AMD Phenom appears in pricelist

[BeardyMan]

You are comparing Phenom with Nehalem? LOL....

Also performance counts, nothing else. And there is a phenomal lack of that....

that's why a tricore phenom performs better then a intel quad core in 3dmark06.

[Shintai]

that's why a tricore phenom performs better then a intel quad core in 3dmark06.

Proff? Curerntly it shows quite the opposite...

Performance of Quad Core Phenom X4 2GHz on AMD 770 chipset vs QX9650 running on X38 using 8800GTX

SUPER PI 1M = 40s

Using 8800GTX external vga card,
3Dmark06 = 98xx (Phenom X4 runs at 2GHz)
3Dmark06 = 107xx (QX9650 underclk to 2GHz)

[informal]

How did it go with that 2.4Ghz 125W TDP denial?

Oh lol,denial.I never said it wasn't going to have 125W spec.I wanted to see your source(which in that time you didn't have-you just went by the inq article and guessed ).

BTW,the roadmaps i have seen had 2.6Ghz 125W Phenom in them.Obviously AMD "lost" one bin,but they will probably launch it in Dec.

[Shintai]

Oh lol,denial.I never said it wasn't going to have 125W spec.I wanted to see your source(which in that time you didn't have-you just went by the inq article guessed ).

So we can agree on the 125W that you refused to accept for so long? And the release clocks is lowered to 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4Ghz?

Good! Then it is just as predicted. Yet you kept trying to deny it.

[MAS]

Proff? Curerntly it shows quite the opposite...

I guess your mysteriuos X4 @2GHz will appear to be GP7000 @2GHz (triple-core) from here

[Shintai]

I guess your mysteriuos X4 @2GHz will appear to be GP7000 @2GHz (triple-core) from here

Nope...look at the numbers for one?

[BeardyMan]

Nope...look at the numbers for one?

3dMark2006 - 6175 at 2.0Ghz X3 phenom = 3.08 points per Mhz

3DMark2006 - 6638 at 2.4ghz Intel Quad = 2.76 points per mhz

PCmark05 - 5830 at 2.0ghz X3 = 2.915 points per Mhz

PCmark05 -7700 at 2.4ghz Intel Quad = 3.2 points per mhz

Quad core vs tripple core, what efficiency

[Shintai]

3dMark2006 - 6175 at 2.0Ghz X3 phenom = 3.08 points per Mhz

3DMark2006 - 6638 at 2.4ghz Intel Quad = 2.76 points per mhz

PCmark05 - 5830 at 2.0ghz X3 = 2.915 points per Mhz

PCmark05 -7700 at 2.4ghz Intel Quad = 3.2 points per mhz

Quad core vs tripple core, what efficiency

I doubt its a tripplecore. Because your single post contradicts all the others.
Also 7000 series was their old name before Intel launched 9000 series penryns. Then AMD made their into 9000 too.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=160392
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=68503

2 x 2GHz K10: 4242

2 x 2GHz C2Q: 4335
2 x 2.66 C2Q: 5662


And thats clovers...

Also did you forget this?

http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html

[knightwolf654]

I doubt its a tripplecore. Because your single post contradicts all the others.
Also 7000 series was their old name before Intel launched 9000 series penryns. Then AMD made their into 9000 too.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=160392
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=68503

2 x 2GHz K10: 4242

2 x 2GHz C2Q: 4335
2 x 2.66 C2Q: 5662


And thats clovers...

Also did you forget this?

http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html

you cant compare barcelona to phenom, their is still a difference. but either way the you can judge something thats not out yet,

I've heard of people deluding themselves but seriously...
They want so bad for AMD to become what it used to be...

yeah and i remeber when that was intel, yet intel came back. why cant AMD.

intel guys you can keep being high and mighty. i really look forward to watching you guys take the dive to buy and low end cpu for $2000

[XS Janus]

Prices look nice, allthough a little tightly spaced for what ever reason...
I hope the whole platform will not be to power hungry (but that might fall into that wishfull thinking category, I fear).
And also hoping that it will be depndable from the get go not needing any adidional drivers and patches for OS and such!

[BeardyMan]

I doubt its a tripplecore. Because your single post contradicts all the others.
Also 7000 series was their old name before Intel launched 9000 series penryns. Then AMD made their into 9000 too.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=160392
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=68503

2 x 2GHz K10: 4242

2 x 2GHz C2Q: 4335
2 x 2.66 C2Q: 5662


And thats clovers...

Also did you forget this?

http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html

Lol crysis optimized for both Intel and Nivdia.
And it's tricore.

[Zytek_Fan]

I hope it does well, but by the looks of it now, I'm getting Yorkfield.

[BeardyMan]

Phenom 7600 2,3 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 7700 2,5 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 9500 2,2 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9600 2,3 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9700 2,4 GHz dec. 2007
Phenom 9800 2,8 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-82 2,6 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-8x 3,0 GHz Q2 2008

Tric-core mister shintai.

[Shintai]

Phenom 7600 2,3 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 7700 2,5 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 9500 2,2 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9600 2,3 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9700 2,4 GHz dec. 2007
Phenom 9800 2,8 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-82 2,6 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-8x 3,0 GHz Q2 2008

Tric-core mister shintai.

Try turn back in history and check roadmaps. Then tell me what was named GP 7000 and 7100. Thats right, QUADCORES! They got renamed when Intels 9000 series Quads leaked.

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=5078

So no, its not a tricore. And we gonna ahve the usual crap when its released. Just like with the K10. You hype, AMD fails to deliver your hype and people nag over something that aint AMDs fault.

[BeardyMan]

Try turn back in history and check roadmaps. Then tell me what was named GP 7000 and 7100. Thats right, QUADCORES! They got renamed when Intels 9000 series Quads leaked.

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=5078

So no, its not a tricore. And we gonna ahve the usual crap when its released. Just like with the K10. You hype, AMD fails to deliver your hype and people nag over something that aint AMDs fault.

OMG this is a new list posted on a dutch site.

It's a tricore, and tricore it's confirmed no reason for you to deny facts.

you basicly proved yourself already wrong lol

[The_Beast]

nice prices AMD but is that going to be enought to keep your head above water

[Clairvoyant129]

that's why a tricore phenom performs better then a intel quad core in 3dmark06.

And that's why Intel dual core frags quad core Phenom in Crysis.

Lol crysis optimized for both Intel and Nivdia.
And it's tricore.

Excuses excuses.

[Cooper]

Phenom 7600 2,3 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 7700 2,5 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 9500 2,2 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9600 2,3 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9700 2,4 GHz dec. 2007
Phenom 9800 2,8 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-82 2,6 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-8x 3,0 GHz Q2 2008

Tric-core mister shintai.

There wouldn't be any 7k series
Intel will name Wolfdales 8k AMD will follow same way with tri-cores

[BeardyMan]

There wouldn't be any 7k series
Intel will name Wolfdales 8k AMD will follow same way with tri-cores

source to backup that claim?

[Cooper]

source to backup that claim?

Just wait and see

[Syn.]

i just want my FX-82's!!!!! WHY WONT YOU LET ME HAVE MY FX-82's!!!!!

i am gonna tell my mommy...

[madcho]

i just want my FX-82's!!!!! WHY WONT YOU LET ME HAVE MY FX-82's!!!!!

i am gonna tell my mommy...

+1

me too

[Ad1tya]

This is not good..

Why is AMD Pricing it so low?

I guess it just doesnt perform too well? I really hope AMD comes up with a gem of a chip next time around. Coz if they dont, were going to go back to the good ole Netburst days...

[Jamesrt2004]

This is not good..

Why is AMD Pricing it so low?

I guess it just doesnt perform too well? I really hope AMD comes up with a gem of a chip next time around. Coz if they dont, were going to go back to the good ole Netburst days...

we shouldn't really complain about it being low, tbh there just trying to price it aggressively against Penryn and for that we can't blame them they need to milk as much money as they can from us consumers until they get back on top!

also we have no idea about yields etc

[Hornet331]

hmm why we dont wait a week, and then we see who was right and who was wrong...