Anandtech Phenom review is in

[spaztic7]

I believe the rumors about Samsung.

Personally I think Samsung is just sitting back taking it's time watching AMD dig itself in to a deeper and deeper hole. Once the value of the company declines to a certain point they will buy it for a bargain basement price or wait to the point where AMD will have no choice but to be aquired by them whether they want to or not due to financial reasons. Then you will begin to see real progress being made.

Where did all this "Samsung is going to buy them out" stuff came from? Why not IBM, afterall doesn't IBM make most of AMD chips?

 

[xrider]

“AMD Phenom! Great for 99 pct of the people who only use 10 pct of their pc's performance (because it keeps ALL processor prices down), not so great for AMD as profit margins are slashed.”

Peace,

Carod

Good start Carod but I would change it to say, “Buy AMD, great for 99 pct of the people who only use 1 percent of the PC’s CPU performance and 5% of the graphic card performance.

What gets discounted in this subject or simply ignored is that the “masses” is what keeps the lights on at both AMD and Intel. Not only could most of that mass not tell you the real world difference between any AMD or Intel model CPU but most of those so worked up by who’s on first today couldn’t explain the real world difference in English to most purchasers. I’m using an Intel laptop to write this, a Pent M 1.6 produced in 2002. Ancient stuff by the standards of this forum. I use a Pent 4 1.7 (last of the single core steps) at work and my home laptop beats the crap of the work laptop. The reason has nothing to do with the CPU and the work laptop is in fact faster in CPU terms. Likewise my corporation has over 120,000 employees with at least as many PC in use. We are selling off the last 3 year lease group which contains Pent 4 1.8 -2.0 desktop models and the same in laptops. Our current models are all Pent 4 2.2 – 2.6 models. The company purchasing agents can’t spell AMD nor would they understand the difference if I showed them 100 Tom’s Hardware comparisons over the last three years. Thousands of high dollar servers go grossly underutilized for reason not related to the use of the CPU in the systems. I’ve got 8 way servers running 50% utilization 24/7 and it does not matter a bit what CPU model it is and we bought a huge batch of Intel 7120’s Dual Core Netburst this year to replace older single core Netburst from 3 years ago that don’t perform a bit better and are grossly inferior to the 3.0 Ghz AMD Opterons most of you don’t think is competitive. Competitive with what? Speeding up my Internet experience? Games, and all the high end CPU/CACHE/Memory intensive benchmarks don’t represent 1% of the gets done in the market on a good day. When AMD introduced the Opterons in the spring of 2003 and the Athlon 64 in the Fall of 2003, the current Pent 4 easily beat them in such tests as shown on Tom’s hardware. I didn’t buy the Athlon 64s in 2003 because they were faster or better than the top of the line Pent 4s. I bought them because I really don’t want to face the same monopolistic situation I have to deal with at work and at home from Intel as I do with Microsoft and there is no real world performance difference between a comparable (feature set) Intel or AMD based system for 99% of the world’s users. There is a system cost difference that favors AMD and why they have more than their share of the market. I accept that a very small percentage of the market place will never have enough CPU or Graphic card power and currently Intel and Nvidia both thank you for providing the lion’s share of the RD money for their next Top Dog. If you have a “need” to always have the fastest, most powerful what ever so be it. It’s a free country where you can vote with your dollars they way you wish. I do hope you have the wallet for their next creation. I don’t really care who is on first this week, quarter, year, etc. I do care about being able to afford what I have and not be compelled to buy a new system in effect every time Intel comes out with a new Processor/chip set. What ever sins AMD has committed pail by comparison to what Intel has done since 1981.

The thrust of the complaints about AMD seem to say, “I’m pissed they didn’t live up to their claims, they lied, didn’t knock off Intel or give me something faster than a $1000.00 QX9999 Intel rebranded 7300 Server chip. The rest of the world does not care who is on top. There is a huge glut of CPU power out there keeping all the power plants fired up just powering them at 1% use. If you are happy with your choices, be happy. If you aren’t happy maybe you should ask yourself what it is you are really chasing. I’m happy with my choices and when the times come I’ll replace what I have and be happy again. Neither Intel or AMD drive me or my happiness.

Peace,

Carod"

Useing your logic why get an hdtv or a whirlpool washer dryer when you can still watch tv on an anolog system and you can wash your cloths in a sink with water. the answer is progress man and women always want to move ahead not stand still. why get that nice new car when you can take the bus anywhere. I do agree with most people do not use there computer system do its fullest potential. but one of these day the web will go 3d and there will be more to computing than just useing microsoft word and emailing.Look at your computer today this same computer would take up a whole office 20 years ago. So what I'm saying is don't hate progress welcome it

my 2 cents pease

 

[spongebob]

I believe the rumors about Samsung.

Personally I think Samsung is just sitting back taking it's time watching AMD dig itself in to a deeper and deeper hole. Once the value of the company declines to a certain point they will buy it for a bargain basement price or wait to the point where AMD will have no choice but to be aquired by them whether they want to or not due to financial reasons. Then you will begin to see real progress being made.

Just speculation here - any company scooping up AMD would walk away with piles of valuable IP but probably not the ability to produce x86 products – I suspect change-of-control clauses will invalidate agreements with AMD. Meaning a said purchaser would have to create a new platform or negotiate with Intel.

Progress may come, but it would be born of chaos.

 

[onestar]

So we are all dissapointed with AMD's latest offering. I, for one, will keep in mind the unlocked Phenom as the prices decrease. For now, my AM2 will keep on chugging with it's sub $90 processor chugging along @ 2.8.

 

[Thom457]

I think you miss the larger point. I’ve been moving ahead in the IT field for 35 years and I started out on stuff you’ve never seen. I was trying to get the most out of stuff with 16 KB of memory before most that read this blog were able to say Dad-da. I’m in the Progress business up to my neck. I’ve been dealing with Intel, Microsoft since 1981 and later on AMD and all the others that have come (and gone). The same story has repeated several times since I got into this business. Same game, different players.

With age will come wisdom so that is not my job or purpose here. My problem with most BLOGs (pick a subject) is that most comments boil down to this format, “Mine is bigger than yours; Mine is better than yours; You are stupid and I am superior” Some variation of that is almost always found when you start making judgment calls about other people’s choices. We all have wants, needs and obsessions. We are all human and have weaknesses. If anyone has not experienced this in their lifetime, it has to be real rare.

I’ll illustrate my main point with real world stuff where people’s poor decisions have impact and consequence on people’s lives. My Data Center is typical. It has about 400 X86 Servers, all Intel based, all Netburst based. We lease everything for 3 years at a time. We bought several 7120 Xeons replacements this year which we will still have in 2010. The AC system has already had to be upgraded once to handle the heat output of all these Netburst Xeons. They run hot and consume lots of electrical power even when at idle. The newer 5xxx series consume a lot more power than is typically shown on Tom’s Hardware because their special memory uses more power. Matters with 32-64 Gig in a Server, is moot in a Desktop. Like Intel, my corporation has been laying off people to save money elsewhere. They tried to put limits on new servers to save operating cost of said equipment. We’ve bought the same CPU power (per CPU) over the last three years because Intel could not deliver faster SMP 4 way and above Servers. We are not CPU bound and I doubt you will find many Data Centers that are. We could have started three years ago buying lower power Server with more powerful CPUs that would have let us reduce the number of servers in total and not have to upgrade the AC for a 20,000 sq feet building. We might not have had to lay off people and been able to invest the savings into enhancing those people’s skills. All the money on the left side of the equation comes from the same place and it is always “scarce” in economic terms. There are limits. Intel makes a killing off of people who blindly make decisions based on the same theme as I see in the BLOGs, “mine is better than yours”. The corporation has 10 Data Centers, 10,000 Servers easily, none will beat a 2.6 Ghz Opteron set up. Intel’s 73xx series is the first advancement they’ve been able to offer SMP 4 way Servers in 3 years. They are clearly superior in raw CPU performance to the AMD Quads at this point in time. Never the less, we have the 73xx series Intels now because AMD, 1/10th the size of Intel did their homework, took a risk and wasn’t rewarded by people in positions of power throughout the industry and high end PC market because of FUD. I’ve seen this a few times in my career. The good guy does not always win nor the best product. I strongly suspect that most Intel fans are mad at AMD the most simply because they don’t see AMD chasing Intel into the high end where cost and efficiencies are very high and they know that will ultimately mean high prices for Intel based systems in that range. You bet. Whether AMD chooses to or can’t chase that loss leader is moot but this is one of the downsides of not rewarding the risk takers for their effort.

If you need a QX9770 (or overclocked equivalent), two Nvidia 8800 GTX (OC+) in SLI to play a $50.00 game then that is what you need I guess but I look upon something that requires that much power and cost as something to maybe stay away from (the game I mean). I’ve written code for 35 years and that kind of does not smell right to me. To most reading this, such a system is progress. To me it is an obsession with no end in sight but life usually shortens the path as other things become more important. It is not judgmental with me. To each his own but when you (generically speaking, not you specifically) start dumping on other people who don’t follow you down that same path then it becomes something else and anything positive that the BLOG could provide goes out the window. Happens a lot in our anonymous Blog world. A handful always dominate with “mine is bigger than yours” or something like that.

Intel has promised those who favor the Intel products a new CPU type, Chipset, Motherboard every year as far out as they feel people will pay for it. All you have to do is make the investment. As for buying a washing machine with the money saved, my 18 year old Sears Heavy duty is doing just fine. Every now and then I go look at a replacement or even one of the new fancy ones and decide a washing machine is a washing machine and all things in due time.

Just think about where aren’t going with all the money you spend on the top end stuff every year or so. In time you’ll have a better appreciation for what I’m saying. If it were free, I’d have a 2P system with 2 QX9770, 4 8800 GTX in SLI if someone would build it but then I realize there will be something better the next year, the year after that, the decade after that… That’s the point Xrider. Enjoy it, don’t obsess over it.

Take care.

 

[onestar]

Valid points raised in Thom457's post, there are.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Thom457, please stick around and post. You make some really great points and you have a lot of knowledge and experience that a lot of us don't(especially me)!

 

[Harrisson]

Very nice posts Thom457, just suggestion - make your posts shorter, or simply brake into different posts according to subject. Walls of texts isnt the best choice if you would like your thoughts to be read. Still I like your style and keep posting

 

[albundy2]

Valid points raised in Thom457's post, there are.

Thom457, please stick around and post. You make some really great points and you have a lot of knowledge and experience that a lot of us don't(especially me)!

Very nice posts Thom457, I like your style and keep posting

agreed

 

[Phenium 4 FX]

We have new JJack now??

 

[rwayne]

To answer Spaztic7's question:

Where did all this "Samsung is going to buy them out" stuff came from? Why not IBM, afterall doesn't IBM make most of AMD chips?

Here are some of my sources:

Samsung may be eyeing up AMD

So it is with the greatest diffidence that I pass on the two rumours I've heard - one that Samsung may snap up AMD

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/07/16/samsung-may-be-eyeing-up-amd


Analysis: AMD's technology opiate

In another version, they could also continue on as they have and bleed (cash) to death. After going belly-up, a company like IBM or Samsung would come in. They'd pick up AMD for a song, take their advanced IP and begin moving forward with real R&D and manufacturing resources. In my opinion, this would be the best thing that could happen to AMD.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33122/137/

If either Samsung or IBM bought out AMD I think would be a good thing for them. I am all for it.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

If a wild pack of baboons came in and bought AMD it would be a good thing for them.

 

[elbert]

$266 Q9300 and $316 Q9450 to be precise... street prices will probably be a little higher of course.

These are going to lay a real smackdown on AMD, as if the current situation is not bad enough.

AMD will need to price their 2.6GHz FX @ $250 to compete, and their 2.2GHz quad at $200...

Hold on if I can get 2 2.6GHz FX on the 4X4 at $500 with 8 cores that should beat any Intel. I don't see how even Intel's top CPU would have a chance give that price disadvantage. Do understand come January its not 2 dual cores against a C2Q. Even given the low showing of Phenom its right up to the low end C2Q's performance so unless Intel can bring an affordable dual socket mobo for C2Q's its going to be AMD month come January. If its a 4X4 spider mobo even many games will give AMD a major boost.

Maybe you meant black Edition? I have seen nothing to ensure an FX version Phenom for the AM2+.

In the 2 reviews did crysis under Phenom get a big performance boost on the Anandtech reveiw? The AnandTech review had the Phenom at 2.3GHz beating Q6600 in Crysis but the Enthusiast shows the 2.3GHz Phenom getting beat by a small amount. I would think that the DDR3 memory is causing the Intel system to suffer a bit here.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Hold on if I can get 2 2.6GHz FX on the 4X4 at $500 with 8 cores that should beat any Intel.

I just don't see the need for 8 cores from either company. Let software catch up with 4 cores. Anyone who needs eight cores probably isn't in the consumer arena. Business get server level hardware, not consumer wannabe stuff.

 

[elbert]

I just don't see the need for 8 cores from either company. Let software catch up with 4 cores. Anyone who needs eight cores probably isn't in the consumer arena. Business get server level hardware, not consumer wannabe stuff.

I would agree but at that price ill get 1 and upgrade later to 2. Software is already using 4 cores and I like running more than 1 program at a time. That being said if you get 4 GPU's the drivers may get a big boost from 4 free cores.

I would guess playing crysis and its server for multiplayer at the same time would use more than 4 cores. My video editing and photoshop can always use the extra cores.

 

[boner]

OUCH!!!!!

 

[Mathos]

I'm not going to quote anyone on this thread, I've read through most of the pages. There are some good points, and quite a few bad points, also a lot of Fud.

I work in retail for the time being, I work at Wally world after all, lets just say black friday sucked... I kinda get a chuckle when I read on forums here and other places how AMD's processors are the suck or the phenom is a huge failure. They aren't really, they did manage to close the performance gap by a quite a bit. Which when it comes down to it, is an improvement over their old k8 architecture. It's definitely not a c2d or penryn killer though, like us fanbois hoped it would be . I also agree that AMD is screwing the pooch right now, with all its delaying and such, their being in the red probably doesn't help.

But here's what it comes down to. AMD's real biggest issue with making money, is lack of mainstream advertising. They haven't gone out of their way to get their name into the average household. Where as Intel has spent money to advertise almost every one of their processor lines since back in the Pentium Intel Inside days. The only places you see Ads for AMD are in gaming or computer magazines, or online rarely. Average Joe consumer doesn't usually read or buy computer tech mags or gaming mags, and gets most of their info by word of mouth or TV. Then they walk into Walmart, Best Buy, Circuit City, or any other computer retailer and say I want the one I heard about on TV. Or most of the time they just tell you I want a computer I can do these things with. Most real world, mainstream consumers don't give 2 **** about the technology, or whether this processor here outperforms this other one in a benchmark they've never seen or heard of. But after that, ultimately price is what dictates whether or not they'll buy a computer. Working at Walmart, I can tell you that, most people end up being a low end computer around 4 or 500 hundred dollars. And you know what kind of processor these usually have? AMD Sempron 3800+ or Intel Celerons. But, thats in an area like the one where I work. You get into the higher technology area's like Dallas, New York, Detroit, or LA for example, and you'll see people start to buy More Athlon X2's or Pentium Dual cores, and even possibly the more mainstream C2d's. People on these forums need to realize that us fanboy's and computer geeks/Enthusiasts that are well informed actually account for a fairly small percentage of processor sales. Especially when it comes to low end or mainstream parts. Though, we're the main supporters of the enthusiast level parts.

Back to the real argument here, working retail I can tell you it's common practice for any retailer, online or Brick and Mortar, to charge a fair site more than the MSRP of a product for the first week or two after it comes out. Some places do so for far longer than others. Right now, NewEgg is charging $279.99 for the Core2 quad q6600, which is right about where Intel has it's current MSRP at. TigerDirect.ca is charging $353 for the retail part. These are prices I just grabbed while posting. NewEgg is currently charging $259.99 for the Phenom 9500, but I expect that to drop closer to what it should be within a couple weeks, as right now it's too close to the Q6600 without performing as good as it needs to. And to add a further Note, the Core2Quad q6700 is still at $539.99 on NewEgg.com.

I see a lot of people going, but you have to compare the 9500 to the q6600 since they're the low end parts. To that I say, no you don't They 9500 is a 2.2Ghz proc where as the q6600 is a 2.4Ghz proc. You compare the 9700 to the Q6600 to get proper clock for clock numbers. Also, the q6600 is not Intel's low end quad, it's their mainstream quad for the time being. Just as the 9500, 9600, and 9700 are more or less AMD's current mainstream quad core parts. You have to compare the Phenom FX to the Extreme procs for a proper comparison, on the enthusiast level. I honest to god wish that Tomshardware and others that use similar charts would remove the enthusiast level procs from the main charts and put them on a chart specifically for enthusiast platforms. They're enthusiast for a reason, we know they peform better, and for the extra high price I'd damn well expect them to be able to outperform anything that cost less, thats a given. If you do that you see that AMD's even current generation of procs aren't as bad off as you might be lead to believe. They don't hold the performance crown anymore, that I'll give ya. But, I've watched that flip flop back and forth for a looong time.

We all know what is causing the higher power usage on the Phenom, and that would be current leakage. I doubt they'll be able to pull past 2.5 or 2.6 with any head room on the current Phenom build regardless of stepping. Intel was correct on the native quad on 65nm process thing. And there is no way in hell it will make it to 45nm, without huge losses in die output. The only way they're going to be able to fix the phenom is to A.) Give up Silicon on insulater technology, and implement their HiK Germanium gate, and then use that to implement the die shrink to 45nm. At the very least they'll need to switch to what ever version of High K they plan on using soonish. Or they're gonna be in a lot more trouble than they are now.

Lost my train of thought, and decided this post was getting to long, so I'll cut off here for the time being.

 

[onestar]

Welcome to capitalism 101.

 

[Thom457]

To those that thought I added some value thanks a bunch. Positive feed back is rare. I’ll make this shorter.

I’m a professional Software engineer by trade, 28 years on mainframe, the rest on Client PC stuff. Back when I got into PCs, say around early 1980s, the Apple II and Commodore 64 were the standard 6502 based home PCs. My watch is more powerful. My game back then (and now) was Flight Simulator (before MS bought into it). I’ve had every version of FS since except FS X 2007. Any guesses why I haven’t got that version? The benchmarks I’ve seen for FS X 2007 makes Crysis’s benchmarks look pretty good by comparison. In fact it would be difficult to buy enough hardware to run the new version full out with all the options and capabilities set to max. I A.S.S.U.M.E that MS put Vista’s Aero engine inside or something worse. Either way, the current FS has a lot to be desired in terms of visual smoothness, etc. As a professional, my gut feeling is that the project got out of scope and was pushed out the door in order to help pay for its development cost. Not the first time I’ve seen that.

The 6502 8 bit CPU ran at 2 Mhz and the screen was mapped at 320 x 200 with 8 bit color depth. Do the math on a QX9xxx and a couple of 8800 GTXs for pixel manipulations as compared to the original version of FS. Some times the software is the problem, not the hardware.

A company named Matrox used to be top dog in video cards, particularly 2D image quality. They were one of the first to put their finger in the 3D market and established what is now the floor for 3D smoothness, 30 fps. If it won’t play at 30 FPS at a nominal res and color depth with a single mid line 3D cards, it is probably something to avoid. It is bad business to try to sell software that requires more hardware than most people bought in the last two-three years. These top games price themselves out of the mainstream market often times and by the time hardware catches up with the software no one plays or buys it any more. Its fine to have the extra’s require more hardware performance for those that want to spend money on that but some reasonable level of performance should exist down where ASP (average selling price) is. The more people that buy and enjoy the game the more successful it will be long term and everybody wins that way. Some of the top titles in the gaming arena may not be around or have follow ups because it takes a super computer to get adequate performance out of them.

Make sense? Sometimes it would be better served to rage on the game company rather than the hardware guys. CFP (Crap for Performance) software exists. I know.

Thom

 

[BigsmellyFart]

I hate Intel for their FUD back in the dark days of sub 1GHz chips. I'll never let them or you live down how they SABOTAGED the Opteron launch and undercut the market by charging $183 for a chip that was as fast as some of the former high end P4s.
Thats my opinion on the matter and it can be as fanboy as you like, that won't change the facts. Intel knew what would happen; that AMD would have to lower prices and lose money thereby causing issues with the new design.

I couldn't help but chime in. Baron is dead on about Intel's constant chipset changes and shady dealings. The Dell scandal to name just one. The market will dictate pricing but it doesn't justify Intel's constant changing chipsets.

the only problem is for price you talk about the penryn when in reality these chip only match up to the old intel Quads. and also my 1year old nvida board will let me drop a penryn cpu in it. It's crazy how people cherry pick information. My 775 based mobo will run a penryn chip just like phenom will run on older AMD boards.

Wow, Intel manages to keep a board alive for a WHOLE year! My system is a Shuttle 939 SN95G5. I'd say it is almost three years old now (roundabouts). My 3800+ Toledo with E6 stepping runs @ 2.6ghz UNDERVOLTED(1.25v)! The X2 only cost me 50 bucks as well. Three years and it is still fast as all get out.

When I purchased this system no one had dual core CPU's. Not to forget the socket 478 (what Intel was pimping at the time) is still bone dry...

Sure you can drop an Intel Quad into some of the older boards, but there are performance penalties. And don't forget it is the board (bios) manufactures that provide the bios updates to make this possible. I'm sure if Intel had a say in it it wouldn't be possible.

I guess my point is when AMD announced the 939 socket they also said that it would support next generation dualcore CPU's. Where as Intel made the switch to socket 775 not because of any next generation CPU's (Prescott's ran the same with either socket)but to force upgrades and make mobo manufacture's eat RMA costs.

 

[OOOwatah]

I'm not professing to be as involved or as informed as you guys, but what's stopping AMD from taking their native quad core Phenom and and making an Intel Style octo-core processor?

I think the trick at this point is to do what they are doing. Kick out a decent (not a new King of all) processor, get it running good and stable for a bargain bin price until they can get their tech to the point to where they can "stack" the cores and beat people to death with it.

Seriously, the price alone is good enough reason to buy one. I'm upgrading soon and I love the prospect of getting a nice core for a non-ball breaking price.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Wow this one has gone on for a while. All I can say is that Toms may not have used a AM2+ board with a 790xx chipset due to availability. Even to this day there are only 2 at newegg. But what Toms did was what everyday users would do. AMD boasts about being able to throw a Phenom into a AM2 board but what good is it if it doesn't perform better?

Toms basically tested the Phenom as a normal user would. Not every AMD user is going to go out and buy a new AM2+ board for a Phenom that even with the 790xx chipset doesn't keep up with a Q6600.

As for MrsBych or whatever your name is stop it. You are making people question it when you are wrong. There are P965(2+ year old chipset) that can and will support the Penryns with no problems. The3 series is for those who want certain features depending on the PC they build/have. I am pretty sure that a P35/X38 will be able to support a QX9770 it just wont be an official support.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Intel's constant changing chipsets.

AMD does have an advantage here. Their best socket was either Socket A or 939. AM2 didn't last that long. AMD does make people upgrade mobos a lot.

However, the vast, vast, overwhelming number of computers made in this world will never see a new processor but will instead reach the dumpster first.

 

[MarkG]

I think the trick at this point is to do what they are doing. Kick out a decent (not a new King of all) processor, get it running good and stable for a bargain bin price until they can get their tech to the point to where they can "stack" the cores and beat people to death with it.

How do you fund R&D by selling chips at a 'bargain bin price'? I think you can bet that AMD didn't make those chips with a 'bargain bin' R&D team; I'm sure they need to sell at a decent price to cover their costs, let alone pay for the next generation.

 

[elbert]

Wow this one has gone on for a while. All I can say is that Toms may not have used a AM2+ board with a 790xx chipset due to availability. Even to this day there are only 2 at newegg. But what Toms did was what everyday users would do. AMD boasts about being able to throw a Phenom into a AM2 board but what good is it if it doesn't perform better?

Toms basically tested the Phenom as a normal user would. Not every AMD user is going to go out and buy a new AM2+ board for a Phenom that even with the 790xx chipset doesn't keep up with a Q6600.

As for MrsBych or whatever your name is stop it. You are making people question it when you are wrong. There are P965(2+ year old chipset) that can and will support the Penryns with no problems. The3 series is for those who want certain features depending on the PC they build/have. I am pretty sure that a P35/X38 will be able to support a QX9770 it just wont be an official support.

I would agree but AMD only promised drop in compatibility not same performance. They stated that high versions would see bottlenecks on the old AM2. Don't forget the 4 way GPU on the 790 could mean more gaming performance than anything you could get on Intel. 4 3870's would beat any SLI performance wise and not a CPU on the market could make up that difference.