I must have missed it. Asked who? And what comes later, support from the processor itself? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Printable View
I must have missed it. Asked who? And what comes later, support from the processor itself? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
quick correction, chew is still right tho, it was the 2800+ with the 266fsb@2.25ghz very rare as it was mostly sold by oems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
back on topic, not sure why some people see deneb as a fail, it looks like its mad fun to overclock while still being a 'decent' performer. I just got my 0850 940 yesterday and already I cant wait to leave work and go home to play with it.. :P
though I do have to say while it does boot faster than my 3.8ghz Q9450 box, it doesnt seem quite as erm 'smooth' on the desktop but its still a work in progress anyways. This is on Vista x64
i have a connection with amd. i can't say anything about when 1600 will come.Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
So what about AM3 motherboards, they show 1600 on the box and in the specs. Is this is a case of it being unofficially being supported via overclocks?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
motherboards are a completely different story. the motherboard might support 1600 but it doesn't mean the cpu will. the motherboard manufacturers know that amd will implement ddr3 1600 chips eventually and that when they do they will work in those motherboards.Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
It appears that way, cant imagine boards being speced as DDR3 1066/1333/1666+ if it was a standard, most companies use a * or a + with a note at the bottom that those are OC speeds....Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
Boards support 1600 via "OC". Just like i7 boards supports higher than 1333. Or Core 2 boards supports higher FSB etc.
Its not like a Phenom AM3 would just scream NO I AM NOT ALLOWED if you try ;)
I don't think you get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
If Kyle trashtalked intel the past, it does not make it okay for him to screw up an AMD review now.
Whether or not conroe hurt amd more than athlon hurt intel has absolutely nothing to do with this either.
If you make reviews and you are pissed and depressed because some company did not manage to make the fastes product out there and you want to be childish about it, let someone else write the review.
And seriously Donnie, cut the "Phenom did worse" crap, I really don't care. This thread is about Phenom II reviews, and Kyle screwed it up, conroe reviews and old phenom reviews have nothing to do with it.
It's blatantly apparent that Kyle is trolling his own forum and site for hits. Yet I see a lot of people complaining while they continue to feed into that crap. Vote with your mouse pads; boycott his site if you feel that strongly. A website is only as good as its most recent visitors.
You still haven't produced the slightest evidence that his numbers are off by any reasonable margin.Talk is cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
QFE, best comment till now regarding [H]. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by User9498
savantu, I posted this yesterday showing a Phenom 9950's performance when running at 3.3Ghz with only 1 x GTX280. Now with the same 640 x 480 settings in Far Cry 2 giving this 9950 an average of 72 FPS I would have expected the overclocked 3.8Ghz Phenom II result in the same game test to have been higher. Now he used tri-SLI in the review to take away the "apparent" GFX limiting factor. Looking at my numbers I am pretty sure the phenom II with a single card would have been way higher if they used a 790GX or 790FX chipset motherboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by VoodooProphetII
I know my test wasn't an exact replicate of the review but I still would like to know why I scored more average FPS then a 3.8Ghz Phenom II with Tri-SLI GTX280. And I even down clocked the card a little and it resulted in a 1 FPS drop. If I overclock the GFX it would take the FPS over 80, and if I put all the detail to the lowest setting it would climb even higher.
Who knows what the results would have been if he used crossfire x 4870's or maybe just crossfire 4870X2? Make the whole system AMD and try again...?
Have any of you noticed that the Phenom II's Far Cry 2 performance increase from low to high res?
Intel's new price cuts hopefully will influence the retail prices of these CPU's too
It's really not about his numbers, it's about his attitude and subjective test setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Sorry but you're really asking for the impossible; forget his attitude and concentrate on his numbers. Of course the setup is subjective, just like all other setups save those hand-picked by AMD for reviewers. Until we see another reviewer with a similarly configured system and different results you're blowing hot air for nothing. So this thread was actually about Kyle's attitude and not his numbers? Man, this is pathetic. :down::down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
Just reading the language in the "review" is difficult. He's blatantly made up his mind that the chip is a "failure"... Obviously at $275 he should have expected it to outoperform $1k parts, that's legitimate, right? If a reviewer cannot be objective in his conclusions or discussion, we can do without them. I'd much rather preferred to have just seen figures and results, delete the babble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
You know, it's you who doesn't get at all. I'm not saying Kyle wasn't Biased, in fact I most certainly agree he was. The point you seem to be too blind and can't see is that ALL of his reviews tilt towards seemingly whom ever is paying him the most ad dollars that cycle. Like it or not, Kyle's crappy review counts as well. Some of the reviews/ers didn't put Intel in the best light either, but that's why all of the reviews together matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
It is about reviews of a new product and NOT only fan laced Pro AMD reviews.
The thread is "AMD Phenom II Review Thread" and NOT "AMD Phenom II Positive Cheerleading Thread". Make a thread like that and I'd not bother posting in it. Same reason I don't post but probably twice a year in the reality free zone known as the AMD sub section.
The only real thing childish here is your insistence on how much YOU can't seem to accept the results from some of the reviews. AMD LOST another round Miss and ALL of the reviews show it, so get over it.:rolleyes: Most of MY posts here have been about the reviews. The only problem here is your childishly crying when results from the reviews don't go your way. You're danged right it is about Phenom II reviews, too bad some reviews don't show the results you (and others here) wanted to see.
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
I didn't even bother to read the article, but from a quote that someone posted, it seems Kyle proved gullible to AMD fanboy hypes and was disappointed at the performance. PHII can be looked at in two very different ways;Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
1. AMD Users: A very nice all-around upgrade option because it offers higher clocks/performance, runs cool, and consumes less power.
2. Intel Users, including people like Kyle: AMD's latest only manages to compete with lower end Intel quads, with older technology.
That is not too good for a company trying to stay above water; it is good criticism; and it'll stop if and when AMD releases a competitive product and not a product for the mid to lower segment. With PHII 940 at $275, AMD is making less money than they should IF they had released a more competitive product, and now with the Q9650 at $316 and the Q9550 at $268, there'll be even more pressure on AMD to cut prices and see their profit margins dwindle. Sometimes your best friend is the worst critic; maybe AMD engineers are listening and would show something better and stronger next time. Remember, AMD is not competing against itself; it is competing against Intel. Ironically, Intel is managing to compete against both AMD and itself at the same time; to me this speaks of the strength of a proven platform, the s775 and counter to what most think, it'll be here for a while. The next challenge for AMD engineers, is to be able to at least surpass the s775 platform with their latest or be further ridiculed for failure to close the gap.
Again I'll state. The [H] review figures is maybe not faulty, but it's more a review for the Phenom II in a Nvidia chipset motherboard running Tri-SLI, and taking AMD's performance the past couple of years it's obvious that more R&D would have gone into products you know will do well when using your tech.
I am however glad I got myself a 790FX (SB 750) motherboard to go together with the Phenom II 940 that is on it's way.
I am a fan for trying something new, and having fun with it. I have both an Intel (see my sig) and AMD system and both work pretty well, except that the AMD doesn't bench very when compaired to a C2Q system, which is why I'm getting a Phenom II.
I somewhat agree with what you're saying but there are some things I disagree with you on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
1. Phenom II is competitive in the mainstream segment were most people buy their hardware. In the future AMD will probably get harder to match the performance of Intel's i5 or whatever it will be called but for the moment they are performing in the segment that makes money (mainstream and server).
2. I don't think AMD engineers are reading forum posts about how disappointed people are. They probably know exactly what kind of performance their CPUs have and are most likely doing the best they can to be on top of the game again. Who doesn't want to be first/best?
3. Kyle's review is bad. Yes, his numbers are probably right on that setup but doing a review isn't just scrapping up a pile of hardware and testing it, it's about doing a fair review. The review should not be angled in a certain way because it gives the impression of something being worse/better than it actually is. You shouldn't give one system advantages to prove a point. If the hardware sucks, it shouldn't matter if he used the same RAM on both setups (C2Q/PII). This is what differentiates a good review from a bad one.
I'm going to make a car analogy; Car A and B are very similar. The main difference is in the engine (representing the CPU). They are going to race each other to see which engine is the best and are revving up at the start line. Car A wins by 15m on a 402m run and engine A should be the best one. The only problem is that he used 99 octane fuel when Car B used 94 octane. Surely this isn't going to effect the performance that much, but how should we know? And by how much would Car B have lost if he used 99 octane fuel?
Excellent post! But I agree with you and Zucker2k. But there's a 3rd problem. Large OEM's know Intel price cut cycles and rely on them. Only folks like Miss Banana think this was spur of the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Common sense says Intel is "Slow Boating" again:rolleyes: They did this with Conroe to sell of the last big lot of P4's and they're doing it again at an even slower pace to sell off Penryn. Please remember, X2 was clearly faster than its P4 competitor and Intel still worried more about selling P4's off. Yet, Intel took their time launching the Conroe because P4 still sold well. Intel fixed the Prescott Mini-Bake Oven problems, then cut the price to rock bottom. Second cycle cuts come within two weeks plus or Minus of April Fool's day almost every year. P4 Northwood launched on AF day.
The mainstream didn't give a flip about Synthetic or Real World benchmarks so P4 sold anyway. That fact bodes well for AMD but their price will need to be a justed down as well. IMHO, I think AMD will do well selling in the mainstream and upper budget markets.
I think we can all agree that his methodology was poor. I think we can all agree that his tone was belligerent.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
What we can't agree on, though, is that some of us would draw the same conclusions as Kyle did based on reading pretty much any Phenom II review on the net.
so reading your reply I also can assume that the anandtech review is biased to? According to them the 920-940 is a good competitor for q8x00 and q9300-9400 and i don't see why not since they are priced in the same range, perform equal and consume equal, that's what they call marketing. Nothing more nothing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3492
(or is it still just you still depressed that you did not have enough budget to buy a good k8 cpu at that point in time.... which price/performance ratio can never be transferred/referred/compared to against another time and system since that's marketing, but you keep bringing this over and over.:shakes:)
The question is when are those blue and green fanbois going to get it that both have a product and people are free to buy and think whatever they want.
thx blue fanbois for crapping on every amd thread :down:, its a review thread ..... jmke did a nice comparison of many review sites with the same conclusion as anandtech, but still some blue fanbois are very confident they are sure, only one solution for you guys go : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...splay.php?f=59
Thanks for confirming AMD's fastest quad core is now and will be until 2010-2011 at the same level of Intel's Q9300-9400, two of their slowest quad cores. I can't see any success there. AMD needs to beat the competition to regain the perfomance crown, not being barely equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx