Not a flame starter, Phenom, good for?

[jkflipflop98]

I am still wondering why I -need- 4 cores as all I do is surf the web,torrent and game.

I can't notice any of the games running any faster moveing from a sngl core to a dual at the same Ghz....but sure as hell noticed alot going from a OC'd 7900GT to a stock 8800GTS (G92)!

Who the hell says YOU NEED 4 cores? If that's all you do, then a P133 would suffice.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I am still wondering why I -need- 4 cores as all I do is surf the web,torrent and game.

I can't notice any of the games running any faster moveing from a sngl core to a dual at the same Ghz....but sure as hell noticed alot going from a OC'd 7900GT to a stock 8800GTS (G92)!

Well its been said that nVidia is going to kill AMD, but maybe its the other way around? http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6252&Itemid=34 and http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6208&Itemid=34 so when it comes right down to it, for gaming it IS the GPU hmmmm

 

[endyen]

While nvidia may be right to a certain extent, JK's P133 might be okay for solitaire, it can barely play pinball.
Nvidia showed F@H that they were not ready to share enough of thier code to make thier chips good GP-GPUs, so trying to take the cpu out of the equation is no very realistic.
They should face the fact that the pretty little nvidia girls dont stand a chance against the 800lb gorrila.

 

[endyen]

To the OP.
If you dont know that you need all the power that is Intel, chances are good that an AMD chip will do fine. Then again Intel also has some very good deals as well.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

This is OT but really, trying to run anything faster only goes so far. In reality, almost all users care more about their graphics experience than anything else. Weve reached the stage in the complex computational field where most cpus will get the average Joe by just fine, thus elimnating the need for speed to a large exrent. BUT, an average users experience can be MUCH further increased by a better graphical output/capability. If you place a pc in a store thatll just crunch numbers, put it on a shelf for all to see/try, and put one thats slower at number crunching, but has the capability to play games in 3D, show all things in 3D as a total GUI, guess whod sell more?

 

[yipsl]

I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?

A Phenom 9150 (the 1.8 gigahertz B3 65 watt Phenom arriving soon) would be great for an HTPC with a TV Wonder 650, a Blu-ray drive and a 3450 or 3470 in hybrid Crossfire on a 780G board.

A Phenom 9850 may (or may not) overclock well (we'll have to see). A Phenom 9750 should do well vs. a Q6600 at stock speeds. The 780G is the best budget chipset right now from anyone. Nvidia's trying to compete there but Intel simply cannot.

The triple core Phenom's are great for existing 690 boards with Phenom capable bios updates. The real Phenom's will be Deneb @ 45nm, expected late third quarter this year. I'll still go Phenom B3 to hold me over, though whether I'll go 9750, 9850 or just an 8750 remains to be seen. I'll get a 780 board as well, with new RAM.

The big thing for me, is that there should be AM2+ Denebs that might not require a bios update. If I went Intel for Q6600, Penryn or Wolfdale (good luck finding those in stock), then I'd need a new board for Nehalem. Though Nehalem should be faster than Deneb, I'm not sure it will be a repeat of Q6600 Kentsfields vs. B2 Phenoms. I expect Phenom to be clocked at 3.0 or 3.2, with some overclockablity, this time next year.

So, since I hate just buying new boards and RAM, I'll put an 8750 in our ASUS 690G board, move my signature board, CPU and RAM to a PC in the bedroom, and get a 780G board with a Phenom to hold me over until Deneb. Then, I hope to just stick a Deneb in without any hassles. Only if I finally decide I want CrossfireX next year will I get a new board.

Budget reasons, plus I like ATI/AMD chipsets over Intel or Nvidia. Those reasons probably don't work for most here. Too many people here want SLI on Nvidia boards, or want the absolute fastest overclock they can get to even consider Phenom a reasonable upgrade.

That's okay, there are different types of enthusiasts and people build PC's for different reasons at different price points. Yet, even if I had the money for an extreme edition Intel CPU, I'd still go Phenom because I like the underdog and I expect Deneb to deliver next year.

 

[stridervm]

There's no real problem if you're using a PC, at all.

It really depends on what you want do to with your PC. As certain tasks do not require "the fastest Ghz". Like HTPC systems.

Remember that the supposedly "inferior" product (AMD in this case.) will have their price lowered when a more superior product is released, thus having the same overall value.

The value of AMD's processor only gets severely affected when overclocking is involved.

So for me, whatever value you have, you get a good processor.

 

[resonance451]

Phenom at the moment is really not as good as all the other choices.

If I were looking to spend above $170 on a processor, why the hell would I not buy a Q6600? And if you're not willing to spend that much, what need for a quad core system do you have anyways? I can get a dual core AMD that runs 3.2GHz at stock for $20 less than the lowest clock speed crippled Phenom. And for $20 more than the 2.3GHz Phenom, I can get the Q6600 which I can easily overclock well over 3GHz. I sure as hell wouldn't buy Phenom for overclocking. Just look at the success of the Phenom BE.

If you want the novelty of saying "lookit, I've got four cores!" for cheap, that's what you buy a Phenom for. If you are an AMD fanboy, you buy the Phenom. That's about it.

My first system I built from the ground-up was an AMD rig with an ASUS K8N-DL mobo, 2gb of RAM, a 7900GTX OC'd, and two 1.8GHz dual core Opterons. I love that system, but I'm sad to say that since then, AMD has not been able to provide me with a four-core solution that I would actually use. The only reason I'd buy a Phenom right now is for the novelty of having an AMD quad core processor as the successor to my first system, but with all the troubles Phenom is having, I wouldn't even buy it for that.

I'm hoping AMD will get it together, but for now, I simply don't see a reason for a Phenom.

PS - If you think a HTPC needs four cores to run properly, you're out of your mind.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Unless your playing 1 or 2 certain games or doing video editing alot, you dont need a quad. AMD is cureently in a bad way, not only because their quads are having all the trouble, but there really isnt a big push to go quad. Look how many different posts there are asking quad or dual? The average Joe is just getting used to the idea od dual core, and the software makers are stumped using multithread. And heres Intel saying, yep 8 cores or more. Like I said, people dont use this, software CANT for the most part USE these and yet here we are. Bad timing on Intels part as well, trying to push something that isnt really markwet ready. And really, that much of a difference maker. Like I said, its more about graphics, where theres still alot of room for improvement, more wow factor for the average Joe. Now theres a market.

 

[resonance451]

Actually, I highly disagree with you. I'm not sure you've looked at the proper tests and benchmarks, but the quad core does have a multitude of advantages, and it's gathering increasing developer and consumer support. Within the next few years, multi-core (tri/quad and up) systems will become commonplace (hell, they already are becoming quite common) and by the mid-way point of the next decade, dual-cores might be virtually obsolete, just as single core systems are now almost non-existent in the market. Hell, I can remember when I bought a $2000 laptop with a P4 in it... that was three years ago.

I personally have a first-hand knowledge of the quad core advantage, and that's not something I will dispute. What I was saying is that the dual-core processors are more than enough for a lot of intensive media and gaming applications out there, and one does not NEED a quad core for bare minimum performance.

For god's sake, I build PC's for a living, and I've never seen an HTPC that needs more than a 1.6GHz dual core paired with a cheap video card such as an 8600GT. I think I've built 6 or 7 HTPC's so far, and I'm set to build another four in a few days. And I can tell you I'm not using a system with two QX9775's, 3 8800 Ultras, 16gb of RAM, and an nForce 790i chipset.

 

[apache_lives]

I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?
Some quick history so nobody thinks I'm spilling gasoline waiting for somebody to bring a match; my favorite build from scratch was a AMD XP 1600+ with the 1st nForce chipset. For the most part, I build Intel machines and am wanting to have a good reason to build another AMD machine. Upgraded my father's machine from a Pentium D 840 to a used x2 4000 system I picked up a while back for $100 that included a gig of ram.
The only reason I can come up is video encoding, not even transcoding, but just pure h.264 and the like.
I personally prefer AMD's x2's for any pentium 4 family computers but sheesh, the Intel's seem to be steam rolling when you factor in gaming and/or overclocking.

*sings song to make it easier to understand*

aaaaanything AMD cann doo Intel can dooo beta
Intel can market things betta then you
(fanboy singing) no you cant
yes i can....

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

*sings song to make it easier to understand*

aaaaanything AMD cann doo Intel can dooo beta
Intel can market things betta then you
(fanboy singing) no you cant
yes i can....

ROFL.

 

[jitpublisher]

Okay, I'll tell why I would buy one.
I am in the market to build to a new quad core system soon, I have thought about giving up on AMD and going with an Intel offering. But the more I think about it, I simply will NOT spend my money with Intel. It has nothing to do with who is the fastest. A Phenom, although not the fastest quad core out there will do anything I need just fine, and then some (except benchmark bragging rights, big deal). You can call it anything you like, even foolish or stupid. But there is more to buying a product in my opinion. Thankfully, I have a choice on which company I want to spend my money with, and it's definetly not Intel.

There are many cars out there faster than my Intrepid. Let's start a new thread.... "Dodge Intrepid, good for?"

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Intel beat me up when I was a kid.


But seriously, AMD's ethics and they way they have treated their following and shareholders has been rather shady lately.

 

[njalterio]

I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?
Some quick history so nobody thinks I'm spilling gasoline waiting for somebody to bring a match; my favorite build from scratch was a AMD XP 1600+ with the 1st nForce chipset. For the most part, I build Intel machines and am wanting to have a good reason to build another AMD machine. Upgraded my father's machine from a Pentium D 840 to a used x2 4000 system I picked up a while back for $100 that included a gig of ram.
The only reason I can come up is video encoding, not even transcoding, but just pure h.264 and the like.
I personally prefer AMD's x2's for any pentium 4 family computers but sheesh, the Intel's seem to be steam rolling when you factor in gaming and/or overclocking.

When considering getting the best processor period, or getting the best processor for a certain price, there is absolutely no reason to buy an AMD processor. Intel has very cheap dual cores (E4500), as well as the best performing (qx9700), they have also captured the best performance for price (q6600). Intel is dominating in every facet. The only reason to purchase a phenom is if you feel like being charitable to AMD, which really is not much of a reason.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I wish someone would do a statistical comparison on how many apps and programs currently use more than 1 or 2 threads. Its a very minute amount. I mean a very small amount, just like in gaming, which doesnt show the dominance of the truly superior product of Intel. What Im saying is, maybe a Intel quad will average 30% better on average on most apps/programs vs a Phenom, but when it comes to gaming, its just not there, whether at 4 cores or 2 cores, and by the time we will see a true advantage of multithreading, the Nehalem will be here, and its a whole new socket change anyways

 

[apache_lives]

Okay, I'll tell why I would buy one.
I am in the market to build to a new quad core system soon, I have thought about giving up on AMD and going with an Intel offering. But the more I think about it, I simply will NOT spend my money with Intel. It has nothing to do with who is the fastest. A Phenom, although not the fastest quad core out there will do anything I need just fine, and then some (except benchmark bragging rights, big deal). You can call it anything you like, even foolish or stupid. But there is more to buying a product in my opinion. Thankfully, I have a choice on which company I want to spend my money with, and it's definetly not Intel.

There are many cars out there faster than my Intrepid. Let's start a new thread.... "Dodge Intrepid, good for?"

Oh AMD and Intel are so evil - why dont you buy from VIA instead? It also offers (in)superior products that perform poor clock for clock like AMD

Buying from the smaller company cause you think the bigger company is evil doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like an Idiot. Put your hard earned cash to good use and get the fastest CPU for your money, pick performance not a brand, ah heck both the companies.

 

[endyen]

Oh AMD and Intel are so evil - why dont you buy from VIA instead? It also offers (in)superior products that perform poor clock for clock like AMD

Buying from the smaller company cause you think the bigger company is evil doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like an Idiot. Put your hard earned cash to good use and get the fastest CPU for your money, pick performance not a brand, ah heck both the companies.

Does Intel have one of these? http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_484_486,00.html
I'd like to read it.

 

[jkflipflop98]

http://www.intel.com/intel/company/corp1.htm#anchor1

 

[EXT64]

I'll tell you what a Phenom and the other AMDs are good for - the low end. I'm building an HTPC and only AMD sells a 45W chip. Right now there is no comparison in the top end. If you really want the best CPU, Intel wins. For medium to low, though, AMD is decent competition.

 

[sailer]

I saw this thread earlier and couldn't think of what to say. Now I have. A Phenom, more specifically a B3 Phenom that performed well, would be good for getting Intel to release its latest Yorkie chips. So far, it seems, Intel is content to not release new chips, but instead just let the market continue as it has for the past several months.

You might remember that when the Phenom was first released, Intel was worried and did a preview of the QX9770. Tom's called Intel a spoiler on it, so Intel shipped out a sample QX9770 right away to prove that it was real. Then the new Yorkies were announced to be shipping in January. But the Phenom bombed, so Intel delayed the new chips. When will the new Intel chips arrive, April, May, June, somethime beyond that? I don't know. But I do know that if a B3 Phenom was to come out next week running at 2.6 ghz or better, we'd probably see Q9450s and Q9550s at Newegg before the week was out.

I myself would like a new Phenom that performed well, so that I could slip it into one present office machine. But realistically, I don't expect to see any B3 Phenom for another month or two at best. Hope I'm wrong about that, but AMD has not impressed me with its abilities for the past year and a half, so I'm not going to get excited. Yes, that's what I'd like, a fast running B3 Phenom (is that an oxymoron?) for my business computer and a Q9550 and a X48 mobo for my gaming computer. But I'm not expecting either anytime soon.

 

[EXT64]

Q9450s and E8500s are at Newegg, as well as FX-82s and Phenom 9700s, you just can't buy them yet :lol:

E8500:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115036

Q9450:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115039

FX-82:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103229

Sorry, couldn't help it. I was trying to see if newegg had fake posted my 4850e yet, but I couldn't find it. Oh well, maybe next week. I'm not in any real rush.

 

[apache_lives]

I saw this thread earlier and couldn't think of what to say. Now I have. A Phenom, more specifically a B3 Phenom that performed well, would be good for getting Intel to release its latest Yorkie chips. So far, it seems, Intel is content to not release new chips, but instead just let the market continue as it has for the past several months.

You might remember that when the Phenom was first released, Intel was worried and did a preview of the QX9770. Tom's called Intel a spoiler on it, so Intel shipped out a sample QX9770 right away to prove that it was real. Then the new Yorkies were announced to be shipping in January. But the Phenom bombed, so Intel delayed the new chips. When will the new Intel chips arrive, April, May, June, somethime beyond that? I don't know. But I do know that if a B3 Phenom was to come out next week running at 2.6 ghz or better, we'd probably see Q9450s and Q9550s at Newegg before the week was out.

I myself would like a new Phenom that performed well, so that I could slip it into one present office machine. But realistically, I don't expect to see any B3 Phenom for another month or two at best. Hope I'm wrong about that, but AMD has not impressed me with its abilities for the past year and a half, so I'm not going to get excited. Yes, that's what I'd like, a fast running B3 Phenom (is that an oxymoron?) for my business computer and a Q9550 and a X48 mobo for my gaming computer. But I'm not expecting either anytime soon.

Heh the Q6600 has been on the market for ages before the phenom, and Intel..... (LOL) was expecting more competition, and pre-released something just incase, everyone got there hopes up for the new AMD cpu, and it turned into a dud.

 

[endyen]

http://www.intel.com/intel/company/corp1.htm#anchor1

Thanks JK. IMHO AMD's is better. Hey, they have to win at something.

 

[sailer]

Sorry, couldn't help it. I was trying to see if newegg had fake posted my 4850e yet, but I couldn't find it. Oh well, maybe next week. I'm not in any real rush.

Yeah, I've seen a couple of these fake listings come up. Teasers are all they are. I want the real thing, not fantasy.