Six New Phenom II And Athlon II CPUs From AMD

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the most part, AMD remains competitive and offers CPUs that'll get the job done for most people. Against any Core2 tech, AMD wins.

By the way... these MOOD LIGHTING ADs suck.. blaring and coming out of nowehere or a slight mouse over. hate it hate it!
 
I'm running an AMD Athlon II X635 and I couldn't be happier. Considering the $100 I paid, it has been a great choice for the typical mp3 ripping, Divx-to-DVD encoding and audio production software. I'm going to wait and see what the Bulldozer's bring before upgrading again.
 
[citation][nom]Enzo Matrix[/nom]What are you talking about? All these new releases are still the C3 stepping. There is no new stepping here.[/citation]

Good catch Enzo, should have said revision. Fixed.
 
I don't get the point of adding 100mhz to a chip. Like the 760 over the 750. It's the same chip with a slight clock bump. You can just get the cheaper one and bump it yourself... So what's the point?
 
[citation][nom]Wolfram23[/nom]I don't get the point of adding 100mhz to a chip. Like the 760 over the 750. It's the same chip with a slight clock bump. You can just get the cheaper one and bump it yourself... So what's the point?[/citation]

The point is many people do not overclock - believe it or not! I only overclock for benches and run stock the rest of the time. No point sacrificing stability when you can get that performance guaranteed stable (and for little to no price bump in the case of the 750/760)

What I enjoyed in this article was watching the i5 750 thrash the Phenom II x4 970 in clock for clock performance. They are 833 MHz apart at stock and the intel still almost always outperforms it.
 
[citation][nom]mrmooky[/nom]Why is the intel build using more RAM?[/citation]

The core i5-750 build is using the same amount of RAM as the AMD system, 4 GB.

As for the Core i7-920 build, it *has* to use either more or less RAM to utilize the triple channel memory interface. And since we know that more than 4 GB of RAM makes no perceptible difference in performance except in very rare and specific applications, it's a fair practice...
 
AMD needs to hurry up with Bulldozer. A product refresh is all well and good but I'd like to see AMD competitive on more than just price/performance.

Intel's on a 32nm process and early next year they'll be down to 22nm with Sandy Bridge. The speed crown has been Intel's without question since the i7 was first introduced.

I'd love to put an AMD processor in my next computer, but I have the money for i7. Unless AMD can become competitive in the high end I'll be going with Intel again.

I'm not interested in a hexa-core processors, either, as I do not use enough programs that would take advantage of that many threads
 
Some of the 45W "e" series chips from the last bump have finally shown up at Newegg, but unfortunately are way overpriced.
With very few exceptions (maybe SC2 is one?), I think it's pretty clear that even a mid-grade CPU can handle just about anything most people care to do on their PCs, from office tasks, to rendering, and games. Beyond that, however long it takes, I think GPGPU is going to provide a HUGE performance boost in those markets that need it (not just research and other for-pay applications). The CPU will never be irrelevant, but +/- a few hundred MHz pretty much already is.
As stingy as i5 and i3 are, I am hoping that Bulldozer and/or Sandy Bridge can significantly improve performance/watt. I'm sure performance will be higher, but I'd like to see lower power use being the biggest contributor to the improvement.
 
[citation][nom]ThePeacemaker10[/nom]How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.[/citation]

I have been hearing this from alot of people. I think the differences are mainly in the type of benchmark Tom's is running. They are running a map with enough pure AI decisions to stress the system for a full minute (On the benchmark setting the CPU obviously limits it first). The vast majority of ordinary games (even large FFA games) don't come close to this kind of stress.

You might see this kind of stress (and probably far worse) happen with a scenario like "Nexus Wars".

Anyway, on topic with the article, I'm still happy to see the i5-750 perform so well even through the stock clock increases. Maybe even with Sandy Bridge coming out, the price on them will go down...? Please Intel?
 
I like what I see... unfortunately I think the Phenom II X4 970 only makes the 955 so much more worth it

and then again, this makes me more eager for the next generation of cpus

a question for the gaming benchmarks... I know this is not an uber-exhaustive test but why did you choose such a low resolution to play with?
I would think 1680x1050 would be a more popular resolution nowadays but then again I might be very wrong
 
[citation][nom]triculious[/nom]I know this is not an uber-exhaustive test but why did you choose such a low resolution to play with?[/citation]

Good question!

In a CPU test we try to avoid graphics card bottlenecks in order to isolate the processor's performance as the variable.

Hope that helps!
 
Interesting article. AMD is looking to fill price-gaps to win scraps before it shifts the enthusiast market with those 'Dozer CPUs and possibly a new socket.
 
This just seems to be more of the same from AMD. New processors filling holes in their lineup. Until Bulldozer comes out and we hopefully see some real change I'll still prefer Intel.
 
[citation][nom]MoreCores[/nom]Our 6 or their 4... Yeah, I'll still take i7 4 cores over these crappy 6cores. Not to mention, the i7 920 can be pushed another 50% in speed, 1075T can not, and it's more expensive than i7 920.[/citation]

yeah lets see you stick that I-7 into socket775..no can do bro, this is what AMD is focusing on, don't be surprised to see your 1366 socket dead end in the next year or 2 also. yes the AMD cpus can be beat pretty easy, you're also competing against 5 year old platforms. my guess is the AM3+R2 will feature the higher fsb/memory speed path, hopefully up to 2000mhz, but that might be asking too much? it atleast better feature up to 1600mhz just to make up the difference for I-7 when bulldozer releases. that might wake intel up a bit and leave sandy bridge in the dust :)
 
Damn AMD best still has not even come close to the (quad i7-920 old junk) that sucks.

Is there anything AMD that can get close to the Intel 6 core desktop cpu's ?

When will the AMD jokes start like:
Q:
How many AMD 6 cores does it to to make 1 Intel quad core ?
A:
99cpu's, 4cpu's to do the job and the rest to stand around looking prity giving moral support.

(A play on the light bulb change joke.)

I don't get it why would I spend $800 on a new pc just to buy newer version hardware that performs the same as my 4 your old rig. Surely there is something better faster more efficient out there to buy or upgrade too ?

Is Intel and AMD stuck and can not clone new Alien "UFO" hardware so we are stuck with pathetic hardware to buy ?
 
I wonder if HT is slowing the Thuban processors down, after both were overclocked the Thuban with faster HT speed beat the 970 with lower HT speed at the same game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom