Phenom II info leaks out, AMD hints at something

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-17-2008, 08:36 AM
Syn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

They see me rolin', they hatin'... :ROTF:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw :D
11-17-2008, 08:41 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

mainly because they all play SuperPi all day long brother ;) LOL

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.
11-17-2008, 08:46 AM
keithlm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

Their cpu is 15-25% slower across the board and consuming way more power.

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.
11-17-2008, 08:57 AM
D-Cyph3r

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

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.

No it doesn't.

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:
11-17-2008, 09:05 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r

No it doesn't.

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.

nice that you show this with your own data (phenom need 2.6ghz to beat a 2.4ghz kentsfield...)
11-17-2008, 09:10 AM
Brother Esau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

Why do you always bring this up? Are you even serious?
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:

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.
11-17-2008, 09:21 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

uh noes..... her we go again...

Not againnnn :brick:
11-17-2008, 09:30 AM
Chad Boga

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

Take for example what StarGazer just said towards Tony that is quite insulting considering that Tony is a legend

Unless it has been deleted could you quote the actual exchange so we know exactly what it is you are referring to.
11-17-2008, 09:38 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

..........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.

Watch your step, i dont think you can see the ground from the highs where you are walking. :rolleyes:
11-17-2008, 09:39 AM
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.
11-17-2008, 09:42 AM
Jacky

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Not againnnn :brick:

Again, again and again³. We should reapeat it until all the lies and misinformation have stopped.

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.
11-17-2008, 09:49 AM
STaRGaZeR

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!

Oh I missed this one. So being a "Legend" automatically implies he's right? Please answer this question of you don't mind.

Chad Boga, my post is this one:

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.

Yes, sooooo much disrespect. :rolleyes:
11-17-2008, 10:04 AM
hstuehmeyer2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

Xtreme Systems Forum has changed considerably for the worse compared to what it used to be.

Unfortunately this is the truth:shakes:
11-17-2008, 10:13 AM
Jazzman

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.
11-17-2008, 10:21 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

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.

I was shocked. I thought Tony was joking or being sarcastic. Funny how when AMD ran it faster, it was important.:rolleyes::rofl:
11-17-2008, 10:25 AM
D-Cyph3r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

uh noes..... her we go again... phenom (even b3) is slower clock for clock then kentsfield for desktops apps.

nice that you show this with your own data (phenom need 2.6ghz to beat a 2.4ghz kentsfield...)

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.

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.
11-17-2008, 10:26 AM
Tonucci

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
11-17-2008, 10:27 AM
keithlm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

Again, again and again³. We should reapeat it until all the lies and misinformation have stopped.

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.

And if you are so worried about AMD going bankrupt perhaps you should attempt to stop people from spreading that bit of misinformation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r

when there are people implying Barcelona is slow compared to Kentsfield. It's just absolutely not.

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.)
11-17-2008, 10:30 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Xtreme Systems Forum has changed considerably for the worse compared to what it used to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hstuehmeyer2000

Unfortunately this is the truth:shakes:

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:
11-17-2008, 10:32 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

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.

It's ATI acquisition which almost killed them not K10. Before K10 launch AMD was already in trouble :(
11-17-2008, 10:33 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by keithlm

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.

And if you are so worried about AMD going bankrupt perhaps you should attempt to stop people from spreading that bit of misinformation.

:confused:

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...
11-17-2008, 10:35 AM
keithlm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

:confused:

till the end of october the Q6600 was constantly cheaper then the X4 9950... since the begin of november they are priced the same...

No it was not. You confused July-August with October.

(Well maybe the official MSRP. But not the actual retail price on various e-tail sites.)
11-17-2008, 10:36 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

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:

I thought they imply the continuous fanboy bashing :mad:
Can't read a thread about Intel, AMD or Nvidia without them now...
11-17-2008, 10:39 AM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r

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).

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:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page30.php

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.

It's possible to match the performance of Intel's slowest quad-core machine.
11-17-2008, 10:46 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by keithlm

No it was not. You confused July-August with October.

(Well maybe the official MSRP. But not the actual retail price on various e-tail sites.)

Data doesn't lie. ;)

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:

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page