-
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.
Phenom, good sometimes, not so good others
- Thread starter drunkenmaster
- Start date
IMO it's not the design it is the build quality. AMD's fastest chip is the 6400 Black edition- its still built on the 90nm wafer. Their 65nm just never really got going.
To make it worse intel are moving to 45nm with new techniques that have been described as the biggest break through in chip manufacturing in the last 40 years. Apparently IBM/AMD have a similar solution for 45nm. If these can match intels hafnium based solution then they have a good chance of staying afloat, if not.....
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
because penryn's barely faster, they'll undercut it, and offer good value. thats been their business model for 90% of their history.
as for the 90 vs 65nm , its just not comparable. amd took out big deals with dell, they need large volume. intel can shut down one of, i think 462 fabs and switch it over to a new process pretty quickly. amd only have really what, 3 fabs, shutting even part of one down severly affects their output for a while and it costs a lot to upgrade a fab, then it would need to be redone to get over to phenom production(though probo not that much redoing). it was simply cost effective to use an incredibly good, high yield 90nm production than shutting down to move to 65nm briefly, before shutting down again to move to 65nm for phenom. 3.2Ghz on 90nm is phenomenal(come on that was damn good). for the TDP, heat, yield and cost they did some very good stuff on 90nm, they got more out of 90nm than intel had to.
but its a big issue, intel can switch around stuff so much more easily, and yes, they can dump hugely more money into design.
the thing is, phenom can compete in some area's, price, gaming performance.
remember, 99.9% of all intel/amd cpu's sold for home computers will get used for........................ outlook, IE, maybe some bluray playback in a year or two(more common in a couple years anyway) and even then the gpu's will be taking a massive part of the load now. amd need a chip that matches on features. because someone will walk into some kind of world of pc's and see a quad core, vs a quad core, sse4, vs sse4, and both have vista on with IE open and a the same case, same drive, same everything, and amd will be trying hard to make sure their box is cheaper. thats as simple as it gets.
most of us barely put a load on a single core for a majority of its use, for gaming, a 2.4Ghz dual core gets beaten by a 3.2Ghz penryn by 3-4%, thats what some of those home computers will do when the familys have kids and get some gaming in.
performance never matters, price, features do. i mean, a ford Ka will never beat a ferrari, but it sells, because it has 4 wheels, seats, a cup holder, a cd player, a steering wheel and a good price and people need a car.
amd sell cpu's because, people need computers. theres the big secret behind amd's success
why buy a phenom, if you're completely and utterly 100% honest with yourself what is the most intensive thing you do? if its gaming, look at reviews, [h] only have one benchie showing high res but said they are doing a gaming performance review soon. if the phenom performs the same in games, and thats what you'll do most, and realise you'll barely put a 10% load on it the rest of the time. you can buy a intel or phenom, it would make no difference. but if everyone buys intel, intel gain market share, put their prices up and help kill amd. if some of us by amd, when it will make no difference, amd live on longer, and their next cpu might beat intel's.
whats "wrong" with buying amd?
as for the 90 vs 65nm , its just not comparable. amd took out big deals with dell, they need large volume. intel can shut down one of, i think 462 fabs and switch it over to a new process pretty quickly. amd only have really what, 3 fabs, shutting even part of one down severly affects their output for a while and it costs a lot to upgrade a fab, then it would need to be redone to get over to phenom production(though probo not that much redoing). it was simply cost effective to use an incredibly good, high yield 90nm production than shutting down to move to 65nm briefly, before shutting down again to move to 65nm for phenom. 3.2Ghz on 90nm is phenomenal(come on that was damn good). for the TDP, heat, yield and cost they did some very good stuff on 90nm, they got more out of 90nm than intel had to.
but its a big issue, intel can switch around stuff so much more easily, and yes, they can dump hugely more money into design.
the thing is, phenom can compete in some area's, price, gaming performance.
remember, 99.9% of all intel/amd cpu's sold for home computers will get used for........................ outlook, IE, maybe some bluray playback in a year or two(more common in a couple years anyway) and even then the gpu's will be taking a massive part of the load now. amd need a chip that matches on features. because someone will walk into some kind of world of pc's and see a quad core, vs a quad core, sse4, vs sse4, and both have vista on with IE open and a the same case, same drive, same everything, and amd will be trying hard to make sure their box is cheaper. thats as simple as it gets.
most of us barely put a load on a single core for a majority of its use, for gaming, a 2.4Ghz dual core gets beaten by a 3.2Ghz penryn by 3-4%, thats what some of those home computers will do when the familys have kids and get some gaming in.
performance never matters, price, features do. i mean, a ford Ka will never beat a ferrari, but it sells, because it has 4 wheels, seats, a cup holder, a cd player, a steering wheel and a good price and people need a car.
amd sell cpu's because, people need computers. theres the big secret behind amd's success
why buy a phenom, if you're completely and utterly 100% honest with yourself what is the most intensive thing you do? if its gaming, look at reviews, [h] only have one benchie showing high res but said they are doing a gaming performance review soon. if the phenom performs the same in games, and thats what you'll do most, and realise you'll barely put a 10% load on it the rest of the time. you can buy a intel or phenom, it would make no difference. but if everyone buys intel, intel gain market share, put their prices up and help kill amd. if some of us by amd, when it will make no difference, amd live on longer, and their next cpu might beat intel's.
whats "wrong" with buying amd?
Nothing is 'wrong' with it, just the Intel system, at least on this site, is insanely better value.
Besides, Intel's got 45nm production techs under its belt, I don't suppose AMD are financially able to price their CPUs anywhere near as low as Intel can go. CPU limbo, baby.
Besides, Intel's got 45nm production techs under its belt, I don't suppose AMD are financially able to price their CPUs anywhere near as low as Intel can go. CPU limbo, baby.
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
see thats the thing, intels cache heavy setup, and cache bump as they drop down in manufacture size is going to keep the cpu die fairly big, yields aren't likely to increase massively, and their similar speed cpu's we already know are the same price.
this is in general why intel boards are more expensive, pin heavy northbridges, the chipsets increase board cost because the chipsets have the mem controller in. amd have always competed on price, and have undercut intel for the last year on a 90nm process as opposed to intels 65nm. i don't expect that to be a big deal.
the question is, is more cpu power, you'll never once use, useful? i admit it, i like the fact its there, i like i've overclocked my cpu to 3.8Ghz, but, i use it for games, this month i've done more dvd encoding than in the last year, and thats still only 6-7 dvd's, at 20mins each pass, i think i could have lived if they were 25 mins aswell. then gaming, that extra power doesn't help at all.
amd seems to have lost their "underdog" lovability status. we didn't care when a p4 outperformed a XP, the XP was cheaper, and amd needed some help, and helping them would bring intel prices down. amd hiking their prices as intel dropped theres with p4 vs ath 64 seems to have lost them that status. thats all well and good, but if we all ignore amd, what happens to amd, and then what happens to intels prices?
It is funny though how a single digit percentage difference in performance elicits such a heated debate, when you actually need a benchmarking program to be able to tell the difference, because in every other use they're indistinguishable from each other.
You pays your money...
Still there are worse things to blow your money on
P
You pays your money...
Still there are worse things to blow your money on
P
I still think I'll upgrade to this in the new year, let the dust settle and see what more news develops. But I can't believe people thought it would be this "super-dooper intel whipping" CPU??? We all know that the Conroe is a great CPU and AMD had their work cut out. I think they've come close, but I think I always knew that it would not beat Intel. The A64 was the best CPU for a good while over the P4 and now it's Intel's turn again to lead the performance race, all be it, with AMD close behind.
I think AMD will be happy with the fact it can at least come close to what Intel has offered, just a shame at the moment, they are priced high. But new product = high price.
Let's see how it goes!
I think AMD will be happy with the fact it can at least come close to what Intel has offered, just a shame at the moment, they are priced high. But new product = high price.
Let's see how it goes!
It is funny though how a single digit percentage difference in performance elicits such a heated debate, when you actually need a benchmarking program to be able to tell the difference, because in every other use they're indistinguishable from each other.
You pays your money...
Still there are worse things to blow your money on
P
Well, we ARE enthusiasts and tend to be particular
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,856
- Location
- Death Star or Mount Doom, it depends on the day.
So in noob terms please, how is the 6400 black faster than the phenom 9600? 9 is quicker than 6! And why doesnt it run games quicker?
The un-informed, brand bummies will invest in AMD. I had a chap at work trying to tell me how great they were. They are cheaper like the C2D but Intel are much better value.
Tell me about it, 2 of the guys that i work with are the biggest AMD fanboys ever. Have just built a new server at work with an e6850 and they were continually having pops because of a few teething problems with the motherboard.
Now with a working motherboard they have had to eat their words as it flies at stock and runs at 30 degrees idle.
On the phenom side of things, i am disappointed about the poor showing as would like AMD to move ahead again to keep prices nice and low for us consumers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
Nvida have done that for all of the 8800 series.
I didn't mean to come across as a fan boy. I was making a point that some people will find near comparable performance for less money a much better prospect.
For example I have just built a 5200 based AM2 system with an 8800gt 256MB for under £350. At stock speeds I would have to spend another £50 to get the same performance.
As far as multi-gpu goes, Intel chipsets will continue to support dual ati gfx, you will only need the AMD/ATI chipset for quad ati gfx.you missed one!
4. some ppl will flock to phenom for 3870x2 action.
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
thing is, if you really want to be all about the theoretical performance numbers, quad crossfire should do insanely well in 3dmark. would amd holding all the top 50 spots in 3dmark somehow make it faster in day to day use? not at all.
like i said, for an encoder, or maybe some 3dsmax guys intel will prove faster.
if you can be honest with yourself and gaming is all you do, you won't find a £50 dual core any slower than a £600 phenom(when/if available) or a £600 penryn. thats fact, provable in every high res games benchmark over the past 4 years bar maybe 1% of games.
the only reason to go quad core now is if you won't upgrade anytime soon, its a fairly easy argument to make, for long term performance without upgrading quad core will easily be faster than dual core, that is the only argument for the majority of people. in gaming amd aren't slower, then manage to go clock for clock in a few other apps aswell.
as i said, i've got a Q6600 at 3.8GHz now, its fine, i want a phenom to play with, thats all really. but crysis for me isn't faster at 3.8Ghz, than it is at 2.8Ghz, and i've not tried at stock but its unlikely to be different at 2.4Ghz.
intel shouldn't be a problem for dual crossfire, honestly got no idea if they support sli but assume they do. i honestly believe that most people just wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 2.4Ghz phenom and a 3.2Ghz penryn, or a 3.2Ghz phenom and a 2.4Ghz kentsfield either, or a 3.5Ghz phenom and a £50 c2d either.
but if no one buys amd, purely because theoretical performance in a few apps you won't use isn't as good, then AMD won't have any money to make the next competitive chip as good as we need it to be. Intel are a business, they will increase prices if AMD stop getting even close to competitive.
errm, there was also talk, and i think maybe a mention on the amd page somewhere of discount phenom + 3850/3870 bundles maybe. which coupled with a higher spec cheaper amd mobo could result in some killer quad core bundles which would be very good for most people and long term performance systems.
like i said, for an encoder, or maybe some 3dsmax guys intel will prove faster.
if you can be honest with yourself and gaming is all you do, you won't find a £50 dual core any slower than a £600 phenom(when/if available) or a £600 penryn. thats fact, provable in every high res games benchmark over the past 4 years bar maybe 1% of games.
the only reason to go quad core now is if you won't upgrade anytime soon, its a fairly easy argument to make, for long term performance without upgrading quad core will easily be faster than dual core, that is the only argument for the majority of people. in gaming amd aren't slower, then manage to go clock for clock in a few other apps aswell.
as i said, i've got a Q6600 at 3.8GHz now, its fine, i want a phenom to play with, thats all really. but crysis for me isn't faster at 3.8Ghz, than it is at 2.8Ghz, and i've not tried at stock but its unlikely to be different at 2.4Ghz.
intel shouldn't be a problem for dual crossfire, honestly got no idea if they support sli but assume they do. i honestly believe that most people just wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 2.4Ghz phenom and a 3.2Ghz penryn, or a 3.2Ghz phenom and a 2.4Ghz kentsfield either, or a 3.5Ghz phenom and a £50 c2d either.
but if no one buys amd, purely because theoretical performance in a few apps you won't use isn't as good, then AMD won't have any money to make the next competitive chip as good as we need it to be. Intel are a business, they will increase prices if AMD stop getting even close to competitive.
errm, there was also talk, and i think maybe a mention on the amd page somewhere of discount phenom + 3850/3870 bundles maybe. which coupled with a higher spec cheaper amd mobo could result in some killer quad core bundles which would be very good for most people and long term performance systems.