Don't dismiss PII just yet, even though it may not perform as well as Kentsfield and Yorkfield clock for clock, it' priced well and a good drop in upgrade for Phenom users.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Printable View
Don't dismiss PII just yet, even though it may not perform as well as Kentsfield and Yorkfield clock for clock, it' priced well and a good drop in upgrade for Phenom users.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
You don't know if it's gonna be the fastest one until 2011, so commenting on that is just stupid. AMD does not even have to beat Intel to be competitive. To gain the performance crown, sure, and it's quite self-explaining. Also I don't believe AMD needs the halo effect as much as Intel. AMD is expected to be slightly worse because Intel is much bigger and older in the game. Add to that the dominance Intel have had with C2 until now it's easy to see AMD does not need to be on top of the hill to stay on the market. Surely they could use a bit more market share or average selling price but AMD isn't bleeding all that much (just compare with GM, Ford or maybe Swedish SAAB which has been having a negative cash flow the last decade or so)...Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I don't know where you have been but AMD has been bleeding since ATI's purchase.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
You seem to completely forget about 32nm shrink of Deneb in H2 2010 with 50% more cores(6cores),more cache and higher clocks.Will this type of product meet your expectations?And then in 2011 you will have Orochi based on totally new Bulldozer design with 6(+) cores. Heck,you will see 6 core Istanbul on 45nm this year,maybe even on desktop in Q4(it will be sub 300mm2 device,just like Barcelona)...Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
AMDs roadmap doesnt agree with you. Nor does their 32nm capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Actually, I read and like Anand's review.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
The truth is that Green and Blue boys and girls don't really matter. The colors that do matter are the colors of IBM, HP, Dell and all the other companies selling this stuff. The only people worried how positive or negatively about the reviews are Fans. As I said, to most folks it just more senseless Geeks Nit-Picking. It's like Nerds arguing over Comic book Characters, who cares.
Those who forget history are doomed to fail and mistake in the future. Maybe you think forgetting is cool, some folks use it as a reference. See folks complaining about $300 processors? Depressed? Not at all:up: I just wasn't a sucker enough to pay that much.:rofl: AMD Fans who thought AMD loved them enough NOT to squeeze them are the ones who should be depressed. No, maybe they liked paying more:up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
This:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
And this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
Look at their roadmaps and think a bit. Also, by that time there will be two new players in the game, i5 and 32nm Westmere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
And you must be totally naive to believe "that thing" they presented will be their roadmap for next 2 years :rolleyes: .Due to competitive reasons AMD posted the vaguest roadmap ever.You don't have to be Einstein to figure out the Deneb will be shrank to 32nm before Bulldozer ever tapes out since AMD won't do shrink and new design at the same time and you know it.Since Bulldozer will come out in 2011,it's logical to expect 2010 and H2 of that year as 6core 32nm improved Shanghai design to be released.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
As for Istanbul,we already know it's Shanghai + 2 cores on 45nm and is planned to be released somewhere in Q3 or Q4.
Wake up from your dream called "only Deneb next 2 years" and use logic this time.
I thought you might have learnt something from the launch of the Phenom/K10.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
You were espousing wonderful logic back then of along the lines of the K10 is going to have significantly better IPC than C2 because AMD needs to have it.
Sometimes you just can't recover from design problems in a quick and easy fashion in the CPU business.
I think it is logical to expect a best case scenario of AMD maintaining a 12month gap to Intel on process technology, so I would say that late Q4 10 is the best one could reasonably expect and obviously a QTR or two after that would hardly come as a great shock.Quote:
Since Bulldozer will come out in 2011,it's logical to expect 2010 and H2 of that year
Ye I am naive to think they even gonna reach that in 2011. When everything they made sofar has been delayed and cancelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
You can start making new hypes and dreams. Wont change anything.
Yeah, and that was how long ago? SAAB has been losing money since 1995, that's more than 13 years ago and they are still here (even though it might be their last as a car manufacturer). AMD has been losing money since 2006 according to you. That's not even close (and the amounts of money aren't close either). Both you and Shintai are pretty much expecting the doom for AMD but I'm quite sure the investors are a bit more long termed than 2-4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
And as said, AMD is now competitive with Intel in the markets that matter; server and mainstream. This is NOW, we don't know what the future brings but we can make guesses. My guess is that PII 940/945 isn't the fastest AMD has in pipeline until 2011 but I'm also guessing it won't be beating the offers that Intel has. It might still be competitive though (in mainstream/server market).
Donnie27 presents one of the best points.
Average Joe (or Svensson as we call it in Sweden) don't look at benchmarks. They buy what is believed to be sufficient for their needs and cost as little as possible. If Joe decides to ask his better informed friend which is best, the friend should be able to give advice on what to buy. This friend should not only be looking at performance but performance per buck and what Joe needs. If Joe only needs an Atom-powered netbook then that's what he should buy. Not an i7 965 with 2 GTX295s and 3TB with SSDs. Even if he's a rich guy. Maybe he needs a quad to play games, he wants something good and is willing to pay a bit but not too much. Maybe the PII with a dual videocard setup is the best buy for him. He could for the same amount of money chose an Intel system with the same performance but there's no real reason to choose sides at all.
If AMD manages to be competitive in this segment, it will most likely survive and maybe even make a small profit. Because this is were the money lies. AMD hasn't been pricing their chips too far off their performance and is clearly not doing it with the PII so I'm not too worried.
Yeah just hold those palms on your ears and sing "nanananana". :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
FYI ,they already have the tools for 32nm process node.FYI, 6 core Deneb is just 4 core deneb with 2 more cores(duh),not a new design.FYI 45nm was delayed one quarter (Q4 for Shanghai instead of Q3).FYI,6 core deneb on 32nm will be just a shrink with more cache(again not a hard thing to do,AMD done it countless times).
You can live in your intel only world and think AMD will have 4 core deneb next 2 years,or you can use facts and logic and burst the repetitive dream you have.
Don't they have a Sugar Daddy in GM?Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
I am not sure that is a line of argumentation you should be pursuing. :lol2:Quote:
Both you and Shintai are pretty much expecting the doom for AMD but I'm quite sure the investors are a bit more long termed than 2-4 years.
AMD/Intel/Dow comparison for 1 yr and 2 year time frame.
Some people are implying that since both Intel and AMD have dropped, both are equally bad investments. So let us compare how both have performed for 1-2 yrs versus the Dow
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=A...urce=undefined
The results are:
........1yr...... 2yr
Dow -30% ..-22%
Intel -40% ..-22%
AMD -67% ..-85%
Intel has performed almost as well as the Dow, while AMD has completely fallen out of bed.
They are going to take an absolute hammering in the server market over the next 12 to 18 months.Quote:
And as said, AMD is now competitive with Intel in the markets that matter; server and mainstream.
AMDs roadmap doesnt agree with you. And talk is cheap. In short you just guess and hope and creating a hype you seem to believe youself.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Also looking on AMDs roadmaps the last 3-4 years. Its going the wrong way! Same with the process development.
Well, Saab is probably down for the count in GM's eyes. And rightfully so (even though it's probably more likely that Saab would have done better with a different partner all along).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Yeah, AMD stock has plummeted. Big deal. Ericsson did that too but got back on its feet (another Swedish example). Long term investors are folks like the Abu Dhabi-people with billions in their pockets. Don't think they look for return on their investment in 6 months, do you? Clearly there are people who believes in AMD, otherwise it would have gone belly up long time ago...
AMD is currently not taking a beating. Intel's new server CPUs aren't out yet. We don't know how they are going to perform (but we have had some hints). AMD can still use prices to stay somewhat competitive. And no one here knows exactly what either company is doing so I hate to bring it to you but all you're saying is purely speculation. Nothing more, nothing less.
This tread is about Ph II. Not preditions in roadmaps.
Sometimes belief isn't enough and AMD have done a remarkable job in many respects over the years, but what a time to have the double whammy of serious design missteps and a massive debt burden due to the purchase of ATI.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Man, I don't think one needs to be Nostradamus to see how it is almost certainly going to play out(unless Intel have their own TLB bug at the Barcelona level in Nehalem) - just look at what Conroe did on the desktop in late 2006, all of 2007. But it does take a bit of effort I would imagine to say with a straight face, that there is a great deal of uncertainty at play here.Quote:
AMD is currently not taking a beating. Intel's new server CPUs aren't out yet. We don't know how they are going to perform (but we have had some hints). AMD can still use prices to stay somewhat competitive. And no one here knows exactly what either company is doing so I hate to bring it to you but all you're saying is purely speculation. Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems to me PII fits into its price point about right regardless of IPC differences, its not like the pII 940 is trying to be pawned off at $1000 or something.
Thanks. You can say 9 positive things about AMD and 1 Negative then still be called Intel Biased. I don't see AMD going out of business. I see them sticking around after getting the UAE folks to buy into them. It will be a long time before Oil Money runs out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
I posted about 2 months ago that AMD doesn't have to "Beat" Intel or regain Speed Crown for bragging rights. That's what Fans want. Performance made Opterons favorites, not Fanboys here singing their praises.
I have a GM/SAAB (vauxhall vectra with a saab 2.0turbo) 228.8BHP AND 252LBFT, Sorry for the ot but saab make the best petrol turbo cars in the world and I am sure this is why gm keep them around.
I don't. I also know that HP, Dell and will pay a lot less than official prices as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Forums live and die on speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
It seems a bit challenging to get my point across to some of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I did not want to see anything Donnie, I was talking about reviews and saying that kyle's one sucks.
You then proceeded to be defensive regarding kyle's review.
Now Donnie, reading kyle's review, I do not see how you can not have a problem with that way of reviewing a product, without being extremely biased.
As for my opinion, kyle's results can not be trusted because he did not use the same amount of ram for platforms, and the speed of ram that the processors can handle.
Am I saying I have proof his numbers are off? Nope.
Am I saying Phenom II is better than what the general consensus is? Nope.
I am not even disappointed. I just shared my opinion about a review, which is what this thread is about.
On a sidenote, kyle's numbers ARE off, which can quickly be concluded by comparing his numbers to the several others reviews that are on the internet.
And zucker, I don't know what to say man, do you really think that when I say reviews should be more objective, I mean that all systems must be supplied by AMD?
If so, whatever dude, think whatever makes you happy.
They also make a nice little Fighter:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/jakt/124JAS39-4.htm
Most folks will see F-20 Tigershark.
As I said, we have had some hints. But the current Opteron setup is not totally lost, and price will determine the faith of AMD's server CPUs. AMD will probably stay competitive but margins will decrease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Donnie27:
Well some seem to give out that label pretty fast. And yeah, those oil dollars will be pouring in for quite some time. Could probably invest so much that Intel would be in serious trouble but highly unlikely, can't see that investment paying off. Better to invest as much to give AMD a chance to be competitive for performance crown (or to be generating positive cash flow) and then let it "manage" itself. There is clearly enough room for more than one CPU manufacturer and AMD is the only option to Intel that's got a chance currently.
Edit: Yeah, the JAS 39 Gripen is quite neat. Was a shame that or neighbour Norway chose the F22 Raptor instead. Would have made a lot of people in Sweden happy... Now here's a sector with A LOT of foul play... Hehe.
Is this off topic thread still alive and wasting bandwidth?
Actually, it is very easy to see understand your point. Please quote me defending Kyle's review? Then you break into rant about "childish" and etc.... I said I DIDN'T LIKE Kyle's review, need to me QUOTE IT? I said "Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
How in the ^$%& is that defending Kyle? Please Open your eyes and mind, then look and read again!? It is amazing that I'm here talking about Kyle's crappy review. It takes nothing from the overall spanking Phenom 2 got. Even Intel Fanboys know that a better showing by AMD meant they don't have to wait 6 to 9 months for i5 to ship. Many dreaded seeing this and yes there are few loving these review results. Your comment about AMD getting Intel to cut prices is one the most absurd things I've read all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
My point; I'll read the Phenom 2 reviews and take all of the Pro and Con alike with a big grain of salt, not blindly rely on a few that please me:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
This was your rather poor defensive post, in which you make excuses.
Kyle once hated intel too, so it's ok for him to make crapreviews about AMD?
Not really Donnie...
I have a friend at Dell. The only thing they're worried about is AMD's Volume and Pricing, not what most reviews are saying. They just like IBM, HP and other do their own benchmarks and review the info for their Boss. AMD is in the right market to make money IMHO and that's mainstream and upper-budget. Even noobs are starting to ask me about Quad Cores. LOL one lady said "Hey Donnie what's the scoop on those new computers with 4 Hard Drives in one?":rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
F-20 should have beat the F-16 according to the much respected Chuck Yeager.
I don't think Kyle hates AMD or Intel. He loves their ad dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
Seems like you guys are discussing different things without taking notice. You're saying that PII isn't what it needs to be. Miss Banana is saying that the review sucks. Banana isn't claiming that the results are total bogus but the value of this review is close to none since it's not a fair comparison. The same results on equal hardware and there would be no dispute. Since there are plenty of reviews demonstrating a more fair method, why even bother with the HardOCP? This is not fanboyism but a scientific approach. Although the fanboys are more likely to cry "outrage".Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Edit:
Ofcourse Dell and the others don't care about reviews. They take the numbers, add them up, check the price. If it has performance on par with price it's a deal. Otherwise it's not. They want to stay competitive too, therefore fooling their costumers too much won't do them any good. Mainstream and upper budget was were RV770 was aimed. It turned out to be a successful move. To gain halo they brought R700. Unfortunately AMD won't be able to smack two PII in one and call it a day but the first part is covered for now.
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Kyle sounds like the average 'I go with the best and the rest is retarded' guy. Whatever, shows only the credibility he, his review and his policies lacks, his loss, no one else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
Also Ive to agree with Miss that it's a rather poor post for naming my name:rolleyes: Feeling hurt because PhII lost another round:ROTF: The only thing AMD just lost is a bad '08;)
Really ? 2 years in advance ? Even Intel is only now starting to ramp 32 at its development FAB and they're due to launch Westmere in 11 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Aren't you forgetting who owns the FABs now ? What's their incentive into moving so fast?
You get the cookie award for posting a contradiction as big as Everest.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
What's your problem? The issue isn't in the results but how they were obtained. The results are most probably accurate but that doesn't mean they're comparable. I could do a review with PII at 3,8GHz, comparing it to a i7 965 at 1,2GHz, look at the results and claim PII a winner. The results would be correct but my conclusion wouldn't because of a flawed method. How is that not obvious? Where's the contradiction? Please, show me a scientific study were practices as Kyle's has been used.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
If one were to look at your result by itself, then you're right, but if other results corroborate yours then you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Exactly, and since kyle used trisli and noone else did, noone can say whether or not his results are the same as other results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Geeees, why are we still talking about this???
So anyhow, the tomshardware review was not bad I think, it concluded that Phenom II has better power consumption than whatever intel is offering at the moment.
Which is a bit.... positive for AMD of course, but I do wonder where all the differences in power consumption conclusions came from.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,2114-24.html
I think the real question is who marten_larsson other account is or was ;)
And you sir, should really take another look at the word contradiction and contemplate on its meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Now what does it matter!?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
The point here is not how to read reviews, the point is that the way H's review was done is highly unfair in combination with comparisons against other platforms. If he used 2GB DDR800 on Agena and Deneb and compared those, that's a whole different story than 2GB DDR800 Deneb vs 4GB DDR1600 C2. Could be me, I just can not understand how others dont seem to understand this.
The basics of any review/test is to make sure all conditions are the same so that the results reflect the reviewed/tested object only. That's stuff you learn at school, it doesnt take Einstein to define that theory. And yes, I even think using DDR1600 for C2 is a bit of a gray area, I even think that is wrong since that is in no way comparable with DDR800.
No, it's not right. The method is flawed and even if the results are the same it doesn't justify using different setups. Not if you want to draw conclusions and include it in a "mass" of studies. Small variations are of course allowed (otherwise there wouldn't be a spectrum). Sure, one study that's flawed can be included without that much impact but if 50% of the reviews were done in the same manor it would have had a great impact. (At least since 5% performance difference can be the judgement of "total domination" in some people's minds.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
His method is better if you wanted to study something like "How much i7 has to be crippled to match a PII".
I tried to tell you that the reviews don't matter right now. When one doesn't like the results, the best way to try and negate them is to attack the reviewer. Of course that doesn't work with those who already know that trick, but it's the only thing left to do during damage control.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Did you read it?
don't trust amd's roadmaps. its pointless that they even create them. let me just say this there is no information out at all right now about bulldozer. don't trust what you have seen online. theres a big difference between amd's roadmaps and the company's roadmaps. the company's roadmaps are a lot fuller and include everything they have planned out for this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
i don't think any one is arguing with any reviews except for the one at [H]. that one is horrible. even tho everyone says anandtech is intel biased i really liked their phenom II review.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Yeah I liked anandtech's review, allthough he as well used 800 mhz ram for some reason. I really do wonder what the performance difference is, did anyone find a review that looks at ram speed yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Or does anyone have a phenom II somewhere and some ram so we can give it a try?
:rofl: So investors and OEMs don't care one way or the other what AMD's publically declared roadmaps are? And what's the difference between AMD road map and "company's" roadmap? I think they're one and the same and so the point is moot. Until AMD comes up with another roadmap that is different from what is already known you and Informal are just grabbing at straws, as usual. I'm surprised he even managed to emerge from that rock of embarassment after all his predictions fell by the way side :ROTF: Incorrigibility thy name is Informal.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
On a more serious note: I asked a question that hasn't been answered: since none has tried what Kyle has done, how do you know if it's possible to run that configuration and with DDR2 1066 ram? I mean seriously, it wasn't as if he didn't try; he stated clearly that he run into problems, and since the results wouldn't have been affected significantly, then the conclusion still remains the same. Are you guys arguing that he should have crippled the Intel system in order to make it fair? :) How does that reflect real world IF the AMD system can't handle that configuration fully with 1066 ram and the Intel could with DDR3 at 1600? :shrug:
You did. And you didn't like the results. If you're going to ignore that review you might as well do us all a favor and ignore [H], too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
Yeah, it's a possibility that the issue is with the AMD hardware not functioning with the DDR2 1066 but it could just as easily be just his particular set of hardware. And yes, he should have crippled the C2Q just to show the difference in performance with the same setup. Why? To prove that it was the CPU and not the RAM that made the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
And Shintai; I'm assuming you were just kidding about me being someone else. I'm just me, no one else... :)
Enough reviewers managed to get it working, so really what's the deal here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Maybe the nvidia chipset was being difficult, maybe he was using incompatible ram, maybe he was using wrong timings, how can we possibly know?
zucker i am sorry but seriously every time i read one of your posts i feel as if i am in kindergarten or something. you need to grow up. where do you think i am getting my information from? hmmmm tell me? because you seem to think that i make it all up. last time i checked businesses don't tell the public every single detail of what is going on. they don't say exactly when stuff is coming out and they don't list everything. everyone was arguing over when deneb was coming out for a long time but i have known that they would come out on january 7th since may of last year. you act as if you know everything but you don't seem to have the slightest clue. and im pretty sure the amd system can handle 1066 ram. i have not seen one issue with it before and mine runs it fine. the fact that he says he has problems with running 1066 shows more of a user error than an error of an entire company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
So some people do not even believe AMD about AMD if the news is not overly positive. Unbelievable.
and where would you be getting this from?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Seriously, how old are you? I swear you're no more than 12. Do you run the same configuration he did in that review? Since you managed to miss the word let me put it clearly; do you run 3x GTX 280s on an AMD board with an Nvidia chipset and 4GBs of 1066 DDR2? Everyone one of your posts is pathetic and sig-worthy or is it you have a problem expressing your thoughts? What has your system got to do with the discussion? As a matter of fact, the only reason this thread has gotten this long is because of the lack of comparison to similarly configured systems and there are none. With every post you show your ignorance and immaturity. Yes, your dad works with AMD, yes you can just walk in and ask questions, what else don't you have exclusive information on? You of all people dare to call others fanboys; maybe for you it's a matter of bread and butter seeing your pops works for AMD as you'll have the entire world know. Don't even get me started. I usually grab my popcorn when you post. You don't believe me? Scroll up and carefully go over your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
hmmmmm wow. for starters if you want to know my age look in my account. and so i see what you are trying to say now. im guessing that you are saying 3 gtx 280s in sli on an nvidia board won't work with 4gb of ddr2. at least thats what i got from your post. and hmmmmm where have i said that my dad works at amd? do you see me posting this 100000x? and you are making the wrong assumption by thinking just because i run amd that i am a fanboy. if you look closely at my posts i am only calling people fanboys that deserved to be called fanboys. both amd and intel users. i just laugh everytime you try to say that i am immature and just call everyone fanboys. i don't even believe you are a fanboy i just believe you have some kind of disability that whenever someone doesn't agree with you you suddenly get some kind of rage. :confused: im just clueless as to why you even post when you have no idea what i am thinking or even saying. you seem to make things up for me and then get mad at me for saying these things you made up.
Let me put you on the spot then; do you get information, any information regarding AMD, from your dad? Have you ever?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
of course i do but i prefer not to ask him very often unless i really want to know something. so if there is massive confusion online i will ask. but for the majority of the time everything i know is from stuff i have seen online. if you want to discuss something with me just pm me instead of posting it in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
But you almost got it! savantu was there in the forums when Kyle defending not only the poor performing Barcelona, 4 X 4 and did an assassination of Conroe that would have made Chris Tom and Rahul Sood proud:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
I'm not saying you don't have a point talking un matched systems. The aim of is to match as many common parts as possible for a reference Point. If i7 uses 3 channels, then you can do apples to apples but that's AMD's fault for ot using Tri-channel, just like X3 vs C2D. He could have only used 2GB of DDR2 on the Intel C2D System. But I linked you to me calling it a crappy review. Why not just ask me why I said Crappy and my answer would have been because he's Not Tech Report, Lostcuits and even Anand who did match the system as much as possible.
Another Review. Firingquad, get ready to bash them as well. My buddie Duploxx and Rammsteiner love to point out my trashing AMD for sticking it to their customers when they did rule the market. See Duploxx's comments? Yet, he and others still keep bringing it up as if it was a different reality.
He asks why do I keep bringing it up, was I depressed or some other wise crack, I say double standards suck!
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...0_performance/
AMD isn't going after the "sacrifice-your-first-born-child-in-order-to-afford-it crowd" anymore because they don't have anything to fit in that category!:rolleyes: If they did you can bet your sweet @$$ the price would reflect it. Again, 3500+ and 3800+ is presented as "budget-minded enthusiast":rofl:. So now i7 940 is a lower priced "budget-minded enthusiast" version then, right? FS is not the only site to make these kinds of comments.Quote:
Let’s face it, Phenom didn’t cut it for most of the hardcore AMD crowd at launch. The Phenom 9850 Black Edition finally became somewhat tempting for these users as a result of the latest price cuts last summer. But nothing AMD has offered lately has dominated the market like the legendary 3500+ (I still own one) and X2 3800+ did for the budget-minded enthusiast a few years ago.
Before we get AMD enthusiasts hopes up too much though, a little reality check: Phenom II is not a Core i7-killer. Core i7 is still the world’s fastest CPU.
But AMD isn’t going after the bleeding edge sacrifice-your-first-born-child-in-order-to-afford-it crowd anymore. Instead they’re focusing on the value-conscious consumer who wants good performance, but at the same time also wants something affordable. Think of the guy who buys the Camaro SS instead of the Corvette, or the BMW 135i instead of the M3. You get the idea, ~80-90% of the performance of the high-end model, but at a significantly lower price.
Yes, motherboards and RAM wasn't cheap back then.
It is not what's said, it is HOW it is said.
all i have to say is this:
1. i think [H] had a bad review and many other think this as well. good thing thats not a problem because there are many other reviews to look at so just ignore this one.
2. ram speed isn't going to make a huge change. so i don't know why anyone is arguing over this. the cpu is the device doing the processing the ram is just storing information. i think once am3 comes out and people can run ddr3 1333 core 2 will still have a lead over phenom II but the lead will be cut down and i believe the cpus will be very equal in performance with intel still having a 1-2% lead. nothing that should impact a buying decision.
WOW, I agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Then you have reviews like!
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ce/default.asp
Is what I based my AM3 comments on and gallag is right as well.Quote:
As you can see, AMD projects a 20% improvement in clock-for-clock performance over Phenom 9950, due largely to the increase in clock speed, which buys Phenom II 940 an additional 12% in performance. AMD estimates an additional 3% comes from instructions per clock (IPC) enhancements included in the new core, while another 5% comes from the CPU’s larger L3 cache. Finally, AMD projects a performance improvement of nearly 5% from DDR3-1333 when it becomes available.
NOTE, that goes for some folks and Intel as well.Quote:
So some people do not even believe AMD about AMD if the news is not overly positive. Unbelievable.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/5/
Changed my mind, I thought a 940 at 3.5GHz would be faster than a Stock i7 920:rolleyes: Was that a bad review?
[H] review = Me not giving a damn.
If I dont agree with it, I overlook it. I dont try to tell others to consider it for there own opinions and I dont need others to tell me what review to make my opinion or preferences on so the last couple pages of this thread have just been a joke to read.
Can anyone actually connect to [H]?Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
Constantly down for me, :rofl:
You can't have it both ways :either the numbers are good or the review is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
What's that difficult to comprehend ?
Anyways is PII at least somewhat competitive with Q9400?
This is STILL going on? Ok. There are 2 issues here.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
1. Does faster memory make a difference. Yes or No.
2. Would someone that is a "professional" be willing to run something with slower memory knowing it only makes a minor difference? (If they want to at least pretend to be neutral.)
It is actually very simple. Does faster memory make ANY difference. If the answer is "YES" then you it doesn't matter how many "it doesn't matter" posts are made by people that want to argue. It DOES make a difference. Period. End of story.
ANALOGY: Would an Olympic runner participate in an event with less than the best equipment available? Would they use shoes that cost $10.00 from a discount store? Or would they use the best shoes that were available to them? If they ran in the $10.00 shoes would anyone actually be stupid enough to expect them to perform as well as they could?
NOW we have to ask this: If the "professional reviewer" had actually used what memory speed which SHOULD have been used... would the results have been different enough that it would have been ludicrous to make the claims this reviewer did in his review?
In this case the answer would be a resounding "NO". This reviewer had an agenda and using the slower speed was just a side effect. (Of course in my opinion... this reviewer has purposefully removed himself from having the word "professional" prepended... and I must consider this person to be an amateur. As such I will consider this an amateur review. Which means it will just be ignored because that is all the merit it deserves.)
EDIT: The only way this reviewer could possibly redeem themselves would be to admit the review was written while completely drunk. That would be something I could understand. (As many that have seen my posts... that sometimes happens to me... it's a beer thing. But I usually only do that on a less reputable forum which I won't name.)
P2 X4 940 is equal to or better than Q9400... atleast according to the reviews.
sorrry but PH2 performed better than a lot of us expected it to..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
You mean Q9400 was launched in early 2007 ?? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
There are some people that didnt. Those you speak of are realistic people.Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
No, Kentsfield was in 2006. PH2 is about clock for clock on pair with kentsfield.
how big :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing idiot are you actually? go out and have some fun on the intel forum. :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It is you ALWAYS bringing up the old days of price/performance in every AMD thread
Now again YOU point towards comparing i7 against phenom2 while looking at set price it is nowhere near each other so why compare. Offcourse the blue fanbois bring this on top that they offer the fastest system. Check sales its the same price range as Q8-9 series that's where it focus is.
I don't care if i7 platform is faster, it's way overpriced for the added value at this point in time, anyone switching from a decent s775 or am2+ platform to this is just wasting its money to enlarge its ego.
last, there is nothing wrong with the firingsquad review, they have the same conclusion as many other sites, a good competitor in the current highest volume market. in what docuiment AMD ever stated that they were aiming for the high-end with there shrink???? yeah fanboys from both sites that can't get over it.
this reflects more than 1000 of your posts.... way to go :) you must be feeling very good each time you make such a post. I call it child behaviourQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
there is no review comparing kentsfield clock/clock with p2, so stop posts that you can't proof, i'll state that it's faster. it's all depending on type of application. byeQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
clock for clock with kentsfield ? how do you back up that argument ? any source ?
http://translate.google.com/translat...php%3Ft%3D3253Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
There are some tests with Q6600. Plus we already know the Kentsfield vs Yorkfield numbers. So when you got Phenom 2 vs Yorkfield it doesnt require a degree in math to calculate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
I see Spectrobozo already answered it with direct comparisions. Poor duploxxx...
what?....I read much, much reviews Phenom I and Phenom II and dont think, PII is similar as kentsfield (64bit system, its future, not 32bit). It is better. With comparsion in real aplication, is similar q9550, sometimes better than 9650, sometimes worse then q9300Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
its ddr2 vs ddr3 compare, reviews showed that it was upto 5% faster on intel boards, now do the maths yourself, that's about the difference between york and kent depending on the cache which is constantly being reduced by intel these days to have lower priced cpu's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
poor shintai, keep on reading and posting that's as far as it goes for you, try to live with it.
Dude chill, donnie is stuck in the past, and always brings up that 3500+ thing. He can't really help it. It's clear into what direction he is biased, and with every post he shows the world about it. No need to get angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
So let me get this straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
After you question whether 1066 mhz ram not working on kyle's system is kyle's fault, a user says he has it working on his system, and never had any problems with it... And this is your reply?
Calling someone younger than 12, rambling about his dad, calling him pathetic, sig worthy, ignorant and immature.
You surely know how to make yourself look silly.
Hey Zucker, if posts like that upset you so much, maybe you should just join kyle's community? Noone will ever disagree with you there.
To end the RAM nonsense :
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Revi...24373&PageId=6
In Far Cry , using more than 2 GB has no effect whatsoever. Kyle throughly explained this in the review thread. Now , I'm waiting for the Banana man to claim Winrar or SuperPI are affected by 2 vs. 4GBs of ram.
It's a cute attempt savantu, but unfortunately for you, they do not use the same far cry 2 benchmark (your link used fraps to benchmarks, which means they could have just tested standing still somewhere), neither do they both use trisli. (your link used the XFX 260GTX)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Try again.
in vista 32bit 2 gb is most of the time even faster then 4gb. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Tests are done on an Intel platform and results are possible to not have the same impact on AMD systems. Besides, it wasn't just the size of the RAM nor just the Far Cry benchmark. It was speed, size and timings. In the report you linked to it's obvious that other benchmarks are affected with more RAM, and this still doesn't give any reason to use a slower RAM for the AMD system.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
lol give me something i can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrobozo
let me get this straight... since you studied math i presume you're using the formula if A > B & B < C, then A > C ?? i hope you're still wid me.. coz im confused right now.. oh wait.. yea i got it.. so now with that formula... you're saying yorkfield > kentsfield & kentsfield > deneb therefore yorkfield > deneb.. that right. am i doing right in maths.. ok now let me ask you a question. please give me a list of reviews that seem fair and matched (according to you) so that I can go compare for myself..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
What was wrong with the hwbox review?Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
Miss Banana...hypothetically let's say that you had Phenom II with 8GB of RAM and 2x 4870x2, and you compared it to i7 with 8GB of RAM and 2x 4870x2 in a Far Cry 2 benchmark. Let's say the i7 whupped the Phenom's ass. I am imagining you quoting my benchmark and saying... "Well the i7 had the x58 chipset and the Phenom had the AMD 790 chipset so you can't compare! Try again!" Certain variables (like chipsets) are impossible to eliminate. Other variables (like 2 vs 4GB of RAM) sometimes just don't make a damn bit of difference in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
You know what, even though AMD and Intel are stuck on different chipsets I did the benchie anyway just for :banana::banana::banana::banana:s and giggles. I did a Far Cry 2 benchmark of a Phenom II system with 8GB of ram and 2x 4870x2 and it totally smoked an equivalently configured i7 clock for clock...but I'm not going to post it because the stars aren't in the right alignment anymore so it's pretty much invalid.
Nah, just kidding.
I mentioned his CONFIGURATION Go back and check; it's like talking to a brick a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
It's called action and reaction, miss. Since you choose to not see his derogatory remark in the post I replied to, it is silly for you to even pretend to be on to something.Quote:
Calling someone younger than 12, rambling about his dad, calling him pathetic, sig worthy, ignorant and immature.
No, you're the silly one here; trying to defend the indefensible and jumping to conclusions without proof of evidence.Quote:
You surely know how to make yourself look silly.
Hey Zucker, if posts like that upset you so much, maybe you should just join kyle's community? Noone will ever disagree with you there.
Shintai is right:
Courtesy of member, Vozer:
About 1 in 15 of my posts are "QFT" only. If you posted anything close to the to factual, I would have quoted you for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Your personal attacks have been reported. No, I'll not attack you back.
Every time you point to price you contradict yourself. The reviews showed that AMD will have to cut prices after the rush of Fans willing to pay current prices. Same thing happened when AM2 launched. Most folks with more than a peanut for a brain waited. Again, forget the past and pay more money.
FS's review was fair, their comments weren't! But thank you for making my point for me. This is the same type of review Kyle did for both Barcelona and 4 x 4.
I compared i7 to Phenom because both are new!
I'm biased for Intel just as you're biased for AMD. Make your point, I'll make mine. While making my point about all of the reviews, I don't need to call you an idiot or whatever else. F Squad showed the same double standard many on this forum show. You can call it changing standards, moving finish line, different degree or whatever. One difference between you and I, I'm consistent. I think i7 costs too much but unlike you, Firingquad's review, duploxx and others, I thought 3800+ cost-ed too much as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBanana
nice shartQuote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
now looking at original specs from test platform they use s775 ddr3 against am2+, anandtech did a full review between ddr2 and ddr3 stating that its a performance difference upto 5% so this brings p2 between kent and york.
no maths needed, shintai is wrong!
right, perhaps we should start reporting the blue fanboys everytime they jurk all amd related threads, i am sure several of you guys would be banned for several months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
that's still about 700 posts of waste on the forum
so next time a new celeron or pentium hits the street we can compare it to a phenom x4 release, since its then also new and its in the same price range difference you are comparing the phenom2 against i7 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Numbers are true based on this article at Guru3D "Core i7 Multi-GPU SLI Crossfire Game performance review" but THG's review is a better proof because there is a Phenom 9950 in too and we can extrapolate Phenom II numbers with it, just here "Core i7: 4-Way CrossFire, 3-way SLI, Paradise?
".
http://media.bestofmicro.com/1/X/165...l/image021.png
Moreover numbers seeing in HardOCP are impressive but the big picture is clearly inflated because Far Cry 2 is the game where there is the most difference in performance between AMD and Intel. About 20% difference clock for clock where other games show like 5% difference in average.
If a review with Tri Sli, will use UT3, Crysis, COD4 or whatever other game, i7 will still dominate easyly but difference between Deneb and Yorkfield will be much more tiny. The big issue of this review is that using ONE game to draw a conclusion is quite stupid.
Moreover based on Savantu's link, Crysis test on HardOCP is false because between 2GB and 4GB it show that there is 20% difference in framerate at 1280x1024. We can suppose that at 800x600 like on HardOCP Phenom II numbers might be 20% better maybe more.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Arti..._lowest_64.png
Give it a rest guys and enjoy either the CPU's of the BLUE team or the ones of the GREEN team... I pick whichever performs the best for my needs...Youself pick the one that suits you best (budget, upgradability, fanboy ,...)
I want to see more end user results (read 24/7 OC's) here and nice price drop from both parties...
This thread will become The Never Ending Bickering Story part III beta dorkpack4
From the HardOCP article, which you apparently didn't read:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_4_1.gif
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_4_2.gif
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_4_3.gif
One last thing about the HardOCP review. ( http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...50aHVzaWFzdA== )Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
The problem that arises when you desperately WANT to test the phenom II with tri sli, is that you have to use an nvidia chipset for the AMD system.
So what chipset did kyle use?
In his test setup specs he claims he used the MSI DKA790GX Platinum, which is strange because besides only having two PCI e slots, this motherboard also does not support sli. This means he used a different chipset and screwed up by giving the wrong information in his test setup section, no real surprises there.
Later on he claims he used a MSI K9N2 Diamond, based on the NVIDIA’s 780a chipset. Note that this chipset only supports tri sli in a 16* 8* 8* configuration, while the MB for the intel system (ASUS P6T6) supports a *16 *16 *16 configuration.
If it's not obvious yet, this is where the problems begin. Surely it is not possible to test different platforms with the exact same chipset, but wouldn't it make sense to build configurations that at least have slightly similar specs? Not to kyle.
Back to the chipset used for the AMD system, kyle himself once reviewed the motherboard he is using, so you would think he is aware of the shortcomings right?
Look at this page
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA== and note the winrar performance.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...UL2bjB_4_4.gif
Something weird is going on with this nvidia tri sli chipset for AMD cpu's and kyle has the following to say:Now let's look at gaming, again the nvidia motherboard is acting weird by underperforming in every gaming benchmark and then suddenly performing better in a crysis benchmark. Kyle is very surprised:Quote:
Here the performance takes another nose dive. I'm not sure what the deal is with this particular test, but the results are less than stellar. Hopefully this type of problem will be corrected as the drivers for the platform mature. This test is solidly bandwidth limited in our small spectrum of CPUs, but this is just terrible and it was continually repeatable.
In the end of the review kyle has the following to say:Quote:
Again, the behavior of this board in the benchmarks is a bit odd. I am not sure if these odd results are a design issue with the MSI board specifically or a factor of the drivers which will hopefully change over time.
Really kyle? Quite strange you decided to use this board for the phenom review then. I guess you had to since it was the only board that does tri sli on a phenom system? Or was the whole trisli thing an excuse to use this board for the amd platform? Surely not.Quote:
Dan and I had much difference experiences when it comes to the MSI K9N2 Diamond. There is just no way I can suggest using this motherboard after my personal experiences with it.
Obviously this is only the beginning. The nvidia board is mysteriously not working correctly, as kyle discovered, and then (surprise) does not work with 1066 mhz memory. Kyle then decides to give the AMD system half of the memory of the intel system, and uses the GPU's that have substantial bandwidth requirements.
So we have slower memory, less memory, a buggy chipset, and less PCIE lanes for the AMD system. You are right, some variables do not make a difference in the end, but I don't think that is the case here.:rolleyes:
You're very sufficient :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
Just read my whole post and you will see why Crysis numbers are probably off.
Lost Planet and Quake 4 don't know but why use respectively 2006 and 2005 games to test 2009 processors? :rolleyes:
edit : For Lost Planet HardOCP numbers are low for Phenom II compare to Firingsquad numbers, Phenom must score 100fps not 93fps and if we take into account difference in resolution.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...nce/page10.asp
Sorry Abel, but this is ridiculous! My God, Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!!! You made a mistake and you get straightened and then you start talking about some other nonsense!Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
Let's see the excuses here from the AMD crowd:
Board is defective/8x PCIE Lanes/Not enough PCIE Lanes :shocked: Immature bios
Ram is timings are loose/only 2GB used
The Games tested are too old
i7 is too expensive so the comparison is not fair
QX 9770 is on DDR3 and costs an arm and a leg
Why test with SLI/Why not test on Ati card, AMD will do better
The reviewer is biased/paid/drunk/incompetent/amateur
Etc.
Pathetic! :down:
Where the mistake is?
Those are kyle's words, not mine. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Do we know ram timings? We only know ram size and speed.Quote:
Ram is timings are loose/only 2GB used
Irrelevant.Quote:
The Games tested are too old
Comparison is fair, but usually in a review, price matters yes.Quote:
i7 is too expensive so the comparison is not fair
QX 9770 is on DDR3 and costs an arm and a leg
Noone said test with ati cards. But yes, testing tri sli on this particular chipset is a bit strange.Quote:
Why test with SLI/Why not test on Ati card, AMD will do better
Not drunk, just biased, bitter, hysterical, incompetent, childish, unprofessional, subjective and yes probably paid by someone allthough I wouldn't know the specifics about that.Quote:
The reviewer is biased/paid/drunk/incompetent/amateur
Etc.
Pathetic! :down:
Fortunately there are lots of good quality reviews, and we can close the kyle chapter for once and for all now.
If you think I'm the only one using QFT, you're sadly mistaken. Please also note that I'd already said I was waiting for the AM3 test results and think the 5% is just an average and not across the board. I want to see the AM3 reviews before I pass full judgment. I want to see how and what improves with faster HT and DDR3. Please note, most Blue Fanboys aren't the ones calling me an idiot:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Again, AMD thread doesn't mean only positive comments and in the case "REVIEWS" allowed. Any comment that can be backed isn't trashing AMD (more than one credible source). There are good and bad reviews.
I'm still not holding a grudge or anything against you. The reviews don't show Phenom II in the best light even against the 2 year old tech. Firingsquad's own tests doesn't jive with the own comments. I keep hearing if you're building a New system.
The old crap matters because i7's current price puts it in the mainstream, NOT you or I. According to Firingsquad it is a "budget-minded enthusiast" product. The review FS did wasn't bad but since when is doing similar or better about 40% of the time a good thing even against the older Intel CPU's? I didn't expect Phenom 2 to be faster than i7. I did expect a BETTER showing against Q9550 and Q9400. Their price cuts next week will mean even more heartburn for AMD.
Testing on that low resolution without filter higher fps values gain when there wasn't any action in the game is just plain stupid. If you use a test on that low resolution to evaluate which processor that is best than you don't know how these processors behave.
Core 2 has a big L2 cache (6MB) with 15 cycles delay.
Phenom II has a smaller L2 cache (512 KB) with 15 cycles delay, L3 cache is 6 MB with close to 40 cycles delay and the L3 cache runs at lower frequency compared to Core 2 so maybe the L2 cache on Core 2 is about 4 or 5 times faster accessing the L2 cache compared to when Phenom access the L3 cache. L3 cache has a lot of advantages running multiple processes etc but just feeding one core with data and the data isn't shared or fragmented then the Core 2 L2 cache is much faster compared to the L3 cache on Phenom.
Games love cache, if there isn't any action in the game the cache will very much decide the speed of the processor. Areas with little activity is much more common in games compared to areas with high activity. If there isn't anything else that slows the processor like a graphic card that needs to redraw a complex picture at high resolutions the Core 2 will gain a LOT of FPS values when there ISN'T any action.
Is this a good measurement for how good the processor is in games? No it isn't.
What you should try to do to really test the processor for how good it is in games is to remove all those areas that isn't important (when there isn't any action), it isn't there the game will lag. And focus on areas where the processor needs to work hard (when there is action in the game).
What Kyle did in his test was to focus on areas that isn't important and used that to conclude how good the processor was. Either he don't understand hardware or he wanted to make AMD look bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
This thread gets more and more hillarious. Its like watching some alternative universe play out.
L3 cache cycles on hardoc said three less then Barcelona and Barcelona has 49 cycles for l3 cache so it should be 46 cycles for deneb.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
instead of just showing a bar graphic he should should have a bit more games and done a time bench with real game play and lines of fps.
last they're should have been two motherboards used ACC is No use on phenom II so 780A board will be nice choice to see now.
Why because it upsets your concept of reality to find out you're not correct? (I would think you would be used to that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Funny, alternative version of AMD haters are exactly the same than in our universe :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Doesn't matter if the Intel CPUs are 50 years old if that's what they're currently offering. But still, would have been good for AMD if it performed better. But it's OK, and it doesn't need to be more than that for the time being (people are obviously buying it).
Can't we just agree on that the review is bad and biased for whatever reason (hypes not being fulfilled, Intel-loving, on drugs etc.) and should not be used as a reference for PII performance. Even though the results probably are true (I'm not questioning the numbers), the method used is not good enough to make it useful. Even if the results are close to those others have got, this one has clear flaws that undermines the integrity of the review. When there are 10-20 good reviews out there, why use this one?
The "only" reason for why people find more and more things wrong with the review probably is because some here are so convinced it shows a fair comparison. To persuade those people, more evidence for the "injustice" is brought forward.
We know timings are not same as the frequency isn't, even if the timings are 5-5-5-15 for both, that doesn't mean equal memory performance, right? (Why else would people be buying faster RAMs with looser timings? This goes to answer the question if more RAM is needed too, why have 4GB if 2 is sufficient?)
Could you explain why, after reading my post about the chipset he used, you are not questioning the numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Just curious here.