~pcwiz Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Press release from AMD: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/Virtual...~117412,00.html The AMD Phenom CPU is now available for purchase at many online retailers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA22C Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I couldn't care less about 'true quad-core architecture.' The bottom line is that even AMD's fabled new line is no match for Intel's offerings. Just as we had to endure years of sub-par products from Intel before they pulled their socks up and produced the Core line, it seems that AMD will be playing catch-up for quite a while. The problem is that Intel has deeper pockets than AMD and I don't know if AMD's bottom line can handle being the bargain alternative for the foreseeable future when they're bleeding red ink from all sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagal Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I couldn't care less about 'true quad-core architecture.' I second that as it is purely a marketing gimmick just like when Michael Jackson magically became the "King of Pop". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 The AMD K8 architecture owned Intel for so long. It's a shame that the phenom is subpar. Still, AMD has let to launch their new dual core and tri-core processors, as well as the phenom-fx. I'll always be a bit of an AMD fanboy, think of all they have done for the industry! Intel wanted to suceed the Pentium 4 with massive, hot, power sucking 32-bit single core processors that ran in excess of 4.2 Ghz. It was AMD who developed and make dual core 64-bit processors mainstream. I can see AMD's new lineup for 2008-09 beating Intel in mobile, but not much else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 Yeah there really isn't huge buzz about the Phenom CPUs. I feel sorry for AMD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Puppy Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I read a benchmark comparison which showed that the fastest quad core AMD Phenom processor was slower than the slowest Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 quad core processor. AMD has yet to catch up. Then again, if AMD processors become better than Intel, would Apple make another transition to AMD? I wonder, I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Then again, if AMD processors become better than Intel, would Apple make another transition to AMD? I wonder, I wonder. IMHO highly unlikely. Apple receives more than just the physical CPUs by choosing Intels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 No way Apple is going to go with AMD chips. There isn't even a possiblity unless AMD chips majorly outperform Intel chips. BTW, Headrush69, in your sig it says your Dell XPS 420 is running at 2.4MHz. I think its supposed to be GHz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Hey Headrush, this is off topic but weren't you going to get an iMac? You made the right choice bud, you can game in the 'doze and do everything else in OS X w/ vanilla EFI. I'm proud of you and I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 BTW, Headrush69, in your sig it says your Dell XPS 420 is running at 2.4MHz. I think its supposed to be GHz.Nope, its super duper power saving mode. Hey Headrush, this is off topic but weren't you going to get an iMac? You made the right choice bud, you can game in the 'doze and do everything else in OS X w/ vanilla EFI. I'm proud of you and I <3 your new rig I really wanted to support Apple but that video card option in the iMac was the deal killer for me. This XPS 420 has many of the other features I was getting from the iMac anyways like being completely quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(MoC) Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I'll upgrade soon. @nagal: He became king of something else...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InorganicMatter Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 No one gives a {censored} about this "native" BS. They lied to us, and we all knew they were lying. 40% faster, suuuuuure. "Native" making all the difference, riiiiiight. Hector Ruiz can't leave fast enough. K8 was the brain child of his predecessor, and the only thing he's done during his reign is try to ride out K8, and now this. Pathetic. Apple receives more than just the physical CPUs by choosing Intels. I doubt that. Apple went with Intel because Intel had the Centrino Duo platform, when AMD had a really lame mobile platform. I should also mention that Centrino Duo beat both Intel and AMD's desktop platforms (kind of sad when a mobile platform beats the desktop platform), which came in handy for the Mac Minis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgirl Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 No new AMDs for me soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 There's a bug in the phenom series right now. That's the main problem with it, and sucks that they didn't catch them before they were released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idividebyzero Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 AMD used to kick ass. Along with ATI. They killed the competition for both price and performance. Now its the other way around. AMD can no longer out perform Intel in the same price range, they are having their asses handed to them by the Core series. ATI is going through the same {censored}, everything after the amazing Radeon 9xxx was garbage compared to what Nvidia was pumping out, their newest HD 3x series cards while still kind of iffy are atleast a major step in the right direction for competing with Nvidia again. I loved my Athlon XP and Athlon 64, but ever since the Core 2 Duo came out I havent taken a second look at what AMD has to offer. Same with ATI, ever since the gf6800 and the way ATI tried to trick people into thinking no games would ever use dx 9.0c I have had a very sour outlook on anything ATI comes out with... the x800's were a rip off thanks to no pixel shader 3, the x1000's were nothing special compared to the gf7000's, the x2000's may very well be worse than the Voodoo 5, the x3000's might finally be turning things around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synaesthesia Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 One positive:In server situations the Phenom / Hypertransport architecture competes well with the Xeon processor line. Just check the Anandtech.com review... But for normal desktop use the Core 2 Duo and Quad are the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 2, 2007 Author Share Posted December 2, 2007 ATI cards aren't that bad really. If you take the newer X1000 cards like the X1950XT they are pretty good and compare well with the GeForce equivalent. But yeah, AMD Phenom's don't seem too popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Apple receives more than just the physical CPUs by choosing Intels. I doubt that. Sure they do, you were just thinking in different terms. Marketing would be an example, who hasn't see an Intel inside commercial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgirl Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Macs don't have Intel Iside, or core whatever stickers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawmassen Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Waste of time, the most powerful Phenom is less powerful than the cheapest Intel quad - the highly overclockable Q6600 - at standard speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 2, 2007 Author Share Posted December 2, 2007 Macs don't have Intel Iside, or core whatever stickers. That would completely cramp the style. Sticking manufacturer logos all over a nice Mac. BTW, check out the Phenom box. The purple ray looks like the Leopard aurora: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 BTW, check out the Phenom box. The purple ray looks like the Leopard aurora: CONSPIRACY PLZ!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 2, 2007 Author Share Posted December 2, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berzerker Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Look at the L2 cache also, 4 x 512kb...that's horrible. The Core 2 Duos have 4MB shared cache, and that's only two cores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 8, 2007 Author Share Posted December 8, 2007 Review of the top Phenom 9700 processor: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the..._web/index.html The conclusion is that its slower than Intel's worst quad core but that its cheaper. Also it says the processor is aimed at mid range not high end. Overall, its pretty bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts