caamsa
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2006
- 1,830
- 0
- 19,810
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]You mean over nine months? It's easy when AMD hadn't produced any new cores over the same period of time. Phenom II wasn't released until after these systems were built.And you call other people stupid?[/citation]
First of all I called him numb nuts not stupid. Calling people stupid is your job. Second of all the last time I remember you guys using an AMD chip was the March build of 2008 when you used a phenom 9500. Hmmmm March to February would be 11 months but who is counting. You all never tried any of the new phenoms, none of the BE even when their prices dropped to $145.00.
I agree, the original phenom is not that great and that is why I still have my K8. But does that mean you ignore those chips altogether?
Here are some direct quotes from the March 2008 article in reference to the phenom cpu.
"There are a number of reasons that the Phenom can be a good option for a low-cost build: that the Phenom 9500 is the only quad-core CPU under $200 is one of the most important ones. While the $50 or so dollars you save over an OEM Intel quad-core Q6600 might not seem like much, it's an important selling point in the low-cost segment."
"What about the E6750? It's the exact same price as the Phenom 9500, and even though it's only dual-core, it has a higher clock speed and has little to apologize for. Although the E6750 is not a bad choice in this segment by any means, we thought we'd give the Phenom a shot this go-round. Why? Because a cheap quad core CPU is ideal for some tasks, and should even soundly beat the E6750 in specific multithreaded applications. Since our low-cost build isn't designed for any specific task, we thought it would be interesting to demonstrate how the Phenom might shine in certain scenarios, for instance as a rendering workstation. Finally, we're waiting for the Penryn-based E8000 series to arrive before we invest in another Core-2 Duo."
"In addition, opting for a Phenom gives us the attractive option of pairing it with AMD's impressive 780G chipset for a very cost effective platform that is both energy efficient, and can offer basic gaming/workstation performance without the addition of a discrete graphics card."
"On the downside, we're quite aware that the Phenom is not going to overclock well, and the simple fact is that if you're an overclocker you'd be much better served with one of Intel's Core 2 based offerings. However, many system builders just like to run their hardware at stock settings and the Phenom might be ideal for these folks."
And now for the conclusion.
"Without other systems to compare it to, the only reasonable conclusions we can arrive at regarding our low-cost build is that the price is great, it's stable, and it's a capable gaming machine even at the high 1920x1200 resolution."
"The system is certainly no slouch, and is pleasant to work with. The questions that remain are: How will it stack up, dollar for dollar, vs. the mid-range and high-end builds? And how much will performance
improve when the system is overclocked?"
"Traditionally, the low-cost system has always beaten the other systems in the performance-per-dollar analysis. This is because paying 200 or 300% more money for hardware will almost never equate to a 200 or 300% increase in performance. On Friday, we'll add another view of performance-per-dollar that focuses on the potential benefits of higher cost systems for gaming at higher resolutions."
"Mid-priced systems can suit buyers who want acceptable performance in every application including games. But while the sub-$1000 system didn't quite make the grade in some games, those who really can't afford anything better will make whatever sacrifices in graphics quality they must in order to justify their purchase."
"Our machines were intended to serve as examples of balanced machines for various price brackets, but your particular needs should govern any purchasing decision."
The End
First of all I called him numb nuts not stupid. Calling people stupid is your job. Second of all the last time I remember you guys using an AMD chip was the March build of 2008 when you used a phenom 9500. Hmmmm March to February would be 11 months but who is counting. You all never tried any of the new phenoms, none of the BE even when their prices dropped to $145.00.
I agree, the original phenom is not that great and that is why I still have my K8. But does that mean you ignore those chips altogether?
Here are some direct quotes from the March 2008 article in reference to the phenom cpu.
"There are a number of reasons that the Phenom can be a good option for a low-cost build: that the Phenom 9500 is the only quad-core CPU under $200 is one of the most important ones. While the $50 or so dollars you save over an OEM Intel quad-core Q6600 might not seem like much, it's an important selling point in the low-cost segment."
"What about the E6750? It's the exact same price as the Phenom 9500, and even though it's only dual-core, it has a higher clock speed and has little to apologize for. Although the E6750 is not a bad choice in this segment by any means, we thought we'd give the Phenom a shot this go-round. Why? Because a cheap quad core CPU is ideal for some tasks, and should even soundly beat the E6750 in specific multithreaded applications. Since our low-cost build isn't designed for any specific task, we thought it would be interesting to demonstrate how the Phenom might shine in certain scenarios, for instance as a rendering workstation. Finally, we're waiting for the Penryn-based E8000 series to arrive before we invest in another Core-2 Duo."
"In addition, opting for a Phenom gives us the attractive option of pairing it with AMD's impressive 780G chipset for a very cost effective platform that is both energy efficient, and can offer basic gaming/workstation performance without the addition of a discrete graphics card."
"On the downside, we're quite aware that the Phenom is not going to overclock well, and the simple fact is that if you're an overclocker you'd be much better served with one of Intel's Core 2 based offerings. However, many system builders just like to run their hardware at stock settings and the Phenom might be ideal for these folks."
And now for the conclusion.
"Without other systems to compare it to, the only reasonable conclusions we can arrive at regarding our low-cost build is that the price is great, it's stable, and it's a capable gaming machine even at the high 1920x1200 resolution."
"The system is certainly no slouch, and is pleasant to work with. The questions that remain are: How will it stack up, dollar for dollar, vs. the mid-range and high-end builds? And how much will performance
improve when the system is overclocked?"
"Traditionally, the low-cost system has always beaten the other systems in the performance-per-dollar analysis. This is because paying 200 or 300% more money for hardware will almost never equate to a 200 or 300% increase in performance. On Friday, we'll add another view of performance-per-dollar that focuses on the potential benefits of higher cost systems for gaming at higher resolutions."
"Mid-priced systems can suit buyers who want acceptable performance in every application including games. But while the sub-$1000 system didn't quite make the grade in some games, those who really can't afford anything better will make whatever sacrifices in graphics quality they must in order to justify their purchase."
"Our machines were intended to serve as examples of balanced machines for various price brackets, but your particular needs should govern any purchasing decision."
The End
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram