnn :brick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Unless it has been deleted could you quote the actual exchange so we know exactly what it is you are referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Watch your step, i dont think you can see the ground from the highs where you are walking. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
I guess he read my post and decided to remove it. I will leave my post as is because well........I am correct with what I say and just like Tony I am always on this forum but I do not really post anymore because I am not interested in a bunch of Bull Sheet Kiddie Drama at my age. just because I have my own personal opinion and views on whats being discussed at hand thats no excuse for people to rip you a new one and be disrespectful towards anyone because you do not agree with the majority. So myself just like many of the older heads don't post much these days for that very reason.........Whatever........ its you know it all's loss not ours.
Again, again and again³. We should reapeat it until all the lies and misinformation have stopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
keithlm, just read my post, the company was almost ruined because of this underperforming arch. The overall performance and pricing is deciding about the success.
Brother Esau, maybe it's changing for the worse, but it doesn't justify some of the things you make up about phenom. Still JJ, Hans and DrWho started posting only recently so it's not that bad.
Oh I missed this one. So being a "Legend" automatically implies he's right? Please answer this question of you don't mind.Quote:
Take for example what StarGazer just said towards Tony that is quite insulting considering that Tony is a legend and rightfully so as he posses more knowledge about all of this stuff and has forgotten more about it then most will ever hope to learn!
Chad Boga, my post is this one:
Yes, sooooo much disrespect. :rolleyes:Quote:
You always say the same to justify the lack of perfomance. Phenom underperforms in almost everything compared to a similar clocked C2Q, not only in SuperPi. And C2Q are usually clocked much higher.
Unfortunately this is the truth:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Another AMD thread highjacked by those that seek to use the thread to tout their vast knowledge of Intel supremacy. Oh yeah, let's demean, humiliate, and crush anyone who thinks the Intel way is not the only way. This thread is about the "potential" of Phenom II not the supremacy of i7 and all things Intel.
I was shocked. I thought Tony was joking or being sarcastic. Funny how when AMD ran it faster, it was important.:rolleyes::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I've managed to avoid the worst of the Intel VS AMD battle thats been raging through here the past few months, but I cant help but feel the need to defend AMD when there are people implying Barcelona is slow compared to Kentsfield. It's just absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
In the review I linked to there was also a 9850 in the roundup, which is clocked less than a 100Mhz faster yet still beats out the Q6600 in many of the tests (of which most are based around normal desktop applications. Data compression, video transcoding etc).
Yes, I (anyone with a degree of knowledge or sense) will happily agree that Intel CPU's are simply better for overclocking, which plagued the early Phenom's and SB600 motherboards, but nowadays it's very easy to match the performance of a mid range quad core Intel machine with an AM2+ one. It's that simple.
Dont be mean guys...if its really good it may be named DOMINATRON :D
But if end up being mediocre, they should stick to Phenom II. =P
You mean like people blindly pretending that the Phenom 9950 can't compete with the Q6600? It is interesting that the proponents of the brand that used to advocate faster frequencies now use the term "clock per clock" when they know that their chip can't compete dollar per dollar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
And if you are so worried about AMD going bankrupt perhaps you should attempt to stop people from spreading that bit of misinformation.
EXACTLY what I was relating. People have become so enthralled with pretending one brand is infinitely superior they forgot to actually look at reality. (And with the SB750 even the old "but they overclock better" claim is becoming less valid.)Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Xtreme Systems Forum has changed considerably for the worse compared to what it used to be.
Of couse the forum changed.:rolleyes: Consumers aren't loyal robots or sheep:D When or If AMD gains the Crown back, the forum will change again.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by hstuehmeyer2000
It's ATI acquisition which almost killed them not K10. Before K10 launch AMD was already in trouble :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
till the end of october the Q6600 was constantly cheaper then the X4 9950... since the begin of november they are priced the same...
back in june the difference between the 9850 and the Q6600 more then 40€... seems many people forget very fast.
only 2 months back the Q6600 was the better value, now the 9950 is the better value...
No it was not. You confused July-August with October.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
(Well maybe the official MSRP. But not the actual retail price on various e-tail sites.)
I thought they imply the continuous fanboy bashing :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Can't read a thread about Intel, AMD or Nvidia without them now...
The Guru3d review is mostly synthetic benchmarks, and at least one of the Everest benchmark score is incorrect for the Q6600. There are plenty of other reviews where the Q6600 has a considerable advantage across a wide range of applications like in Matbe's recent 100 CPU review:Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page30.php
It's possible to match the performance of Intel's slowest quad-core machine.Quote:
but nowadays it's very easy to match the performance of a mid range quad core Intel machine with an AM2+ one. It's that simple.
Data doesn't lie. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Phenom 9950 3 months
Q6600 3 months
Q6600 6 months
9850 6 months
And that data is e-tailer pricing. ;)
That pricing is pretty much representative for europa... well, i think i forgot to factor in, the world only consists of the usa. :ROTF:
So how does mid-range become "slowest"? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
he said slowest quad. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
not slowest overall.
No no. Look at the quote again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
And accord99 then says:Quote:
it's very easy to match the performance of a mid range quad core Intel machine with an AM2+ one.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Oh I see. Since it was true in Europe then it is an undeniable truth even if it wasn't true everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Priceless.
Some have speculated that given the phenom underlining architecture is the same in Phenom II that you would see high current leakage as you overclocked to 4.0. On the XS AMD forum, RiverRicer found HERE that there are significant architecture changes in AMD's 45nm chip.
The above would seem to imply that should AMD migrate to HKMG (High_K_Metal_Gates) you would see still more improvement. HKMG is forecast for AMD chip construction later in 2009.Quote:
The transistor drive current for AMD's 45-nm devices is much lower than that of the Intel HKMG transistors. But power consumption is quickly becoming a high priority for server chips. AMD's transistors exhibit very low channel leakage. Our transistor benchmarks indicates that leakage current is less than one-third of the value measured on AMD's 65-nm process. It's also significantly lower than the Intel 45-nm HKMG process. In fact the Ion/Ioff ratio for AMD's PFET is nearly 10 times better than that for the Intel PFET.
In my opinion, this technology innovation would seem to suggest that later Phenom II chips could clock well above 4.0Ghz.
For those of you technically inclined, here is an explanation of the specific design innovations:
Quote:
On the NFET side, stress memorization stretches the n-channel, which is enhanced later in the process flow by the addition of a nitride tensile stress liner. The liner itself is scaled down at 45 nm to ensure the required strain is adequately supplied to the transistor channel to enhance electron mobility and subsequently increase the drive current. The gate-stack design is modified as well, with a new sidewall spacer design for 45nm.
The PFET performance improvement is more dramatic with drive current now up to 660 µA/µm compared with 510 µA/µm on 65-nm transistors. Again, this increased output current is the result of optimized compressive strain for the p-channel device. The new design of the PFET moves the embedded silicon-germanium source/drain regions closer to the channel to maximize the transfer of stress, thereby increasing hole mobility. Although shorter gate lengths are not driving the improvements, it is a reduction in dimensions that allows increased channel stress to provide the performance scaling. AMD 45-nm PFET design reduces the space from embedded silicon-germanium to the channel edge by half.
So Stargazer, what does Phenom under performing Core 2 have to do with Phenom II? Why did you have to pull the trigger on the Intel gun? I believe the credits for yet an other ruined AMD thread goes to you. Of course Hornet331 shouldn't be forgotten either. Good work.
Haven't we discussed this matter enough?
I think that's what he does best. It's not only AMD or Intel for that matter, I'm beginning to suspect he is in it for the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eson
All Brother Esau's post and this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eson
Oh wait, they are the ones talking about Intel in an AMD thread. Now some of us answer them and what? We are called thread ruiners. Good work for another call to the whaaaambulance with no reason :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
damn you beat me. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
i was going to say the same, if Brother Esau wouldn't have commented in such a dismissive way, this thread would have been already buried in the deepest of this forum.
This thread went off the rail's at page five and Intel fans had nothing to do with it, If you read it started with a few comments about hot nehelams and Intel's only being good for spi and fanboys thinking there epenis etc etc
As per usual its the same wee hardcore click of AMDfanboys complaining and being mega sensitive about everyone not thinking AMD is the best thing since sliced bread that has ruined this thread.
Can you not all just get along? Read from page five and honestly say where you thought it started.
It takes two to make a fight. You could have just ignored him. Typical "he started it" defense. Doesn't mean you have to finish it.
So how about everyone just drop it then and get back on the original topic ;)
I must have missed Brother Esau's Core 2 vs. Phenom comment. I thought he was talking about how tired he was of Intel fanboys destroying AMD threads and that there are nothing wrong with the Phenom. And Tony mentioned the name i7. I am very sorry for being stupid, i must have overreacted.
There is no reason to be sorry :up: It's always the same. The funny thing is that the "Intel fanboys" including myself have already said several times that Phenom 2 can be a bomb, and probably will, before the crapping.
I see a lot of "Intel fanboys" also saying that if deneb pans out like it looks like it will it might be there next system. Strange that.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
It doesn't matter how many good things you say, one "bad" word and its like in left4dead when a boomer pukes on you, the hord is going to rape you. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
eidt:
btw. if thers gona be a quad core with ~65W TDP -> super cheap cruncher here i come. :D
right now, I could build a phenom cruncher for 250€ but the power consumption for 24/7 is a nogo for me right now. (Yorkfield system costs me 60€ more but saves that in less then a year) :(
Yesterday I did a report for a customer having a large database. The report took about 40 minutes to complete in debug mode. When you do this kind of work you don't sit and wait for the report to be ready, you plan it and do other work while the report is being created. On the AMD you will not notice that the computer is working but I on the Intel, the computer slows down considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Come on man, you can do better than that. I don't know any systems, or any system configurations, for that matter, known by "on the AMD" and "on the Intel." Maybe next time list some system specs and Ocs IF they apply. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
I think you miss the point, If you remember when the first gossip of phenom started and then with AMD pimping it themselves expectations were high, When phenom launched it was not a bad cpu, It was just worse that the competition. It was slower clock for clock, Max stock clocks and oc potentiol AND used more power. This made it a failure in many of the enthusiasts eyes just like the pentium dual cores were compared to the x2 (i.e x2 3800 beating a extreme edition with hyper threading pentium lol)Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
So don't get upset when someone calls the first phenom a failure, Sure it is a better option in some cases and with later revisions and new chipsets etc it made its self a valid option in more and more scenarios but at the end of the day extreme systems is 99% guys with a hardware hobby and to them the phenom was a flop. So when Zytek_Fan says that phenom was a failure he is not talking about severs vmware etc, He is just giving a opinion on what phenom was to him.
Deneb will be what phenom1 was meant to be anyway and we can all just forget about phenom1 like we did the p4d.
Very well said:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Absol-Frakkin"-lutely! QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Tell me, when are you an Intel or an AMD 'fanboy'? Only a very few can be considered to be a 'fanboy', most are not. I think pretty much everyone is a 'fanboy' of their wallet or a performance 'fanboy', for the latter you will most likely have to choose Intel and for the former it depends a bit on what you expect of you system.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Actually I'm surprised that it took 5 pages to happen. People get too emotionally invested in their hardware and it becomes impossible to discuss anything rationally.
I would say you're a fanboy when you are so obsessed with a company that you find yourself purposely posting in threads about the team-other-than-the-one-you-like and flamebait. We've been seeing a lot of this on the AMD side. When I cruise the Intel stuff I don't see much of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
But no matter which side they like, people like that are fanboys.
Hahaha, clueless:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
If you would have read several arguments correctly according this issue, you would see benchmark results were often not even being crapped with but something else. But since you couldnt care to read those arguments back then, Ive no single reason to post them right now:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Anyway, cut it. Either do care or do not care, but dont talk a bit here and be ignorant a bit there.
