Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
would have been fine until you said that and i hope it still is. Rediculas reason to take it down because someone thought they were being clever and saying that.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Phenom X4 vs Intel Core 2 and Quad
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
would have been fine until you said that and i hope it still is. Rediculas reason to take it down because someone thought they were being clever and saying that.
No
Trying to be clever?
I was only trying to help.
I've noticed people like you, and the attitude you seem to have.
For godsake, from now on i'Il say nothing and allow the mods to decide!
Please yourself, you know the rules!
Last edited:
Hahaha
The ads are for the US version of the site. They dont ship to the UK so they do not compete with OcUK.
End of.
I'm sorry mate, but thats not true, motherboards for £27 not $$
But I guess being helpful doesn't work with all people
I'm sorry mate, but thats not true, motherboards for £27 not $$
But I guess being helpful doesn't work with all people
I dont have any ads showing motherboards for £27.
Must just be you?
I thought the jury was still out on that one... Yes on >8way systems, but the intel quads are doing fine, and the V8 that intel put up against a 18way Opteron (which was the same core as phenom)... The Intel V8 scaled just as well, and outperformed the opty considerably.
Xeons scale nicely upto 2 sockets (8 cores), but then suffer due to FSB limitations. The old P4 xeons on the other hand didnt scale half as well, as P4 always was held back by poor design and a high reliance on the FSB.
As already shown in a desktop envirionment moving from a 1333 FSB to a 1600FSB gives virtually no improvement for Penryn based processors. Core architecture processors are really good at prefetching data into cache long before its needed by the processor. For the large majority of desktop and server applications the FSB doesnt create the huge bottleneck that some people still claim.
From a personal perspective, I have to admit I was expecting AMD to pull something very fast out, that would cause intel to rush the Nehelem architecture out faster. But if Phenom can only 'match' Conroe (and not even Penryn), then thats going to make it very hard. AMD wont be able to put a super premium price on the processor, and will have to position it as a high speed 'value' processor, not an 'Enthusiasts' chip. Intel are churning out hundreds of thousands of 65nm processors, and the production lines are already making the 45nm Penryn type chips. Intel are in a position where they can create a mountain of 'stock' ready to ship out, and their yields are more than high enough that they can participate in a pricewar.
Nothing I've seen so far from the Phenom range has made me thing, ooh better get rid of my intel system and switch to AMD... If I need more power, I'll simply switch my C2D for an Q6600... or more likely a Penryn Q9550 (think thats the one... 2.67Ghz Quad)
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 235
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Yeah its definately not good for amd. I am still on skt 939, athlon 64 4000. at the time that was kicking intels ass!
And now i am going to upgrade in the next few months and intel is definately the choice, I don't see amd pulling a rabbit out of the hat to be honest.
And now i am going to upgrade in the next few months and intel is definately the choice, I don't see amd pulling a rabbit out of the hat to be honest.
They don't need to be faster, they just need an advantage in some area but intel has everything covered. Intels advantage in manufacturing, 45nm vs 65nm, is killing AMD. It allows them to squeeze AMD on price while making good profits as well giving them a performance advantage. AMD's only chance of not going belly up is if intel are forced to pay them a huge sum in court. Without it, its RIP AMD.
Not so much on the smaller systems.
Intel dual quad versus an amd dual quad came out at 6 versus 7 scalability over a single core (atleast in the only type of test which I care about -CAD rendering), now obviously the motherboard etc will have some effect.
Now converting that back to a single core the outcome would/should be 3 versus 3.5 x that of a single core.
So if we take the scores up the top (averages) and convert to a quad core. Its not perfect but will give a rough idea here.
3.5/3 = 1.16667 improvement over intel
scores x2
average scores are 46.68/49.95 amd/intel
so for
amd = 46.68x2x1.16667 = 108.92
intel = 49.95x2 = 99.9
As I said my calc's are not perfect but it shows the results could be a little different on programs which can make full use of the cpu.
I'll be waiting on the final outcome, plus as said neither platform is completely finished (although intel is probably slightly ahead) and also there's no specific instructions being utilised.