|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
AMD Phenom 9500 Quad Core's are here.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: DemonBob
Yes!
Wheres my checkbook!
Posted by: goranpaa
I'm sorry to say, that AMD have'nt succeded in beating Intel this time either. So I think you can keep your check book safely in the pocket. Unfortunatly, the Phenom shows it is'nt that phenomenal as I / we hoped it would be.
In every head to head test I have seen, the Phenom cpu's gets beaten by the Intel Q6600 for ex. And I'm afraid it will get even worse when the Intel Penryn cpu's are out.
I think this is really bad news. It seems like AMD / ATI, is going rapidly down hill.
This as ATI, did'nt succed either in kicking Nvidias butt with the Radeon HD 3870 v.s Geforce 8800GT.
The only small hurrah for ATI, is that the 180$ Radeon HD 3850, is noticeable better than the middle row Geforce 8600 cards.
And anyway, no quad core is going to get you the upper hand in gaming....at least until games comes out that supports quad cores in full. And by then, both the Phenom and Intels Penryn cpu's, probably will be named "AMD Dinosaur" and "Intel Fossil". And Indiana Jones is out on the hunt for one.
I think the big winners among the "gaming cpu's" are the Core 2 Duos. E6750 and E6850.
Especially, the E6750, considering price / performance ratio.
Here are some reviews of the Phenom cpu's.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/artic...oZW50aHVzaWFzdA
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles...om_790FX_RV670/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipset...doc.aspx?i=3153
We need the competition between AMD / ATI and Intel + Nvidia in the other ring corner!
I dont like the thought at all, that we might see Intel and Nvidia as the main providers of cpu's and video cards in the future.
Posted by: The-AoD
I'm sorry, I have to add my opinion here. AMD releasing thier Quad Core, just means that both chip makers will turn for higher speeds with them. Of course, no competition, as has been for the last year for intel, makes for some bad pricing. The Dual core processors are better for gaming, true, as is the same for most of the single core processors when the dual core's were first arriving to the x86 platforms. It's the same for all technologies that the chipmakers release. It may take a little time for the game makers to catch up with the chipmakers, but once they do, Quad Core's will be able to perform to spec with the dual cores.
I've seen people blame it on clock speeds, which AMD has proven time and time again, that clock speeds don't mean much in the market anymore. Remember the Athlon XP? A 1.5Ghz processor outperforming a 2.0Ghz. At first the XP was rated as a joke, and it couldn't handle. Look at thier lifespan. They obliterated intel's processors, for well over 3 years.
Am I saying that you're wrong about processors? No. You can sit and read all the benchmarkings you want, doesn't mean that everyone is looking to use the processors in the same way that the benchmarks show. Personally I'm in the market for a Quad Core based system. Will I run games on it? Of course, but I also do alot of photo and video editing. Therefore I will make better use of the Quad Core now, then I would with a Dual Core.
As for AMD, they got one upperhand in the market now, since the buyout of ATI, they haven't shown a market presence at all. Now, with ATi in thier back pocket, they have something to look into. As for Intel + nVidia... Do a little investigating you'll find that they are the "friends" everyone hopes them to be. Rumor has it, specially in the trading arena, that intel has been working on thier own GPU's and may plan for heading into the high end graphics market. Now, that would make out some competition that would definetly help the gaming field. Considering the better video cards on the market now are $500 and up, yeah someone needs to do something.
Hopefully for myself, the Phenom will help improve the Quad core's a bit, and also drive down market prices. If not, ohh well.
Posted by: goranpaa
Quote:
Am I saying that you're wrong about processors? No. You can sit and read all the benchmarkings you want, doesn't mean that everyone is looking to use the processors in the same way that the benchmarks show. Personally I'm in the market for a Quad Core based system. Will I run games on it? Of course, but I also do alot of photo and video editing. Therefore I will make better use of the Quad Core now, then I would with a Dual Core. #
I agree in full to that Quad cores are very nice, when you are doing heavy editing or CAD for ex.
I just pointed out that for gaming, a Quad core is'nt worth the money....yet.
After all, most people coming here are more interested in the gaming abilitys over how well a certain processor works for editing of sound or dvd's for ex.
Quote: I've seen people blame it on clock speeds, which AMD has proven time and time again, that clock speeds don't mean much in the market anymore. Remember the Athlon XP? A 1.5Ghz processor outperforming a 2.0Ghz. At first the XP was rated as a joke, and it couldn't handle. Look at thier lifespan. They obliterated intel's processors, for well over 3 years.#
This whas true until the release of the Conroe cpu's. But why do you think most people go Intel nowadays? I dont belive all of us did just fall for some benchmark test results on the net.
I like AMD very much myself. I have a second rig with a Athlon 64 4000+ @ 2.8 Ghz, (socket 939). And it works well for what I'm using it for. I also have had a couple of other AMD rigs / cpu's that served me very well. But I would'nt dream of saying the over clocked Athlon 64 4000+ is anywhere near the Intel Conroe 6400 I had before in performance in day to day computing or gaming. And then, the E6400 is just in the middle row segment of the Conroe series.
Belive me, when I say I would be delighted if AMD took the crown back from Intel as soon as possible.
Posted by: The-AoD
Don't worry, with ATi in thier back pocket, the gaming market will certainly change for the better. AMD will surely make thier presence felt. As for the chip market, the gaming side isn't what is has been, as it has been quite strong before, big gaming rigs are slowly losing to thier console competitors.
I, myself, have a playstation 3, it's graphics are up to par, as long as you have the coin to push into the system itself, and a nice HDtv to use with it. Thier 720p HD games are just a standard, thier 1080p games are mostly immaculate compared to the older market. Which, with the realistic, put a cd in a play, causes more people into the console market. Since you don't have to upgrade your console everytime a new game comes out.
A good way to watch the market is to watch the prices on the prebuilt systems you can find at even Wal-Mart. The lower thier prices, the stronger the market is into the "entry level" PC's. As the demand for high end systems drops, the low end systems drop in price. As of a few weeks ago, you could pick up an AMD 5800+ system at walmart for under 600 bucks. That's what a large percentage of your market is looking at. Same goes for the console, the lower the prices, the stronger the market. Sony and Microsoft both have been lowering prices on thiertop notch HD consoles, just so the lower income brackets can afford them, causing a higher sale rate.
This is why I hate the processor market. The high end chips usually end up being way overpriced, when you can go get a "mid-low range" processor for just a few coins. I still remember back with the release of the XP series chips, the top end 2000+ was upwards of 200 dollars, while you could get an 1800+ for under 100, supply and demand is a bitch.
Personally, I hope AMD come's out with something that shred's intel, it's doubtful, but I can hope. For them to be able to keep a competitive price, the lower end market has to be strong enough to support it. So, if the stronger low end market stays in this pattern, the prices on the chips will be decent in the coming months. Except of course the Intel eXtreme line, which is a joke in my opinion.
Posted by: goranpaa
Amen, I agree to all what you are saying.
And yeah, the Intel Extremes whas pretty ridicilous stuff.
But I like the later Core 2 Duo's E6550, E6750 and 6850 cpu's as they have a pretty nice price tag and great performance per buck. Especially the E6750 is very good value.
And quite many of the mayor motherboard manufacturers, offers a bios update that allows you to run those 1333MHz FSB processors, on an older Core 2 Duo motherboard.
Posted by: DemonBob
Personally i've had better luck with AMD, then Intel, i get a call a few times a week from friends of friends, asking me to look at thier computer. Over the last 6 months i've had to replace 4 Intel Proc's and most of them weren't even that old. P4 2.8, 3.0's. Never had a faulty processer with AMD. And no it was not over heating issues, as all the fan's were working.
Posted by: Mathias
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DemonBob
Personally i've had better luck with AMD, then Intel, i get a call a few times a week from friends of friends, asking me to look at thier computer. Over the last 6 months i've had to replace 4 Intel Proc's and most of them weren't even that old. P4 2.8, 3.0's. Never had a faulty processer with AMD. And no it was not over heating issues, as all the fan's were working.
|
Well P4's were shit to begin with.
Posted by: P0nix
Think AMD is biding their time and focusing on their Spider chips that integrate video card/cpu in one piece of silicon. If they do it right, they may be able to take the market back from Intel.
|
|
|
|
|
