Phenom, good sometimes, not so good others

[theforce]

Is there a dual-core coming out aswell? I am currently happy with my AMD x2 at the moment and since i am using s939 i might wait for those multiplier unlocked versions of Phenom to come out first that another site was talking about. I don't care about small differences in performance.

 

[marscay]

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.

yep

 

[hbunny]

I buy things based on price/performance ratios. At the moment I'm running an AMD X2 4400 with an ATI X1950XT. I've had an AMD/ATI combo for the last couple of generations, but if and when I build a new rig in the New Year it would definitely be an Intel/nVidia system based on the current benchmarks and reviews.

I don't see AMD's only unique feature of quad Crossfire appealing to more than a tiny minority of users. So far, mutiple GPUs have been more promise than reality (driver issues, delays getting games to work with it, ...).

It's foolish to buy anything based on the brand-name or company.

So it's back to the AMD of yester-year that offers serial disappointment.

 

[MumboJumbo]

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 peopl e. 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.

So what spec do you have? And what would you be looking to buy. I bet you anything youll buy the faster and cheaper intel.

 

[NathanE]

This is not major loss for AMD really. They produce excellent budget CPUs and always have done.

The AMD64 took Intel by surprise and I'm not expecting Intel to get caught with their pants down again for, probably, another 20 years...

 

[malfunkshun]

I wonder how much of the deficit is due to the new chipset they tested on

 

[mishima]

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.

No worries mate, I wasn't directing my comments at you at all. Sorry if you took offense to my words. AM2's are good for budget purchases and general office setups, but building performance gaming setups Intel just thrash AMD completely. You are right though, if you are on a budget and its jut for general usage its a good choice.

 

[MumboJumbo]

This is not major loss for AMD really. They produce excellent budget CPUs and always have done.

The AMD64 took Intel by surprise and I'm not expecting Intel to get caught with their pants down again for, probably, another 20 years...

The price ocuk currently have them up i wouldn't rate them budget nor worth while buy.

 

[prosk]

...

The AMD64 took Intel by surprise and I'm not expecting Intel to get caught with their pants down again for, probably, another 20 years...

If I remember correctly, AMD was beating Intel in gaming performance since the Bartons, if not the thoroughbreds. Only Intel gamers wouldn't accept it until AMD64 came out.

 

[malfunkshun]

If I remember correctly, AMD was beating Intel in gaming performance since the Bartons, if not the thoroughbreds. Only Intel gamers wouldn't accept it until AMD64 came out.

K7 series rocked, but towards the end of its run, and with the advent of Northwood, things were not so easy (Who remembers AMD claiming a certain core would scale to 10ghz? !!!). Then came the K8 series, which was ahead until C2D, P3 based fever infected the world

 

[MrP77]

but weren't old amd's awesome for gaming but not so good at encoding... like ati gpus used to get killed on open gl games... but killed nvidia on DX games....
this balance seems to not exist at the moment, you don't buy a Intel chip if you want to encode and an amd chip if you want to game... you just buy an Intel chip...

 

[HangTime]

Difficult to see the attraction in these for most users, they get comprehensively (in geek/benchmarking terms) beaten by the Q6600 which judging by initial tests will clock at least as well as Phenom. Unless AMD can churn out some chips at higher clock speeds or slash their prices, they will struggle to appeal to the majority of non-AM2 owners.

 

[JediFragger]

Personally I'm hoping that current board bios' are hampering the Phenom somehow, but I doubt it

 

[Margaret]

I'll stick with Intel, AMD still haven't beaten the Core2 architecture yet by the looks of it.

 

[Owenb]

K7 series rocked, but towards the end of its run, and with the advent of Northwood, things were not so easy (Who remembers AMD claiming a certain core would scale to 10ghz? !!!). Then came the K8 series, which was ahead until C2D, P3 based fever infected the world

I thought it was intel that was claiming it would bring P4 to 10ghz?

 

[Jabbs]

Would those new cpus make people with c2d/quads intels move over i very much doubt it.

 

[mrthingyx]

No worries mate, I wasn't directing my comments at you at all. Sorry if you took offense to my words. AM2's are good for budget purchases and general office setups, but building performance gaming setups Intel just thrash AMD completely. You are right though, if you are on a budget and its jut for general usage its a good choice.

I think you'll find the only substantial differences in gaming performance are at 1024x768, with only marginal differences at 1280x1024 and pretty much none in the latest round of games (Crysis, Bioshock, WIC, SC, HL2...).

Guru3D eloquently demonstrate that - even with a 4GHz Yorkfield - games such as GRAW and FEAR are almost entirely GPU dependent above 1024x768, with performance only increasing by 3fps in FEAR between an Athlon FX-62 and said Penryn. Admittedly, GRAW produced a stupendous 16fps lead between the two chips, but when the average of the FX-62 is 68fps, who's really going to notice the difference?

The problem with the internet is hype and perceived performance. I have no doubt that Core2Duo and its Penryn siblings absolutely crush AMD's offerings for those who encode, play Photoshop and spend massive amounts of time on 3DStudioMAX... but for a gamer? It makes no sense to upgrade from a 2.6GHz Athlon 64 to... anything else, processor-wise.

Bottom line? If your system is packing a Geforce 8800GTX, there is no logically justifiable point upgrading your processor if it's less than two years' old. Upgrade and buy CPUs - don't let me stop you in any way - but don't say it's because the gaming performance from X is going to be so much better than Y as a result.

And if you're buying a PC for general (i.e. web, email, document prep) any computer whose sum total value of parts costs more than £250 is a completely silly purchase.

 

[queamin]

I think you'll find the only substantial differences in gaming performance are at 1024x768, with only marginal differences at 1280x1024 and pretty much none in the latest round of games (Crysis, Bioshock, WIC, SC, HL2...).

Guru3D eloquently demonstrate that - even with a 4GHz Yorkfield - games such as GRAW and FEAR are almost entirely GPU dependent above 1024x768, with performance only increasing by 3fps in FEAR between an Athlon FX-62 and said Penryn. Admittedly, GRAW produced a stupendous 16fps lead between the two chips, but when the average of the FX-62 is 68fps, who's really going to notice the difference?

The problem with the internet is hype and perceived performance. I have no doubt that Core2Duo and its Penryn siblings absolutely crush AMD's offerings for those who encode, play Photoshop and spend massive amounts of time on 3DStudioMAX... but for a gamer? It makes no sense to upgrade from a 2.6GHz Athlon 64 to... anything else, processor-wise.

Bottom line? If your system is packing a Geforce 8800GTX, there is no logically justifiable point upgrading your processor if it's less than two years' old. Upgrade and buy CPUs - don't let me stop you in any way - but don't say it's because the gaming performance from X is going to be so much better than Y as a result.

And if you're buying a PC for general (i.e. web, email, document prep) any computer whose sum total value of parts costs more than £250 is a completely silly purchase.

Agreed i almost got a quad a month orso but wanted to see what crysis did with them glad i did just waiting now on next gen cards