AMD Phenom 9100 May Be A Home Run

[yipsl]

Thanks for trying, but you're WRONG.

Netburst did suck, however, it was neck and neck with AMD's offerings.

Only in video encoding. Admittedly, that was what we do alot of, but Williamette had too small a cache and Prescott/Smithfield and their slightly better Pressler incarnations were a disaster technologically.

Phenom has two models recalled at launch. FAILURE.

Not recalled at launch. Unreleased. Samples for benchmarking do not count in the same way a product recall from consumers would count. Get business facts right, and not just tech facts.

AMD broke their promises about release. Recalled products are sold and then returned to the manufacturer. Be disappointed that they are not out, that's normal. Be suspicious that there's more than a B2 errata involved. I am suspicious.

I suspect that it's more than a QA issue as I'd originally believed. If a particular core of enough Phenoms are faulty such that they can't be stocked clocked higher, and fail at overclocking, then that could be the main reason behind the triple core products, which will supposedly have higher clocks than quad core Phenoms. Disable the faulty core and get a 3 gigahertz product. Let's watch AMD to see if I'm wrong.

Phenom lagging behind year-old Intel quad cores.

The recalled and still unreleased Phenom 9900 still can't beat the Q6600.

Not by much, but then again, whether a 14% lag behidnd the Q6600 is a failure at that price point is in the eye of the beholder. Like I told another poster on another thread, this isn't a football match, it's not about one company "owning" another. Fanboys of both AMD and Intel should find other ways to validate their self worth.

Be a factboy, not a fanboy. There's not been a recall. They simply delayed releases of the higher clocked cores. Don't act like a spurned lover who's betrayed after being an AMD fanboy vis a vis Netburst. I criticized Netburst but said that C2D would bring Intel prominence again, and I was right. What made me go Athlon X2 were price cuts plus the revelations of Intel's unethical OEM rebates.

Plus the fact that Intel seemed to make more voltage changes making obsolete socket T boards I and friends bought for later upgrade to C2D. I gave mine away and went AM2 in 2007. Now I have one back, but not for long. I'm sure the Goodwill Computer store here in Austin could use a P4 630 X200 with one gig of DDR 400 for a budget build.

Phenom is not competitive. Phenom is buggy. It's not going to be a very profitable item for AMD. Phenom is a failure.

Phenom fails only at the enthusiast end, which some 45nm Intel parts also fail at. A B2's errata affects those who virtualize, and maybe those who run Folding at Home and that SETI program too. For those who buy PC's at Best Buy, I don't think it's as big a problem. I won't go B2, but when B3 comes out, I'll consider a triple core until I know what's happening with that second core.

I do not think that a 1.8 gigahertz B3 stepping 65 watt Phenom is going to be a failure in notebooks with a power saving 780G DX10 IGP chipset that can run at idle on 10 watts with a 3450 in hybrid Crossfire mode. I think that will be a money maker for AMD. Remind me if I'm wrong early next year. I'll remind you if I'm right.

Not an enthusiast to an irrational degree, but enthusiastic about computing and gaming, I'm leery of B2 steppings, ideally want a 65 watt quad core and will probably wait for 45nm, but am willing to go B3 triple core just for fun this year. If it clocks higher than a Phenom, then maybe it will get to 3.2 gigahertz and not CPU limit a 3 GPU CrossfireX build on a 790 board, but I really wish AMD had gone the same route as Nvidia and had IGP's with power saving on all their new motherboards. I don't need those GPU's for posting at Tom's Hardware, though they'll be great playing The Witcher.

There's a reason why AMD's best, top of the line processor sells for s measly $260. Thunderfanboy says Intel is inflating their prices. Fine, have Intel lower them. When a Q6600 sells for $100, the measly Phailom will be selling its best model for $80 and AMD would sink like the Edmond Fitzgerald.

