Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
That may very well be the case,but don't you think we need some real reviews with variety of apps to conclude what you said?Agena was pretty close to even Penryn in a lot of apps,but it trailed it in others too.It won't be black& white so that you can say 4.5Ghz will be needed to match 4Ghz Penryn.In certain apps it will do better per clock,in some worse,but the average is still unknown.But i say again,those numbers may indeed be true,we just need to wait for some real tests.
Sure, we have to see the actual numbers. Mine are pure speculation, but you can perfectly guess the margin, it'll be around 200-400MHz average depending on the application. At it will outperform even Core i7 in some of them. I think nobody will tell you otherwise.

Quote Originally Posted by Rammsteiner View Post
Then I think we both have different opinions about underperforming. Comparing it to competition then to define it as underperforming is nuts IMO. K10 is better than K8. When a succesor performs worse, then I call it underperforming. It's not like an architecure is designed today, tomorrow a competitor releases a better one and thus they design a better one the day after and launch it. Although AMD and Intel do have to compete with each other price and performance wise, their advances are pretty much independend most of the time.
We have exactly the same definition. Look at your example, you're comparing the current processor with the predecessor. I'm not talking about comparing it with the competition, I'm talking about comparing it to whatever you want. You can't measure anything without a reference point, so don't insult Einstein . You can't say i7 is fast, in absolute. Therefore your previous post was BS, hence my response, as you were measuring speed without references.