Oh wait, so SuperPI actually does care?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Ah, now I get it. Some numbers are apparently 'the' justification not to get a K10? Besides that, there's still a huge difference between underperforming and performing less really. Ive ran my 9850BE stock for several months, and Ive yet to discover any performance issues. Of course higher clocks are very welcome, but dont act like it's crap because the numbers how it performs less:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
No, Tony has to be independed, so he actually cant just go spread out lies really. Also the chance he's right is a lot higher than the average poster in this thread:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
SuperPI is only... relevant when you compare eventual steppings or what so ever. Then still it's questionable. When AMD ran faster it wasn't of any performance for me really. Also Ive yet to see any proof of the group of people you're aiming at:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Either way, I'm hoping AMD has it right and they are NOT just blowing smoke. IMHO, AMD doesn't have to *win, they just need to play a great game. Sorry guys, I don't see folks posting that Phenom II sucks. Slower doesn't mean slow at all. Phenom is a very good processor that was born at the wrong time. Only Fanboys think AthlonXP was faster than the Northwoods or that Northwoods where faster than Athlon64 when most of the time they weren't. Neither of the slower processors sucked=P
Phenom and the Nehalem fights are just starting and folks are already at each other's throat. I personally like the Phenom II but I have a problem calling it P2 or P-II, sorry! Maybe call it Ph-2 or PhII. Folks have the right to think it will overclock just as others think it will not. Please folks, accept the others opinion as nothing but that. This, "I must attack folks for saying blank about blank" is a JOKE, a very bad JOKE!
Some of us said Nehalem would overclock, others said it wouldn't. Now whatever happens with Ph-II, I hope the Nay Sayers don't slip off and hide as they did with Nehalem:wink:
That can be said about all benchmarks. But check this out? I've NEVER been a proponent or fan of SuperPi=P You see whatever you want to see or not. No need to roll you eyes LOL! You are one of the people you seem to not see and that my friend is absolutely you're biggest problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
I know discussed this earlier, but does anyone have any conformation if phenom II OC's will be hindered by 64-bit OS's?
I really hope not. I'm not going back to 32-bit anything.
noone knows right now, need to wait till jan. (dec.) for info on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller
To be honest with you, I have never really heard of some kind of hindrance in OC capability when using a 64-bit OS. Maybe I'm not keeping up enough to even know about it....Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller
Some have said on this thread (or was it the one in the AMD section?) that their results varied, they have even had a higher stable overclock on a 64 bit OS.
LOL YES hahaha :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by '[XC
You ate those candies which make you turn my argument the other way around?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Do you really think I even care about any FM benchmarks? Any SuperPI benchmarks? No matter AMD is being better at it or not? I at most post a few results to make other people happy. For me personally both results tell me jack :banana::banana::banana::banana:, it's only an eventual reason to try and improve the score, whatever that score is actually telling me in the first place.
And actually, the last part of your argument is really stupid since Im very relative in making decisions. I see everything, and if I had an argument which was basicly wrong, I admit I was wrong, no more and no less. Also you might want to take a better look at my sig, since in this case, your argument is like... 100% clueless.
Also;:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I remember a lot of stuff on the AMD subsection showing phenom clocks and how 64-bit OS's had enough hindrance that people stuck w/ xp b/c it made that much of a difference. That's one reason I am glad I went with a q6600. I'm not a fan boy, just looking for whats best now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Link to the thread about higher OC in 64 bit?
If the price / performance ratio is awesome for the new AMD chips, I'll pick one up. For most of the things I do, the cost of intel is not needed (htpc, folding@home w/ gpus, etc) and thats why this might be up my alley. :up:
I was talking about this post:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=90
It's in this thread, as I said post.
It seems that results apparently vary from person to person, although you can hardly draw any conclusion from the data there is on this subject.
Off-topic: Darn man, my 's' key does not want to cooperate and I usually have to press it twice or very firmly. Very annoying. Anyone recommending a good keyboard? I like the kind of typing experience my ThinkPad provides, but then in a decent desktop keyboard....
The way I see it, if your CPU isn't stable in a 64 bit OS but appears to be in a 32 bit OS it isn't truely 100% stable ;)
Yes, yes you are.:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Wow, that was it???Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Seems like an overreaction by the good Brother.
I'm not sure exactly how 32-bit code is executed compared to 64-bit code (whether there's a different pipeline or something for 64-bit code, or is just using half the pipeline for 32-bit code or something), but if there's a section of the CPU not being used at all when only 32-bit code is running, and that's stable with a certain overclock, then I would consider it 100% stable for what you're using it for.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
That's so mature and witty. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I think I used that kind of response in primary school.
An overreaction to respond to false or misleading claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
It was better than what I was responding to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apokalipse
I'm sure you will continue to use that kind of response once you get out of primary school too.Quote:
I think I used that kind of response in primary school.
An overreaction as there was nothing unreasonable in STaRGaZeR's post.Quote:
An overreaction to respond to false or misleading claims?
It doesn't really work like that. There is no 'section' that gets shut down when you run a 32 bit OS. It has to do with how the actual data is arranged into words of 32 or 64 bits in length. Basically, going 64 bit allows your computer to crunch much bigger numbers than before.
thats why 64 bit can use more ram. There is no primary physical limitation to the ram with 32 bits, it can be there, but the computer cannot assign an address that big, it just runs out of numbers. Kind of like when your area code runs out of phone numbers, you just cant do it, you need more digits. Eventually we will have to move to 128 bit when we demand several terabytes of ram.
You remember when it was 16 bit, the file name length was restricted? Then when we all upgraded to windows95, half our filenames were truncated because they were 16 bit relics.
So 64 bits OS lets your hardware deal with larger values, basically allowing it to do more complex math. More complex = more susceptible to errors.
If you're not 64 bit stable, but your hardware supports 64 bit, then you are NOT STABLE.
i7 is out for me, well i will need a new mb that is 358 usd, new i7 920 cpu is 358 usd, and memory is 279 usd (4GB)
Core i7 358 usd
Gigabyte GA-X58-UD5 358 usd
OCZ DDR3-1600 Platinum EB XTC 4 GB (2 x 2048) 279 usd
Total: 995 usd
here is my estamate how much deneb will cost
AMD Phenom II 940 230 usd
790FX or 790GX chipset 172 usd
OCZ DDR2-1000 4096 MB Platinum Edition 86usd
Total: 488 usd
but my setup will be cheap i just need to drop deneb in ;)
as i got a Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DS5 with a Phenom 9850 + 4GB PC6400 DDR2 atm
btw there is zero points of 32-bit XP and Core i7, get 64-bit XP or Vista 64-bit
Guys, perhaps everyone should simply knock it off ... this is exactly why KTE left --- a huge loss to the group.
Jack
Listen to the man,he speaks wise words :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
My point exactly Jack.
we appear to be looking at different *'s.:slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Well, prolly the '*' could mean YMMV? Or aftermarket cooler:shrug:
First: Core i7 2.66GHz cost $309.99 at newegg, and you can get it for $299.99 Microcenter. I think Core i7 will also perform better than any of Phenom II CPUsQuote:
Originally Posted by wiak
Second: There are much cheaper X58 motherboards at newegg than the one you posted.
Third: The DDR3 you posted is very expensive, and you can get much cheaper one. Furthermore, Core i7 performs the best on Triple channel memory
Here is an example
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231222
Forth: Phenom II is not out yet. At the time Phenom II comes out the price of Core i7, X58 motherboard and DDR3 might get cheaper.
Fifth: there is no evidence that Phenom II will be better than Yorkfield which is cheaper than Core i7
Last but not least: Your pricing of Phenom II 940 is based on assumption
http://img.syndrome-oc.net/kirikou/2...118-113030.jpg
Credit : The Overclocker
Source : Syndrome-OC
It's quite clear it will perform better yes. But that's not the point really, also wiak didnt say it would.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
So there are much cheaper motherboards for AM2, which still do the OC you want. I think that Gigabyte motherboard is pretty average. But then take an Asus P6/Intel X58, like 290$.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
In the end the price of a RD790/SB750 board could be lowered since the DFI one is 175$, which is at the same time one of the best ones available.
That kit you selected is only DDR1333 and tCL 9. I'd chose this anytime over that kit you selected. That was a quick pick btw, obviously there might be a slightly cheaper alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
However, for 120$ you seem to have 4GB of Micron D9's, which are the generally the best to have. Ive Transcend D9's, which ain't available anymore (out of production). But over at TPU DDR1200 tCL4 wasnt a rare thing and some guy even got DDR1400 at 2.2~2.3Vdimm. However, lets not focus too much on those things since nobody really knows thus far how well those triple channel kits OC and/or whether you can safely use >1.65Vdimm or not.
I doubt that... highly. Triple channel is a new thing because of the IC's and since it's for a very specific platform, I dont think it will drop any soon. Compare it like gas for cars. It's needed, and if you've to pay 1Euro/l you're happy unlike with 3Euro/l, you'll still buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
I see X58 becoming a tad cheaper but, those enthusiast boards will have a long road to go before that happens. Even skt 775 enthusiast boards (like ROG etc) are still ~250 Euro. Core i7 price drop? At most 30$ before Phenom II hits, mainly depends on AMD's pricing.
Still I ain't sure about it. Shanghai got a nice boost already. If current news stories are true Deneb will OC like a beast without too much issues as heat and even Agena gets more bandwith than Yorkfield, so Deneb with slight improvements will at least keep the same delta. For Deneb it all comes down to clock speeds now. Also Yorkfield is thus far quite expensive, prolly going to be more expensive than Deneb.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
Reason Im getting an i7 for example is since it made only a 100~200 Euro difference between a dieing platform and a brand new platform which is faster at the same time.
What's wrong with that:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
Anyway, in Euro prices I get this for top notch stuff, based on average prices;
AMD Phenom 9950BE 125W 175Euro
DFI Lanparty DK 790FXB-M2RS 130Euro
Asus M3A79-T Deluxe 175Euro
4x 1GB Crucial Balistix DDR1066 85Euro
Intel Core i7 920 300Euro
Asus Rampage II Formula 360Euro
Asus P6T Deluxe 270Euro
Gigabyte GA-EX58-Extreme 300Euro
Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 270Euro
3x 2GB DDR1600 tCL8 300Euro
3x 1GB DDR1600 tCL8 180Euro
So basicly, top notch AMD system at max costs 425Euro, and that delivers a certain 3~3.4Ghz OC with good RAM with extremes of having luck DDR800 3-3-3, DDR1200 or even DDR1200 4-4-4, but wouldn't take that too serious. However <DDR1066 tCL4 is doable, also >DDR1100 tCL5. Also upgradability to Deneb without issues, which if we believe those slides does ~4Ghz without too many issues.
Bloomsfield platform top notch costs 960Euro and just with good stuff it costs 750Euro. Bloomfield might be faster, but with such price differences? Lets not forget the major point of getting an Intel system is that it could most of the time run at higher clocks than Agena, while Agena was in quite a few apps slower clock for clock. Deneb might still be slower clock for clock than i7, or maybe even Yorkfield, but with a ~4Ghz OC you wont even notice the difference at all.
So whatever point you tried to make, it ain't making a lot of sense:shrug: And there's always cheaper alternatives, but this will result in a relative bigger price drop for AMD than for i7 really.
:rofl::rofl: The only thing you'll do is make others skip your posts. Your sig has NOTHING to do with what you're posting. I don't need to call you clueless and stupid when you're constantly doing it yourself. Do you even have a clue what TACT is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Ph-II has a chance to get AMD out of the Red. Folks looking for real info on it shouldn't have to filter through BS like yours.:up:
just look at Radeon HD 4870,it was 75% speed of Geforce GTX 280 but was a hit why? cost half ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
GTX 260 was beated by 4870, so why cant deneb beat Core 2 Quad
more people buy 500 euro computers than 1000 euro computers
my budget is kinda small, i just upgrade when i got cash