And for your info, I was bitching about Intel processors back in the netburst days and choose to buy AMD products instead, such as an Athlon XP 2800+, an Athlon 3200+ (939), and my current Operon 175.

I go to the company that has better products. That was AMD in the past, but it is Intel now, by a long shot.

AMD's K10 is an epic failure: Substandard performance, no headroom, Opterons can't even be bought in the open market, and they are loosing money by the fist full.

So before you go calling everyone who bashes your favorite company a "fanboy" you should do your homework so you don't sound foolish.

Go to AMDZone and you can talk about how AMD's entry level crap cores "OMG ROCK MY WORLDXOR AMD4LIFE INTEL BK!1!!!"

I call people fanboys if they go "blah blah blah" and don't rely on facts. You seem to want to dislike one company based on perceived failures of their products. First Intel, then AMD. I like Intel's products and are disappointed in AMD's marketing and rushing a 65nm native quad core out. My criticisms of Intel's business practices will cease when regulators bring balance to the market by forcing a settlement upon Intel.

I note that you rely upon the last refuge of the fanboy scoundrel, telling someone to go to a board where the company that you dislike cannot be criticized, because you can't stand criticism of your company on this board. I criticize both for different reasons.

If I were a fanboy, I'd have Phenom by now, but I'm waiting for a Phenom without errata, with the thermals that I want. If regulators bring balance to the market, then I'll consider buying Intel again, but I do like my pins on the processor, and AMD heatsinks are a win for me over Intel's. Call me very old fashioned tech wise, but I'm not Thunderman, who can't see anything wrong with AMD. On a scale of 1 to 10, here's how I rate the companies:

Intel:

10 on products

10 on marketing

1 on ethics

AMD

5 on products

1 on marketing

5 on ethics.

So, I might just stick with the X2's over triple cores this year. When 45nm Phenom's arrive, then I'll reconsider. I gave AMD enough of my money over the past 12 months with two 690 boards, 3 X2 CPU's (one was a gift), one X1650 Pro and one 3870x2.

 

[yipsl]

[

I'm sorry, but Phenom just smacks of mediocrity. Sugarcoating a turd still makes it a turd.

I'm sorry but Phenom in its current state *IS* a POS. High TDPs, low clocks, next to non existent overclocking, and buggy. It's bargain priced and for good reason. It's a mediocre product.

I'm not defending B2, except inasmuch as the 2.3 gigahertz version isn't all that slower than a Q6600 at many tasks. I wont' buy a B2. It's a failure, just like an Intel CPU that won't overclock because it reports temps wrong is a failure. Those are enthusiast failures. We aren't all of the market.

Most CPU's have errata. The fix is not necessary for all users. B2's secret shame is the probable issues with the second core, which leads me to think it's more than QA at this point, since I heard the triple cores will be clocked much higher.

The Phenom I'm waiting to see is at 45nm. AMD should not have gone native quad core at 65nm. If they'd not tried, then I think you guys would be even more critical for lack of innovation. Still, lack of innovation is better than pressing a Prescott like product on the market.

My point is not defending the Phenom at all costs, it's not criticizing AMD for normal business mistakes while lauding Intel despite antitrust violations and ethical lapses. If it's all about the fastest CPU you guys can have for overclocking, then so be it. I have a social conscious and exercise it when buying products.

When regulators bring balance to the market, and when AMD has really competitive products at the market positions they choose to pursue, then I'll reconsider Intel. Until then, I might not buy the latest AMD, but I also won't buy the latest Intel. Do you people not get what I'm saying here?

What's your point, other than slamming TC? Are you implying that one needs to own an Intel product to have one's Intel facts right?

It seems to me that he's responding that TC is a spurned lover of AMD, of sorts. TC's disappointed that he's stuck with an Opty on socket 939, though whether out of lack of change or ire at AMD for not changing their product line to stay at the top.

He's the only person I called a fanboy besides Thunderman, because he says he's a fact boy but he gets all emotional when he's questioned about his bias.

I wish Intel had not had the OEM rebates, and I wish they'd not forced another voltage change on their motherboards. I would have kept that X200 for an early C2D, but I have a social conscience (old hippie that I am -- in my day, I walked to the Comp Center in 3 feet of snow, uphill both ways, to wait an hour for a terminal so I could play Advent instead of trying to get my BASIC programs in on time!) -- because of the OEM rebate situation, I chose to buy new AM2 motherboards instead of Intel motherboards.

Call me crazy, but it's not all about what's best out there for my computing, but which is the best company in need of my financial support, though I'll never let up on criticism of the Phenom launch and B2 issues.

 

[epsilon84]

Bottom line - AMD's FASTEST quad will be slower than Intel's SLOWEST, now, and for the foreseeable future. 45nm Phenoms won't change anything, if anything Intel will most likely widen the performance gap with Nehalem. I wouldn't be surprised to see Nehalem double the performance of a 45nm Phenom. In case you forgot, this is an enthusiasts forum, most of us rate performance quite highly, and in that criteria AMD fails badly.

I think the days of AMD competing against Intel in purely performance tems is all but over. K10 was meant to be 40% faster, instead it's 40% slower. They have simply lost too much ground on Intel, and their limited R&D budget means they are unlikely to unearth a groundbreaking core architecture anytime soon. It's simply the scale of economics at work.

They will most likely restructure and cement a place as a value alternative, much like their earlier days. The postponement of Bulldozer in favour of projects like Swift and Fusion pretty much confirms their intentions.

 

[yipsl]

In case you forgot, this is an enthusiasts forum, most of us rate performance quite highly, and in that criteria AMD fails badly.

I rate price/performance highly, and that's why I have hopes for 45nm Phenom, if B3 Phenom doesn't live up to expectations. I'm an enthusiast too, just one on a budget because I need 4 PC's. For me, it was either the slowest Pentium C2D or a good 65 watt Athlon X2. I chose X2 because of hypertransport and upgrade options with AM2.

There are also social conscience and fair competition issues as well. Regulators will probably bring balance to Intel's business practices, but as long as AMD works for me, I'll stick with them. I don't even need to upgrade CPU's in 2008, though I might get one triple core B3 Phenom for my wife's graphics and modding, while sticking with existing X2's on the other 3 PC's.

I think the days of AMD competing against Intel in purely performance tems is all but over.

Yep, I've said that they're back in the K62 days, and I loved gaming on my K62-450. I had that CPU longer than anything other than the P4 2.8 Northwood. That was back when we had one PC at a time.

They will most likely restructure and cement a place as a value alternative, much like their earlier days. The postponement of Bulldozer in favour of projects like Swift and Fusion pretty much confirms their intentions.

Enthusiasts are fighting today's war with the last war's weapons. I'm an enthusiast too, but not so blind to market realities. I use a notebook provided by my employer. I don't like notebooks much. I'm old fashioned and prefer desktops. Yet, I recognize the reality of the market.

AMD will do well in budget notebooks with 65 watt Phenom 1.8 gigahertz CPU's on DX10 IGP 780G power saving boards. Intel will go quad core in the notebook market too. They will probably have the higher price models and AMD the lower price.

I might just get a Phenom 780G notebook to take on vacation, alongside my employer's notebook. That way, after checking e-mail and doing whatever I have to do to keep in touch with the office, I'll be able to at least play older games like KOTOR or Morrowind, with a few mods added, on my AMD notebook.

They can make more money with Swift. Intel won't be far behind in that race. Right now, AMD doesn't seem to have the engineers to do Bulldozer and Swift both, so AMD is going for realism over hyped "40% better than the competition". That's a welcome change for investors in AMD (I am not one, all my stocks in my 401K and it's not doing well ).

