Eventually AMD will catch up, that's because much of the technology that makes Intel worth it today came from AMD. What AMD did was sit on it's tucchus for two years while Intel used questionable business agreements to force 31 pipeline Netburst on the clueless masses.
I went with an ATI X200 LGA 775 ASUS P5RD board and a P4 630 because I expected to be able to slap a C2D in when they arrived. Sadly, I could not. So, I went AMD instead. Intel has let everyone down from the Williamette to the Pentium D and only is on top because they finally went back to the drawing board and designed a good CPU.
I guess it's the Intel fanbois who want to forget about Netburst as if it didn't happen and who want to see AMD back in the K6 days vis a vis Intel? Well, that might happen. AMD has made mistakes in business, but they haven't made mistakes in designing CPUs. They simply don't have the cash or fab capacity that Intel has, so I don't expect them to be anymore than about 25% of the market at best.
When Intel comes out with their own HT and their own GPU on the CPU, then I guess it will be another coup for the fans of Intel who just never ask themselves who came up with, or imagined the concept first?
I'd rather stay midrange and go AMD, at least until AMD is solvent again and when Intel finally behaves itself in the marketplace. I'd hate to see the world of CPUs with a Microsoft style monopoly.
TC any reason why you have to take the piss in all of your posts?
All I seem to read is blah blah Intel are great, blah blah AMD are ****, their chipset/CPU/GPU's are **** their performance is crappy.
Anyhow further to my above post near the top fo the page, surely when it comes to AMD going to 45nm then they will be quicker at getting higher yield products than Intel when they move to Nehalem (which is native quad 45nm, correct me if I'm mistaken) which may give AMD a longer term benefit in going native quad on 65.
Surely they can iron out any teething problems with the native quad on 65nm and have an impressive product with high(er) yields than Intel can make with a native 45nm quad.
At least, thats my view on it, they'll have the experience and surely they'd use it all to take back some of the high-end market stuff.
All I seem to read is blah blah Intel are great, blah blah AMD are ****, their chipset/CPU/GPU's are **** their performance is crappy.
Anyhow further to my above post near the top fo the page, surely when it comes to AMD going to 45nm then they will be quicker at getting higher yield products than Intel when they move to Nehalem (which is native quad 45nm, correct me if I'm mistaken) which may give AMD a longer term benefit in going native quad on 65.
Surely they can iron out any teething problems with the native quad on 65nm and have an impressive product with high(er) yields than Intel can make with a native 45nm quad.
At least, thats my view on it, they'll have the experience and surely they'd use it all to take back some of the high-end market stuff.
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
For Baron
You know, that is an interesting question, and it never occured to me to ask. Sadly, based on past history, I already know the response...and yes Baron, before you start your "You dont know me..." I do know you...all to well.
So Baron...you Hate Intel for the FUD....the lies. But AMD has been telling their own tall tales for over a full year now. So, how is it you still support them? Unless you are a paid shill, then they've shown you the same smoke and mirrors as everyone else, and you've bought the view hook line and sinker, up to the point of making endless excuses for them, changing tactics, evading engagements....the standard tactics....you remember...the tangential segue etc.
Phenom does not fulfill the claims, not by any stretch of the imagination, nor by any twisting of of the data. This was not fanboy hype, as with Brisbane and AM2. AMD made the claims and failed...and please refrain from making more excuses. At this point, any excuses you make for AMD demonstrate one or both of 2 things: Guilibility and/or stuborn refusal to admit you are wrong...that you have been suckered by the clever AMD paint job hiding the bondo.
So if you hate Intel for FUD, i.e. lies, then now, after a year of BS, i.e lies, is it safe to assume you will hate AMD as well? Of course not. Either you are a shill and will continue to 'support' AMD to get your checks or you will continue to buy the BS. But Baron, your co-fanboys are waking up from the marketing induced delusions, and begining to see that who manufactured the product doesnt matter...performance, value and truth in advertising do...not misplaced loyalties.
