Quote Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner View Post
I really wish I could say so... but the difference between Q9450 at 3.6GHz and the same processor at 3.8GHz is not a tolerable one. Of course from 3.6GHz to 4.0GHz, it's an even higher gap. There IS a gap, though in stuffs that are already maxed out in terms of performance (simply because C2Q is just too fast), you won't feel a thing.

Plus Agena is up to 25% slower in some media encoding benchmarks. I think Anandtech has one that shows that.

Not to bash AMD... but... rubbing yourself to make it feel better by reducing numbers slowly and slowly is just a bit... weird.

So... what I am trying to say here is... there is no more excuses for Agena. It's a different story about Deneb, though, and I wouldn't even dare guess anything at this stage.



You can't say those are crap just because they show one processor over another. So what would be a better "benchmark?" Some game that never gets to use more than one core or never uses that much CPU power? If it's so, we might all well get dual-core processors.

Again... no excuses for Agena. It was just plagued with silly mistakes from AMD. Judging from earlier results from Deneb, I am led to believe that the late launch is due to more silly bugs... which I'm leaning towards the software team to blame. Maybe a BIOS issue. Maybe... something else they overlooked while beta-testing. Either way, I believe Deneb will be a hit IF AMD doesn't resort to some crappy software fixes... again.



I wouldn't pit Deneb against Nehalem. Maybe against Yorkfield, but not against Nehalem. That said, it's not that Nehalem is overpowered against Deneb, but rather... it's not even worthy of being put against Yorkfield, much less Deneb.

I gotta admit... Nehalem is a stupid move from Intel. Kind of like the GTX 200 series from nVidia.
Anandtech also showed the Phenom winning in HDTV play back, like 1920x1080.

I wish they stop comparing Nehalem to this 45nm phenom... it's 8 threads vs 4 is it not ?

totally pointless.