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Be a factboy, not a fanboy. There's not been a recall. They simply delayed releases of the higher clocked cores. Don't act like a spurned lover who's betrayed after being an AMD fanboy vis a vis Netburst. I criticized Netburst but said that C2D would bring Intel prominence again, and I was right. What made me go Athlon X2 were price cuts plus the revelations of Intel's unethical OEM rebates.

You're correct. "Recalled" alone is not accurate. However, there were models in the channel that stop shipped and sent back, Phenoms, not Optys. So "Recalled out of the channel before launch" would be more accurate.

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[rodney_ws]

Many times when you swing for the fence, you strike out.

 

[keithlm]

Bottom line - AMD's FASTEST quad will be slower than Intel's SLOWEST, now, and for the foreseeable future.

People keep claiming that... I guess because they want it to be true so badly.

But just because people say it does not make it true.

Let me correct your statement for you:

Bottom line - AMD's FASTEST currently available quad is slower than Intel's SLOWEST, now, and for the foreseeable future. (But since it has a lower clock... that would be expected.)

Of course the engineering samples of the planned AMD quads show that your original statement is not correct.

But the Phenom 9100e will be a big hit. A budget low power quad that allows each core to be underclocked to use even less power. Did I say BIG HIT? Personally I would like to see a 1.5Ghz-1.6Ghz at 45W.

 

[yomamafor1]

Actually IMO Intel's business practice and ethnic isn't lower than AMD... Most of the "anti-trust" calls from other companies ended up unfounded, or over-exaggerated.

Oh well, I guess whatever float their boats.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

(But since it has a lower clock... that would be expected.)

Dude, get off the clock speed issue, it makes you look VERY unintelligent. Who cares what clock speed it runs at, show me the benchies. And the sad part, is that the Intel parts have double to quadruple or more the headroom of AMD processors for MASSIVE overclocks.

 

[someguy7]

Now we are using Intels old netburst logic to support AMD? Oh the phenoms are clocked lower we should expect them to be slower. WRONG.

With that logic all those prescotts and pent D's should have smoked the AMD's since they where clocked so much higher.

Clock speed only matters when you compare clockspeeds of the same cpu arch. When Intels and AMDs next gen cpus come out they will get compared to each other and the older generations of cpus by what they do clock for clock. They then compare the clockspeeds of intel vs intel and amd vs amd to how well the performance scales with clockspeed increases. Or the amount of cores/cache and so on.

 

[keithlm]

Dude, get off the clock speed issue, it makes you look VERY unintelligent. Who cares what clock speed it runs at, show me the benchies. And the sad part, is that the Intel parts have double to quadruple or more the headroom of AMD processors for MASSIVE overclocks.

Actually the people that look less than intelligent are the ones that keep making blanket statements that have already been proven to not be true.

Since you seem to do that a lot... you do fall into that category.

Oh and I noticed you didn't dispute the actual facts shown in the benchmarks.

(And besides... who cares about massive overclocks anyway. Not all "enthusiasts" care about overclocking. You can tell me that people that don't care about overclocking aren't enthusiasts if you want to... but that won't make it true.)

Which of course comes back to the actual topic of this thread: Who cares about clock speeds anyway? The Phenom 9100e will do very well at a lower clock speed. Guess what: the demographic of people that buy these won't care about overclocking! Go figure! They'll be more interested in saving energy... and the ability to toggle individual cores will be VERY important to them.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

A(And besides... who cares about massive overclocks anyway. Not all "enthusiasts" care about overclocking. You can tell me that people that don't care about overclocking aren't enthusiasts if you want to... but that won't make it true.)

Cake = Intel hands any Phenom its butt on a plate in benchmarks

Icing = Q6600 OCs like a biznatch

Icing on the Cake



Perhaps your "facts" will be better recieved at AMDZone.

 

[keithlm]

Cake = Intel hands any Phenom its butt on a plate in benchmarks

Icing = Q6600 OCs like a biznatch

Icing on the Cake



Perhaps your "facts" will be better recieved at AMDZone.

<yawn>

Uh huh.

1. You mean "any Phenom that is currently available to the public" in some benchmarks. And the quality of benchmarks is debatable.

2. Somebody that cares about overclocking might actually care about that statement.

Since I personally don't care about overclocking... you post really has no meaning.

 

[spongebob]

Guess what: the demographic of people that buy these won't care about overclocking! Go figure! They'll be more interested in saving energy... and the ability to toggle individual cores will be VERY important to them.

Oh really? I don't think energy savings is quite as big a deal as people make it out to be, at least as far as demographics are concerned.

For the average/mainstream user, you're probably talking about a couple of dollars per month. Greenies may be impressed, but by and large that's still a niche market. For those running many machines 24/7 the energy savings might be notable, but this is precisely the type of customer that would be less inclined to want a slower chip, ya think?

And of what practical benefit to the mainstream user is the ability to toggle individual cores?

 

[zenmaster]

The upcoming Phenom 9100 will be the budget king for Quad Core CPU's. It is expected to cost $100-140 and will certainly get many looks from budget system builders who want to sell quads on thee cheap.

Word has it they will overclock from their 1.8Ghz to about 2.6Ghz.

I hear they will sell for $70 and OC to 4.0Ghz w/ Passive Cooling!!!!!

Then again since they will be from old B2 Stepping stock that had a rough time getting to 2.6Ghz on the hand selected Black Editions, some have said these are simply the rejected chips that could not even hit 2.2Ghz.

As a result some speculate they will be lucky to hit 2.0Ghz on an OC.
At such slow speeds, a price of about $125 to compete with the E4500 may be about right.

 

[dario77]

er...i still kinda like my 939 rig...

 

[runswindows95]

If it's cheap enough, it will sell.

 

[endyen]

This is not a question for everyone. If you do not believe it possible that Intel may have done anything ilegal in the EU, Korea, Japan, or the U.S., you can ignore the rest of this post.
We will leave Adobe and quake out of the equasion as well, as they have been getting large Intel "advertizing cheques" for putting Intel's name on thier boxes.
The other "benchmarks" in the standard set these days, is what I'm thinking about then.
Of those, how many do you think Intel visited, before the core2 release, to help optimize for thier coming chip?
I'll start with Winrar, because it was the first beta benchmark I have ever seen get such widespread usage.
How many others do you think got Intel compilers, to help with extra cores? Did some get a chip recognition protocol to help them better utilize the new architecture?
Was it just me, or did all the sites start off with a fairly narrow, oft repeated set of benchmarks?
Why have most of the benchmarks that the AMD chips used to win, gone away?
Does it seem like some benchmarks where the phenom should be getting large gains for it's 128 bit SSE registers, it's just not happening?
Have you also played the same game on bothe an AMD rig, and a similar Intel rig, and felt those massive gains just aren't there?
Part of me wonders how far Intel would go to keep AMD down. After all, we are talking $B here.

 

[yipsl]

You're correct. "Recalled" alone is not accurate. However, there were models in the channel that stop shipped and sent back, Phenoms, not Optys. So "Recalled out of the channel before launch" would be more accurate.

Thank you for correcting me.

Okay, I didn't know that. I do think that if some Phenom's with bad cores got out into the wild instead of being binned as triple cores, they should be recalled. I'm still suspicious about rumors that triple cores will be clocked higher than quad cores. That leads me to believe that it's not just QA but QA plus a stability issue in core 2 (as reported) when overclocked.

Though the wrong software could be at fault, as some have argued, if it's a core that won't clock higher then that explains a faster triple core Phenom when that core's disabled. I don't know much about overclocking software, the last time I overclocked was a Williamette from 1.6 to a stable 1.77 on a Soyo i845 board with old fashioned SDRAM (it worked better for Morrowind than a K62-450, and that AIW Radeon 8500 128 was one fast graphics plus TV card!).

I can see being disappointed in AMD but when the Phenom's work, they work at that price point. Even a Prescott wasn't a POS for all uses, even though it was technologically such a dead end that it was a POS to enthusiasts. Is the Phenom such a dead end? IMHO, it won't be at 45nm with Swift especially.

Did Hypertransport issues force AMD to go native quad core at 65nm? If so, they should have ditched it and waited for 45nm. The Phenom has been as unloved as it's name; which sounds like something a third rate Hollywood press agent would come up with. If I buy one, it will be because I can't forgive Intel right now for their anticompetitive OEM rebate program being investigated on 3 continents.

I'm an enthusiast for social justice and business ethics, and not just the fastest tech out there, though I love the tech. Yes, I try to be green, but living in Texas means I have a high carbon footprint even though I voluntarily don't drive and walk to work and take buses. Using green flourescents instead of incandescent doesn't help when all the coal burning plants are taken into account.

 

[yipsl]

Actually IMO Intel's business practice and ethnic isn't lower than AMD... Most of the "anti-trust" calls from other companies ended up unfounded, or over-exaggerated.

Oh well, I guess whatever float their boats.

I'm not referring to the AMD lawsuit, I'm referring to investigations by the EU, Japan, Korea and the New York AG. The Feds don't want to investigate because they've gutted regulatory agencies for some time and it takes a Tyco or Enron to get their attention, nothing in the way of an old fashioned anticompetitive move like Intel's OEM rebates bothers this administration.

I'm looking forward to either Obama or McCain, though the moderate Republican in me has always voted for McCain in the primaries. Change in the way Washington regulates should be both fair to the consumer and fair to the market. People tend to forget that it was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who pushed regulation and conservation at a time when human selfishness got out of hand. We don't need the New Left to have social justice and the only Marx I've ever been a fan of are the brothers that included "Harpo McMarx" (real life story involving Harpo, google it).

Now we are using Intels old netburst logic to support AMD? Oh the phenoms are clocked lower we should expect them to be slower. WRONG.

With that logic all those prescotts and pent D's should have smoked the AMD's since they where clocked so much higher.

Clock speed only matters when you compare clockspeeds of the same cpu arch. When Intels and AMDs next gen cpus come out they will get compared to each other and the older generations of cpus by what they do clock for clock. They then compare the clockspeeds of intel vs intel and amd vs amd to how well the performance scales with clockspeed increases. Or the amount of cores/cache and so on.

I don't compare Phenom's to Intel. That's because Phenom's are a slight improvement to X2. It's like Northwood's improvement over Williamette. Prescott/Smithfield and Cedar Mill/Pressler were such bad architecture, that Conroe was a world of improvement. Perhaps Nehelem will be as big an improvement. We will see.

I compare Phenom's to X2's, and they are 17% to 25% better core for core, leaving out one possible core issue and a known errata. I expect 45nm to drastically improve Phenom's but not vis a vis Intel. The improvement will be against 65nm Phenom's and the last Athlon X2's.

At any rate, Netburst should not be an argument for anyone. The AMD CPU's were clocked lower and were so much better than Prescott and later Netburst that it was pathetic to see "Dude you got a Dell" commercials when those involved Pentium D's.

Which of course comes back to the actual topic of this thread: Who cares about clock speeds anyway? The Phenom 9100e will do very well at a lower clock speed. Guess what: the demographic of people that buy these won't care about overclocking! Go figure! They'll be more interested in saving energy... and the ability to toggle individual cores will be VERY important to them.

See my original post regarding a 65 watt Phenom 9100 in an HTPC with Bluray and a TV Wonder 650 card. That would be a deal I'd go for. For a gaming PC, I want at least 2.6, and I do not overclock. I am worried about reports of that second core problem, which could explain higher clocked triple cores rumored. A 3.0 triple core would be great, but it would probably be 89 watts in the 65nm generation. 45nm will get energy savings down such that they might all be 65 and 45 watt with decent native clocks.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

<yawn>

Uh huh.

1. You mean "any Phenom that is currently available to the public" in some benchmarks. And the quality of benchmarks is debatable.

2. Somebody that cares about overclocking might actually care about that statement.

Since I personally don't care about overclocking... you post really has no meaning.

Mmmmmm... AMD Kool-Aid...


lmfao "current available to the public". You're hilarious dude, the fact that when you're trying to talk about benchmarks you have to add all these qualifying words and denounce all overclockers. I know overclocking is only done by a small majority, but it's still an important part of the proc. If AMD overclocked well you would be touting their OCing abilities. You're just an AMD defender and fanboy supreme, a BaronMatrix replacement.

Like I said, people might receive your "arguments" better at AMDZone.

 

[cnumartyr]

<yawn>

Uh huh.

1. You mean "any Phenom that is currently available to the public" in some benchmarks. And the quality of benchmarks is debatable.

2. Somebody that cares about overclocking might actually care about that statement.

Since I personally don't care about overclocking... you post really has no meaning.

Intel - Core 2 Faster clock for clock than Phenom.

AMD's 65nm Process? Wait.. do they even have a 3.2 GHz+ K8 Brisbane? SOI on 45nm 1st Gen?

OCablility is added value, if you can't see that... Sorry.

Defend K10 all you want, facts are facts.

You are right, a 3.0 GHz Phenom should beat a 2.4 GHz Q6600. Q6700 will be $300ish on April 20th. Have fun with that.

Show some of those benches that are not of good quality and how K10 beats the Q6600.

 

[batuchka]

I am actually glad that i stumbled on this thread! Now i know i am not the only one feeling how certain forumites would think you are either crazy or idiotic at the mere mention of 'AMD' and 'stock speed'! For me this does not promote mutual respect in these forums nor provide a healthy platform to generate ideas? Some are enthusiasts while some like a poster rightly pointed out are not. Why get so worked up over some small processor guys? I own an Intel rig and plan to nab a B3 9550 + 780G mobo. So far there are offerings by Biostar, Jetway, Gigabye and ECS Back to topic i agree that lappies would be a great avenue for this processor and the HTPC build idea sounds spot on too! Lets hope this offering would open up more options for those on a budget for quad core systems ^^

 

[keithlm]

Mmmmmm... AMD Kool-Aid...


lmfao "current available to the public". You're hilarious dude, the fact that when you're trying to talk about benchmarks you have to add all these qualifying words and denounce all overclockers. I know overclocking is only done by a small majority, but it's still an important part of the proc. If AMD overclocked well you would be touting their OCing abilities. You're just an AMD defender and fanboy supreme, a BaronMatrix replacement.

Like I said, people might receive your "arguments" better at AMDZone.

Speaking of hilarious.

It is very humorous to watch people that can not defend what is actually true... so they fall back on the same old and sorry tactic of trying to reduce the truth to something absurd. (reductio ad absurdum... Ad nauseum )

In the meanwhile the newer Phenom chips will come out and be successful. But we all know that AMD is obviously bringing them out just to make some posters on this forum angry. They will be a complete failure and AMD knows this but they are just doing it because they figure it will be fun. There is no other reason for the new chips. No demographics... nobody will buy them. It is just so sad. I can feel your pain.

I know you'll just cry inside when you see the first laptop with an AMD 9100e.

(Of course a laptop like that will go nicely with the octocore dual head opteron workstation I am thinking about building in about 6 to 8 months. Oh and guess what? I won't be overclocking that machine either!)

 

[speedbird]

I have nothing against Overclocking, but at the same time I understand it could ruin someones system. I have read various threads on different forums about how some newbie is touching settings they know little or nothing about about and then experiencing technical problems. Some beginners will seek help on these forums about how to overclock or from goggling, but not all will. My point being, many on this forum are quick to say 'Buy that CPU it will gain you mega overclocks', but fail to mention the risks.