I have great respect for what AMD has accomplished and their products, but lying for AMD, making excuses, and covering for them does not solve their problems. You, nor the rest of the fanboys cannot legitimately claim (though you do try) that Intel was keeping AMD 'out of the market' with illegal tactics in one breath, then tout AMDs success in claiming nearly 30% of the market in the next....the logic....it doesnt work you see..."Intel is Evil, they are crushing AMD by keeping them out of the market, but look at AMD go, they've almost acheived 30% of the market with less than 1/4 of the fabs and a contract manufacturer" AMD can't be both held out of the market yet achieve 30% of the market. K8 could not be held back by Intel, and it was not. It suceeded spectacularly. But, inevitably, it was superceded...and the result was the loss of market share. AMD worked to reclaim the lost market share, but they did so with the very same product that lost it, not with a new product. To attempt this, they had only one option--lowering ASPs and sacrificing margins, which caused the money problems they are having now. So, if your claim is that Intel caused AMDs current problems then you are correct, Intel did do so...by releasing a superior product. But that is not your claim. Your claim is that Intel caused AMDs problems by 'devaluing' the market, i.e by undercutting AMD. Not rue Baron, not by any stretch. AMD had the market momentum when C2D was released, and had C2D been unable to exceed K8s performance, the market would not have shifted regardless of how cheaply C2D was priced because the market would have seen C2D for what it would have been...another netburst. And the irony of your argument is that you blame Intel for AMDs situation because it released something better than the very crapburst you continually lament so vehemently against. Well, as Goldmember said "...then there is no pleasing you"
Both AMDs failures and success's rest on their own shoulders. They needed to produce a platform...but they could have entered into an agreement much more cheaply with ATI rather than purchasing them outright. AMD spent that money on the purchase, not Intel... money which could have been used to speed the development of K10. They could have skipped 4x4, and directed those funds to K10 R&D, but they didnt. They felt a need to try and save face, but 4x4 failed, and not only did AMD lose face, but they lost the funds invested in the developement of 4x4....funds they could have used to speed the succesfull developement of K10. They could have skipped the paid trips to Tahoe, and Tunisia, and the expensive Henri Richard 3 ring media circus, but they didnt....more money that ultimately changed nothing but could have helped K10. Intel did not make AMD do any of those things....AMD did. And while they were misdirecting those funds, Henri Richards team did one thing, and only one thing succesfully...they misdirected a bunch of fanboys. But not the market...the market told the same tale it told during netburst....value and/or performance sells, not BS.
Much as I hate to do this: "The circle is now complete. When AMD left Intel (literally, as you well know) AMD was but the learner; now AMD is the Master......but only a master of evil' The roles have reversed, and in its way, Phenom will become AMDs netburst...looked great on paper, but didnt live up to expectations. But go right ahead and continue to make excuses for AMD while evading the facts.
You know, that is an interesting question, and it never occured to me to ask. Sadly, based on past history, I already know the response...and yes Baron, before you start your "You dont know me..." I do know you...all to well.
So Baron...you Hate Intel for the FUD....the lies. But AMD has been telling their own tall tales for over a full year now. So, how is it you still support them? Unless you are a paid shill, then they've shown you the same smoke and mirrors as everyone else, and you've bought the view hook line and sinker, up to the point of making endless excuses for them, changing tactics, evading engagements....the standard tactics....you remember...the tangential segue etc.
Phenom does not fulfill the claims, not by any stretch of the imagination, nor by any twisting of of the data. This was not fanboy hype, as with Brisbane and AM2. AMD made the claims and failed...and please refrain from making more excuses. At this point, any excuses you make for AMD demonstrate one or both of 2 things: Guilibility and/or stuborn refusal to admit you are wrong...that you have been suckered by the clever AMD paint job hiding the bondo.
So if you hate Intel for FUD, i.e. lies, then now, after a year of BS, i.e lies, is it safe to assume you will hate AMD as well? Of course not. Either you are a shill and will continue to 'support' AMD to get your checks or you will continue to buy the BS. But Baron, your co-fanboys are waking up from the marketing induced delusions, and begining to see that who manufactured the product doesnt matter...performance, value and truth in advertising do...not misplaced loyalties.
I have great respect for what AMD has accomplished and their products, but lying for AMD, making excuses, and covering for them does not solve their problems. You, nor the rest of the fanboys cannot legitimately claim (though you do try) that Intel was keeping AMD 'out of the market' with illegal tactics in one breath, then tout AMDs success in claiming nearly 30% of the market in the next....the logic....it doesnt work you see..."Intel is Evil, they are crushing AMD by keeping them out of the market, but look at AMD go, they've almost acheived 30% of the market with less than 1/4 of the fabs and a contract manufacturer" AMD can't be both held out of the market yet achieve 30% of the market. K8 could not be held back by Intel, and it was not. It suceeded spectacularly. But, inevitably, it was superceded...and the result was the loss of market share. AMD worked to reclaim the lost market share, but they did so with the very same product that lost it, not with a new product. To attempt this, they had only one option--lowering ASPs and sacrificing margins, which caused the money problems they are having now. So, if your claim is that Intel caused AMDs current problems then you are correct, Intel did do so...by releasing a superior product. But that is not your claim. Your claim is that Intel caused AMDs problems by 'devaluing' the market, i.e by undercutting AMD. Not rue Baron, not by any stretch. AMD had the market momentum when C2D was released, and had C2D been unable to exceed K8s performance, the market would not have shifted regardless of how cheaply C2D was priced because the market would have seen C2D for what it would have been...another netburst. And the irony of your argument is that you blame Intel for AMDs situation because it released something better than the very crapburst you continually lament so vehemently against. Well, as Goldmember said "...then there is no pleasing you"
Both AMDs failures and success's rest on their own shoulders. They needed to produce a platform...but they could have entered into an agreement much more cheaply with ATI rather than purchasing them outright. AMD spent that money on the purchase, not Intel... money which could have been used to speed the development of K10. They could have skipped 4x4, and directed those funds to K10 R&D, but they didnt. They felt a need to try and save face, but 4x4 failed, and not only did AMD lose face, but they lost the funds invested in the developement of 4x4....funds they could have used to speed the succesfull developement of K10. They could have skipped the paid trips to Tahoe, and Tunisia, and the expensive Henri Richard 3 ring media circus, but they didnt....more money that ultimately changed nothing but could have helped K10. Intel did not make AMD do any of those things....AMD did. And while they were misdirecting those funds, Henri Richards team did one thing, and only one thing succesfully...they misdirected a bunch of fanboys. But not the market...the market told the same tale it told during netburst....value and/or performance sells, not BS.
Much as I hate to do this: "The circle is now complete. When AMD left Intel (literally, as you well know) AMD was but the learner; now AMD is the Master......but only a master of evil' The roles have reversed, and in its way, Phenom will become AMDs netburst...looked great on paper, but didnt live up to expectations. But go right ahead and continue to make excuses for AMD while evading the facts.
mitch074
Splendid
- Mar 17, 2006
- 3,010
- 577
- 22,040
I see lots of bashing going around. I would like to point out a few things though:
- due to L3 cache, AMD processors shouldn't be as sensitive to RAM latency; as such, DDR2 or DDR3 will have less impact than it was the case for K8. I think tests done on AM2 platforms reflected that somewhat.
- most recent power saving features are still not supported by any BIOS; as such, benching those is a bit senseless because they don't work - it's 'too new'.
- although Intel's Q6600 came out last year, it is, indeed, not a 'native' quad core. In some (admitedly very limited) cases, performance will take a hit - mostly with games. But then, considering current consoles, I wonder why one would spend thousands of bucks on a system that can do only marginally better than a system that costs less than a thousand smackers.
- most current games are compiled with graphics optimizations, and on either Microsoft or Intel compilers. AMD doesn't provide a compiler, but does provide optimized arithmetic libraries. As such, AMD processors usually need a longer complex instruction decompiling before they can process Intel-optimized code (this situation is similar to P3 vs. K7 in the 'old days') - a 'fairer' test should be done comparing an application compiled for Intel running on Intel hardware, and the same application compiled for AMD running on AMD hardware. The SSE4 situation seems to indicate that - and as said previously, due to AMD's ease of replacing a chip, you have Opteron servers all around the place that can get a quad dropped in - with its new libray and optimized code. It is, unfortunately, irrelevant to most benchmarks run these days - but then, you won't care about those benches if you're trying to render Lucasfilms' latest movie on a CPU farm ranging in the thousands, you'll care about how long a node needs to be down to be upgraded, and how much it costs.
- the errata that delayed Q9700 is not something new in the CPU market, but might indicate that further chip revisions will be 'unlocked' - and Tom's O/C tests seem to indicate that AMD's quads can scale up in frequency quite well. Supplemented with the platform's ability to throttle down HT speed on low power modes, you get a system that runs damn cool when idle (90% of the time) and gets not too shabby when tasked.
- I have yet to see a bench done on 64-bit systems, an area where the K8 didn't get such a severe trouncing, and the K10's improvements should appear too. Interestingly enough, considering previous benches done and current K8 to K10 benches, we may yet get clock for clock performance parity.
- due to L3 cache, AMD processors shouldn't be as sensitive to RAM latency; as such, DDR2 or DDR3 will have less impact than it was the case for K8. I think tests done on AM2 platforms reflected that somewhat.
- most recent power saving features are still not supported by any BIOS; as such, benching those is a bit senseless because they don't work - it's 'too new'.
- although Intel's Q6600 came out last year, it is, indeed, not a 'native' quad core. In some (admitedly very limited) cases, performance will take a hit - mostly with games. But then, considering current consoles, I wonder why one would spend thousands of bucks on a system that can do only marginally better than a system that costs less than a thousand smackers.
- most current games are compiled with graphics optimizations, and on either Microsoft or Intel compilers. AMD doesn't provide a compiler, but does provide optimized arithmetic libraries. As such, AMD processors usually need a longer complex instruction decompiling before they can process Intel-optimized code (this situation is similar to P3 vs. K7 in the 'old days') - a 'fairer' test should be done comparing an application compiled for Intel running on Intel hardware, and the same application compiled for AMD running on AMD hardware. The SSE4 situation seems to indicate that - and as said previously, due to AMD's ease of replacing a chip, you have Opteron servers all around the place that can get a quad dropped in - with its new libray and optimized code. It is, unfortunately, irrelevant to most benchmarks run these days - but then, you won't care about those benches if you're trying to render Lucasfilms' latest movie on a CPU farm ranging in the thousands, you'll care about how long a node needs to be down to be upgraded, and how much it costs.
- the errata that delayed Q9700 is not something new in the CPU market, but might indicate that further chip revisions will be 'unlocked' - and Tom's O/C tests seem to indicate that AMD's quads can scale up in frequency quite well. Supplemented with the platform's ability to throttle down HT speed on low power modes, you get a system that runs damn cool when idle (90% of the time) and gets not too shabby when tasked.
- I have yet to see a bench done on 64-bit systems, an area where the K8 didn't get such a severe trouncing, and the K10's improvements should appear too. Interestingly enough, considering previous benches done and current K8 to K10 benches, we may yet get clock for clock performance parity.
yomamafor1
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2007
- 2,462
- 1
- 19,790
Very nice Turpit, but to be honest, I really don't think Baron will take any of these words seriously. As you, and other forum members who has spent the last 3 years on THGF, know Baron all too well.
I think the numbers and the facts speak for themselves. AMD took a shot at the moon, but instead, they land themselves in a toilet. To be honest, the phrase "colossal failure" is a pretty accurate description of what Phenom has become.
Baron, I've been saying this from day 1, and I won't stop saying it until you get it: you don't know jack about processor architecture, and manufacturing. My suggestion: Stop taking a small segment out of a report, and interpret it however you like.
Baron's next arguments:
1. Benchmark not optimized.
2. L3 cache TLB fix will yield 20%~30% performance.
3. B3 stepping will allow Phenom to go up to 3.4Ghz.
4. Its already been demonstrated that Phenom can run up to 4.0Ghz in lab.
5. Intel should be punished for devaluing the market.
6. Intel should be punished for overcharging, and rip off its customers.
7. I am a hater of monopoly, not a specific company.
8. I was traumatized when discovered how Intel's Pentium 3 1Ghz was so low performing.
9. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I just don't buy Intel, ever.
I think the numbers and the facts speak for themselves. AMD took a shot at the moon, but instead, they land themselves in a toilet. To be honest, the phrase "colossal failure" is a pretty accurate description of what Phenom has become.
Baron, I've been saying this from day 1, and I won't stop saying it until you get it: you don't know jack about processor architecture, and manufacturing. My suggestion: Stop taking a small segment out of a report, and interpret it however you like.
Baron's next arguments:
1. Benchmark not optimized.
2. L3 cache TLB fix will yield 20%~30% performance.
3. B3 stepping will allow Phenom to go up to 3.4Ghz.
4. Its already been demonstrated that Phenom can run up to 4.0Ghz in lab.
5. Intel should be punished for devaluing the market.
6. Intel should be punished for overcharging, and rip off its customers.
7. I am a hater of monopoly, not a specific company.
8. I was traumatized when discovered how Intel's Pentium 3 1Ghz was so low performing.
9. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I just don't buy Intel, ever.
yomamafor1
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2007
- 2,462
- 1
- 19,790
Here's a little information on Phenom's TDP:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2218304,00.asp
Phenom 9500
2.2 GHz 95W $251 Q4 2007
Phenom 9600
2.3 GHz 95W $283 Q4 2007
Phenom 9700
2.4 GHz 125W TBD Early Q1 2008
Phenom 9900
2.6 GHz 140W TBD Late Q1 2008
yep, 140W for 2.6Ghz.
The Q6600 @ 2.7Ghz consume about 105W. Go figure.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2218304,00.asp
Phenom 9500
2.2 GHz 95W $251 Q4 2007
Phenom 9600
2.3 GHz 95W $283 Q4 2007
Phenom 9700
2.4 GHz 125W TBD Early Q1 2008
Phenom 9900
2.6 GHz 140W TBD Late Q1 2008
yep, 140W for 2.6Ghz.
The Q6600 @ 2.7Ghz consume about 105W. Go figure.
TechnologyCoordinator
Splendid
- Feb 22, 2006
- 4,008
- 0
- 22,790
Yes. Trying to open some fanboys eyes, but they're still trying to defend AMD. AMD is a failing company. If AMD doesn't get their stuff together it will bankrupt and fail.
rwayne
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2007
- 1,749
- 9
- 20,365
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.
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.
Slobogob
Distinguished
- Aug 10, 2006
- 1,431
- 0
- 19,280
Can't argue about that. This thread is a written testament to fanboism and reminds me of fans of different sport teams yelling at each other in a stadion. What makes it especially sad is, that some of the forum members i once considered resourceful have slipped into fanatism too.
If you're looking for a serious argument regarding your post i sincerly suggest looking elsewhere.
I would have liked to see some numbers on that. I agree with you that, while the L3 introduces some latencies (something that used to be quite horrible for the K8), it might improve AMDs dependence on fast memory. On the other hand the hypertransport is faster now which in turn could make K10 even more dependent on fast memory. As i said, i would really like to see some numbers.
A decent comparision with the different HT protocols and different memory settings would help those interested in buying a new K10 setup.
That's a dangerous argument around here. While AMD obviously tries to offer the new processor at a very competitive price, most forum members have made it a hobby to search the web to find a cheaper Q6600 or just ask "why buy a phenim for 10% if it has 10% less performance".
The prices AMD posted are competitive and i'm convinced that they will drop a little too. AMDs offerings are without doubt competitive, especially if the in-house chipsets (790-series) and the 38xx GPUS come into play too.
That would be a good idea for server software. Games tend to be optimized for the market leader and AMD should've tried to make their processor as Intel compatible as possible. Optimizing a software for two different CPU-sets adds costs a game publisher is unlikely to pay. AMD may end up without any software support here. It reminds me a little of 3dnow!.
Contrary to what i stated above, i like AMDs move to go head to head with Intel on the SSE4 issue. The server market is AMDs homeground, a fact most people like to forget. If they manage to enforce their instruction set there, it will make its way into the mainstream sooner or later. Just like 64bit processing, multi-cores and all the other gimmicks that made their way from server-hardware to the desktop and so will the optimizations.
Then there is the argument that, while the software can be optimized for the new K10, the K10 wasn't made for that software. AMD had a certain market target with their new hardware and those programs, that are not it, will have to run unoptimized. This sounds "unfair" but on the desktop most software is, as you said, tailored for intel hardware. A benchmark showing how the K10 will do with optimized code is worthless if that software will not come to the average desktop user. I do understand that the situation is different with most *nix enviroments and server software, but on the desktop, running the most mainstream OS, it might be more realistic to have the K10 run unoptimized code.
That's where the future is anyway. Just looking at the average computers sold right now i see plenty machines sold with 2GB of RAM already. With the memory prices lower than ever more and more people will run into the limits of 32bit systems, Vista 64 bit is the most likely candidate for the most popular 64bit desktop system during the next few years. Benchmarking the K10 there would seem like a good choice.
That reminds me of a blog i once saw. Some nutcase was publishing his otherworldly thoughts on intel there. Creepy stuff. Really.
Fair point (and without sounding too patronising 😉) I'm glad you gave a mature response! Unfortunately it seems that more often than not you tend to get an immature response here!
Although I would counter with there are a fair number of Intel fanboys that need their eyes opened! 😉
Perhaps we could levae the bashing at bay and just discuss CPU's instead? 😀
And although I am an AMD chap, I just bought a couple of PC's for work which are Intel based, QX6850
TechnologyCoordinator
Splendid
- Feb 22, 2006
- 4,008
- 0
- 22,790
LukeBird :
Fair point (and without sounding too patronising 😉) I'm glad you gave a mature response! Unfortunately it seems that more often than not you tend to get an immature response here!
Although I would counter with there are a fair number of Intel fanboys that need their eyes opened! 😉
Perhaps we could levae the bashing at bay and just discuss CPU's instead? 😀
And although I am an AMD chap, I just bought a couple of PC's for work which are Intel based, QX6850
Although I would counter with there are a fair number of Intel fanboys that need their eyes opened! 😉
Perhaps we could levae the bashing at bay and just discuss CPU's instead? 😀
And although I am an AMD chap, I just bought a couple of PC's for work which are Intel based, QX6850
Some of it comes from us trying to have conversations about technology and many of us get frustrated by the fanboys. Some may accuse me of being a fanboy, however, that's simply not the case. I'm just insanely pissed off at AMD for completely dropping the ball. I agree with the others that if AMD disappears we're in for a world of hurt. For many years AMD kept Intel in check. Both companies caused each other to innovate.
My current and previous two processors were AMD processors. However, if I was upgrading today I would go with Intel, hands down (I'm on S939, if I was on AM2 I would heavily consider upgrading to another AMD). If I'm going to buy a new motherboard is sure as hell won't be AM2.
But back to the topic, so we are here trying to discuss how AMD keeps f-ing up launch after launch but then fools like BaronMatrix come in and blindly defend AMD and it justs pisses some of us off. We kept telling him and several other fanboys that AMD's cloak over this launch, NDA's, the lack of any independent benchmarks, and a 10 month delay all meant that K10 was probably going to be a huge flop.
And guess what, we were very right. So I guess some of us feel the need to tell Baron et al. that they were so full of it and biased, and now that the real launch is here we have indisputable proof, which they dispute! Already BaronFudrix is saying "but Intel has already released several revisions, it's not fair to benchmark against AMD's first revision". To that I say horseshit.
We also try to discuss about how AMD's yield's have GOT TO BE LOW!! But Fudrix tells us that there's no way we could know. Well, judging by the fact that Dell, IBM, and HP still won't even let you ORDER let alone ship a Barcelona K10 Opteron system I'd have to say availability is pretty ****. We know it's not demand because the demand can't even reach the product at this point and time.
When AMD paper launched the 2.0ghz Barcelona and soft launched the 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 ghz products we all said, YIELD ISSUES. But Baron came back saying that AMD would have freaking 3ghz by years end. Guess what, isn't going to happen.
I guess we just get sick of people injecting their lies into conversations and sometimes it makes some of us (who aren't as adult like as others) to lash out. I might be nasty at times, but I base my opinions and predictions off of facts, not blind fanboy love for a company.
I think there are some good points and some bad points brought forward in this topic...but mostly that a lot of people need to get in touch with rodney real. Personally i think the phenom is disappointing atm but i would still say it's competitive, if for no other reason than AMD actually has a quad core now that people can buy...this is infinitely better than not having a quad core that no-one can buy, it's also competitive in it's price/performance ratio (Trailing by 15 pct is not an ass spanking btw - a mere ear cuffing at worst) Will it be successful? I think it depends on the particular segment and also marketing, high end is obviously lost so expect a lot of people on forums like THG to be pro INTEL at this time, server i'm not sure about, there are a lot of AMD server platforms out there begging for an easy upgrade to quads and the phenoms do scale well....but the performance is still low so its wait and see atm, IF they manage to ramp the frequency quickly they could retain a good foothold there. Desktop? Could well come down to marketing in my opinion and here's why...
We (including me), are nerds, tech geeks that 99 pct of other people in this world think of in the same way as people who collect spoons, they don't give a crap about FSB or gigahertz, they just want a pc that turns on when they press a button and allows them to collect their email, flirt on msn, play the odd game and burn the odd CD/DVD. Yes, being told it's 4 processors will impress them for about 5 minutes...it might even sway them to buy one over a dual core but talk technical at them and watch their eyes glaze over! Given that, the phenoms arn't bad at all because they provide quad core processing at a reasonable price, AMD had better spend a little of it's (already small) budget on advertising i reckon.
Bottom line....INTELS offerings are better than AMD's at this time but most people out there simply won't care...they'll go on price. If this isn't true then how did INTEL manage to sell so many netbursts when k8 was 'spanking it's ass'? The answer is k8 didn't spank netbursts ass at all...it was a bit better and to those answering their emails, flirting on msn, playing the odd game and burning the odd CD/DVD there was no difference whatsoever...cos they'd left their PC to it and were doing the sensible thing by watching Top Gear in the meantime 😀
Peace,
Carod
We (including me), are nerds, tech geeks that 99 pct of other people in this world think of in the same way as people who collect spoons, they don't give a crap about FSB or gigahertz, they just want a pc that turns on when they press a button and allows them to collect their email, flirt on msn, play the odd game and burn the odd CD/DVD. Yes, being told it's 4 processors will impress them for about 5 minutes...it might even sway them to buy one over a dual core but talk technical at them and watch their eyes glaze over! Given that, the phenoms arn't bad at all because they provide quad core processing at a reasonable price, AMD had better spend a little of it's (already small) budget on advertising i reckon.
Bottom line....INTELS offerings are better than AMD's at this time but most people out there simply won't care...they'll go on price. If this isn't true then how did INTEL manage to sell so many netbursts when k8 was 'spanking it's ass'? The answer is k8 didn't spank netbursts ass at all...it was a bit better and to those answering their emails, flirting on msn, playing the odd game and burning the odd CD/DVD there was no difference whatsoever...cos they'd left their PC to it and were doing the sensible thing by watching Top Gear in the meantime 😀
Peace,
Carod
NMDante
Distinguished
- Oct 5, 2002
- 1,588
- 0
- 19,780
Netburst sold because Intel used it's marketing to make it a household name. Period. K8 kicked it's butt in almost every aspect, but people never heard of AMD, and saw it as a cheap knock-off. Without Intel's previous marketing, Netburst CPUs would not have sold.
Server market will not be affected by Phenom. That's Barcelona's department, and even that isn't helping gain back lost ground, with lack of availability, and lower than expected frequency.
Trailing by 15% isn't bad? What would be? Claiming that the CPU would beat the competiton by 40% across the board? Having big name PC builders claim that "A 3.0GHz Phenom will kick butt anything Intel or AMD has out right now"? I'm sorry, losing to a competitor's slowest quad is bad.
Yes, you're right that most people won't care if their computer can run SuperPI in under 15 seconds, but this isn't a forum for those people. It's a place for DIY builders, enthusiasts, and technology geeks. We do care if a CPU is better than the previous generation.
I'm not here to bash you, but after hearing all the excuses being push out for Phenom's bad performance, it's getting a bit tedious. Next we'll hear that the moon was in alignment with Jupiter, and it caused a weird magnetic flux that only native quad cores can feel, which affected their benchmark performance, or something. The sad case is that AMD released a CPU that didn't feel ready to be released. It was lacking in very critical areas, and lost most benchmarks, not only to Intel's slowest quad, but to AMD's own dual core.
Server market will not be affected by Phenom. That's Barcelona's department, and even that isn't helping gain back lost ground, with lack of availability, and lower than expected frequency.
Trailing by 15% isn't bad? What would be? Claiming that the CPU would beat the competiton by 40% across the board? Having big name PC builders claim that "A 3.0GHz Phenom will kick butt anything Intel or AMD has out right now"? I'm sorry, losing to a competitor's slowest quad is bad.
Yes, you're right that most people won't care if their computer can run SuperPI in under 15 seconds, but this isn't a forum for those people. It's a place for DIY builders, enthusiasts, and technology geeks. We do care if a CPU is better than the previous generation.
I'm not here to bash you, but after hearing all the excuses being push out for Phenom's bad performance, it's getting a bit tedious. Next we'll hear that the moon was in alignment with Jupiter, and it caused a weird magnetic flux that only native quad cores can feel, which affected their benchmark performance, or something. The sad case is that AMD released a CPU that didn't feel ready to be released. It was lacking in very critical areas, and lost most benchmarks, not only to Intel's slowest quad, but to AMD's own dual core.
I never said Phenom was good, in fact i said INTEL's offering was better. What i did say was that most of the public won't really care and that to them 15 pct really is nothing, they're hardly using up their current pc's processing power as it is. Yes this is a tech forum and we're all interested in new technology and i read the figures as closely as most others here...i didn't realise we had to keep comments soley within the realms of the enthusiasts? surely INTEL and AMD sells it's cpu's to people other than enthusiasts. Also where was i defending AMD? checked my post again and i still don't see it, if i was to buy a new PC for myself right now it'd be INTEL, slightly more tricky if upgrading since i currently have an AM2 board but i'd still be tempted to splash the extra dollars for INTEL anyway right now. If it was a friend asking me to reccommend one and their uses were emailing and browsing the web i'd give them the same advice i've given them for the last 3 years, make sure it has at least 1 gig of ram, has a screen you like at a price you can afford...the cpu doesn't really matter.
To be honest NMDante, i read the forums a lot while posting little and i've always thought you seemed to give pretty good answers but your reply seemed rather like a lot of peoples on Toms these days, a bit narrow and paranoid.
Peace,
Carod
To be honest NMDante, i read the forums a lot while posting little and i've always thought you seemed to give pretty good answers but your reply seemed rather like a lot of peoples on Toms these days, a bit narrow and paranoid.
Peace,
Carod
NMDante
Distinguished
- Oct 5, 2002
- 1,588
- 0
- 19,780
Well, I am sorry you feel that way.
The honest fact is that people who are defending this launch are using the same wording you used - "everyday people won't care what's in their computer", "it's fast enough to do regular tasks", or "it's not that bad, it's still competitive considering".
Again, I was not trying to bash your points, or claim that you were defending AMD, but after reading all the excuses for AMD's Phenom, I guess the lines got a bit blurred on my part, and I do apologize, if I sounded like I was out to get you.
I don't believe this place is for the hardcore enthusiasts, but when people like to bring up that most computers sold are pre-built, I wonder why they are even visiting places like this. Yes, we all know that the majority of computers sold are going to be pre-build, that's why Dell, HP, and others make billions a year. But that isn't a reason to claim that a disappointing launch wasn't a disappointing launch. I was upset when Intel pushed out chipset after chipset for newer CPUs coming out after I upgraded. In fact, I ranted on about how inconsiderate it was for them to do that, but they still do it (look at the P35, X38, and upcoming X48).
I guess I just read your last post as a way to defend a crappy product launch, and again, I do apologize if I snapped at you over it. I have re-read your post, and it still seems, to me, like a way for AMD to save face in light of a disappointing product release.
I wouldn't buy a Phenom right now not just because of the inferior performance, but more importantly the price is not that attractive with the lowest 2.2Ghz coming in at a higher tag than the better Q6600. To be fair to AMD it's probably good business sense to try and get away with higher prices initially. All businesses do this and when they realise it's not selling well bring the prices down.
It's never a wise idea to buy the first revisions of any CPU type from my experience. I rushed out and bought a AMD X2 computer on their launch with the hype that it would blow single cores away, but the reality was it would be sometime until it was actually any benefit to me. From the launch of the X2 to now AMD has moved from 939 to AM2 940 screwing socket 939 owners over, which I didn't like much. AMD CPU's are now more power efficient and can be had for literally peanuts.
My point is it's always worth waiting to see what happens
It's never a wise idea to buy the first revisions of any CPU type from my experience. I rushed out and bought a AMD X2 computer on their launch with the hype that it would blow single cores away, but the reality was it would be sometime until it was actually any benefit to me. From the launch of the X2 to now AMD has moved from 939 to AM2 940 screwing socket 939 owners over, which I didn't like much. AMD CPU's are now more power efficient and can be had for literally peanuts.
My point is it's always worth waiting to see what happens
No worries man...in fact looking back i think i snapped a bit in my reply, your replys were valid...i think you just mistook what i was saying in my first post. No getting around it, Phenom is a disappointment, still not sure i'd call it a failure but definately a disappointment, you could call a million reasons on why that is but the bottom line is that it's not competing with core 2 and the situation looks to get worse before it gets better, frankly i'd have been happier if AMD had just said 'listen we're tiny compared to intel, this is what we're bringing out, in performance stakes it's behind but we'll sell it at a good price ratio'....i think the fud has done more harm than the lack of performance.
On the otherhand you yourself stated that the only reason netburst sold was market presence....i wasn't defending phenoms lack of performance to the enthusiast crowd, just that AMD should get phenoms name out in some meaningless advertising, something like 'Buy an AMD phenom, it's great' would do, get the name into the heads of people who basically don't know what their buying without actually spinning defineable fud...like those INTEL guys used to do on their advert where they had to wear suits cos they were so uber cool or something.
Maybe a better ending line to my original post would have been
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
On the otherhand you yourself stated that the only reason netburst sold was market presence....i wasn't defending phenoms lack of performance to the enthusiast crowd, just that AMD should get phenoms name out in some meaningless advertising, something like 'Buy an AMD phenom, it's great' would do, get the name into the heads of people who basically don't know what their buying without actually spinning defineable fud...like those INTEL guys used to do on their advert where they had to wear suits cos they were so uber cool or something.
Maybe a better ending line to my original post would have been
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
NMDante
Distinguished
- Oct 5, 2002
- 1,588
- 0
- 19,780
Well, the retail prices aren't set by AMD, that's all the retailers doing. The tray prices that are shown in the THG review and others are the prices AMD sold them for, at 1k trays. What the retailers do once they get them is up to them.
Although I would love to be an early adopter, I just don't have the cash flow to do that. Last thing I bought first time around was an Intel motherboard with the 925x chipset, and then I got burned when the next CPU I got wouldn't work, cause I needed the 955x chipset.
NMDante
Distinguished
- Oct 5, 2002
- 1,588
- 0
- 19,780
It's all good. I take nothing said here personal, so it's all just opinions, and sometimes I do get a bit aggravated at some of the stuff I read.
Yes, AMD marketing is non-existent right now. The black posters with animals didn't work for me. I could care less if they called the next platform the Unicorn of Death (although that would be a cool name). They need to use a bit of their cash to actually push a bit more in advertising, that I do agree with you on. While I realize that it does cost a lot of money to do that sort of thing, I think they could've used the money they spent on flying out reviewers to Tahoe for a canned benchmark party on better advertising.
LOL. I understood what you wrote after I took my time and took off my defensive glasses. Yes, Phenom, while disappointing to those who travel within the CPU upgrading circles, can be good for the average Joe Computer User. The problem is, the average Joe Computer User usually asks his tech friend for advice, and some of those tech friends might frequent these places.
Oh, by the way - When I am in my bunny suit, we don't dance around like the commericals. We just sort of sway around the fab.
Fair point TC 
Oh well, with regard to Phenom, I'm on an AM2 mobo and I'll be going to Phenom but I'll be waiting until there are some decent AM2+ mobo's, assuming that there is some benefit which I'm sure there will be with HT3 Cool'n'quiet 2 etc.
I only bought a cheapy gigabyte board for my 6000 anyway as I knew I'd go Phenom.
Once a 2.6Ghz or higher is out, I think I'll pick one fo those.
On a side note, thought I'd end up buying anew CPU today as the heatsink came away from the CPU (long story, and very much my fault! 😉)and the system shutdown. When I hit BIOS the CPU was at 110C!!
Oh well, with regard to Phenom, I'm on an AM2 mobo and I'll be going to Phenom but I'll be waiting until there are some decent AM2+ mobo's, assuming that there is some benefit which I'm sure there will be with HT3 Cool'n'quiet 2 etc.
I only bought a cheapy gigabyte board for my 6000 anyway as I knew I'd go Phenom.
Once a 2.6Ghz or higher is out, I think I'll pick one fo those.
On a side note, thought I'd end up buying anew CPU today as the heatsink came away from the CPU (long story, and very much my fault! 😉)and the system shutdown. When I hit BIOS the CPU was at 110C!!
Thats where it gets interesting tho! knowing your friend has minimal computing needs what would YOU reccommend? you know the cheapeast simplest setup would last them untill it blew up for there needs...but it's so tempting to persuade them to spend that bit more and get a pc with 3X the performance (figures produced at random from my head)
Being a geek i would of course prefer the more powerful setup....but as a friend i know that the old P3 laptop i have gathering dust in a box somewhere would do them fine and i'd part with it for 50 quid 😛
Now what AMD should do is develop an 8 core GPU but only sell it for minimal profit to people who buy the phemon FX!!! How much do advertising people get again? i'll take a curry and a pint of guiness, now there's generosity!
Peace,
Carod
Being a geek i would of course prefer the more powerful setup....but as a friend i know that the old P3 laptop i have gathering dust in a box somewhere would do them fine and i'd part with it for 50 quid 😛
Now what AMD should do is develop an 8 core GPU but only sell it for minimal profit to people who buy the phemon FX!!! How much do advertising people get again? i'll take a curry and a pint of guiness, now there's generosity!
Peace,
Carod
im totaly disappointed with amd for months talking about how good these
chips are knowing there not good at all. Q6600 has beat the best they
have to offer & that is not the 9600 were talking about the 9900 2.6
anand has 15 tests Q6600 win s 11 out of 15 thats a clear win and that
chip is priced higher than the Q6600 as far as im concerned amd has nothing to offer.
chips are knowing there not good at all. Q6600 has beat the best they
have to offer & that is not the 9600 were talking about the 9900 2.6
anand has 15 tests Q6600 win s 11 out of 15 thats a clear win and that
chip is priced higher than the Q6600 as far as im concerned amd has nothing to offer.
“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"
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"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
Question Nvidia control panel - scaling full screen can't change to scaling GPU only display, why?- Started by syykii
- Replies: 0
-
Question Slow BIOS Boot on MSI PRO Z790-A WIFI – Over 60 Seconds Before Windows Loads- Started by Hardestware
- Replies: 22
-
Question Will a 120 watt inverter power my gaming laptop?
- Started by nelska
- Replies: 39
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram