What is it with all the Phenom "sucks" responses....

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0
I mean how subjectively would you be able to tell the difference (if you were blind to the components within a PC) between a Q6600 and a Phenom.
At work I use a P4 3.0 machine, my PowerBook (1.5GHz single core PowerPC CPU) and a £2500 ($5000) QX6850 machine and at home (although it doesn't work at the moment! :( ) the system in my sig. So, a large variation!
Subjectively in everyday use there is no difference between my 6000+ (stock) and the QX6850 (stock, for obvious reasons!)
Let alone the difference between a Phenom 9600 & Q6600 with similar performance & price points....
The only time that there is any tangible difference is during rendering that I do in CS3, heavy video-conversions of uncompressed AVIs (usually smallest 5Gb, normally more like 10-30Gb), Photoshop rendering and stuff like that.
That time to me is valuable (and for my employers! :D ) and there is a benefit with such a machine.
The average user (or even enthusiast) is not going to be able to tell the difference between identical systems (other than CPU) in gaming/word processing or net surfing...
So perhaps, we could have less of the "Phenom sucks"/"Intel sucks" and associated fanboy/girl-isms...
Thanks! :D
 


Benchmark it. Try to encode video with it. Try to do any intensive task that takes a long time to complete...
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

Wow TC, of all people you disappoint me with that response...
I don't benchmark all the time, because I don't give a **** about 500 3DMark's, I've done it, because I can, not because I'm bothered about the outcome...
The processors are not so far apart, video-encoding may be a few seconds difference.
I bet the difference between my QX6850 & 6000+ is minutes (I know there is a large price difference).
I meant subjectively in normal use. I mean can I really tell the difference between say 40fps & 60?
I very much doubt it, so is it really worth arguing about?
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

Indeed I do, I guess you can't introduce logic to kids :kaola:
Perhaps I am wrong in understanding both sides & trying to be more realistic about it....
 
Just to encode 2 minutes of a movie, Intel's proc is 26 seconds faster.



Let's say it's a 90 minute movie:

26 seconds * 45 = 19.5 Minutes


The Intel machine, with a lowly Q6600 finishes encoding 18 minutes quicker than AMD's best quad core.


You're telling me you wouldn't notice something taking 19 minutes longer?
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2
Like I posted in another thread, the reason why people despite Phenom is not because of its marginal performance gap between itself and Q6600, but the fact that it was supposed to bring competition back to the market. Well guess what, it did the exact opposite: take competition away from the market.

AMD screwed up this one, just like how Intel screwed up their Prescott launch. Now AMD should do something to salvage the situation, or face the fact that it will walk down Intel's Prescott road.
 

killerb255

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
326
0
18,780
0


In other words, what's normal in Tom's Forums may be considered OCD or OCPD by the average Joe.
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0
Well I stand corrected, with figures like that!
To be honest, I will put my hands up here and admit that I didn't realise the performance was that different!
It's just **** annoying seeing Phenom is **** in every bloody thread! :wahoo:
Guess I'd better get over it, as it certainly ain't going to get any better until B3....
 
We could always get rid of all the objective benchmarks and replace them with subjective ones:

Was it "fast enough"?
Do you like the color of the box it came in?
Was the cpu shiny when you inserted it into the socket?
What was your mood when installing the CPU?
Has the CPU negatively affected any relationships in your life?
 

inshadows

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2006
44
0
18,530
0
That point seems to being arguing more the lack of difference between processors of different price points. You do get noticeably better performance off of a better performing CPU obviously. If AMD are charging a price which is incongruous with how well it performs people have a right to complain, especially considering how most enthusiasts are very pro a competitive market which is a direction we are moving away from.

Just my two pence
Chris
 

ImajorI

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2007
274
0
18,780
0


Then why start this thread?
 


LOL. Yes there is a difference. But you do have a point. Joe Schmo that calls up Dell doesn't care what proc he gets.

However, the performance of K10 has pushed all K10 procs into the value and low-midrange end.
 

justjc

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2006
235
0
18,680
0
The thing AMD screwed up was mentioning the errata at launch. Most people will newer find it, show me someone who has been able to reproduce it besides AMD, and yet because they mentioned it people are afraid that the Phenom is more faulty than other processors(Which it is not).

The Phenom 9500 and 9600 could easily be for processors, what the ATi 3850 and 3870 is for graphics, a good choice for most people.
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

Oh come on, don't get smart with me sunshine! ;)
I put my hands up and admitted I was wrong (unlike most of the rest of this forum could do...)
and you just have to twist the knife!! :lol:
And just for FYI, the 6000+ box just wasn't pretty enough...
 

leo2kp

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2006
2,055
0
20,160
115
"Indeed I do, I guess you can't introduce logic to kids :kaola:
Perhaps I am wrong in understanding both sides & trying to be more realistic about it...."

Gosh, you know what? You're absolutely right. I think everyone in Nascar and any other "enthusiast" arena should start to screw their head on right just like you. I mean, why should someone who is .5s faster at 0-60 win the prize? :-/

/sarcasm off

"Enthusiast" basically means we get ridiculously serious about stuff that you might consider small potatoes, such as a processor that will encode a 300mb zip file 5s faster and overclock to 4GHz on air.
 


LOL, I'm glad you have a sense of humor, I wasn't trying to get smart with you, just trying to prove my point that we have to use objective benchmarks to measure performance.

It's those objective benchmarks that cause AMD's top quad core to be stonewalled at a $260 price tag.


Wait for B3, things will hopefully get a little bit better. Also, if AMD starts cranking out higher clocking tri and dual cores, you'll see much better performance in single threaded applications and games.
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

So, in effect, you're saying that because I don't give a stuff how long it takes to encode a file (the files I handle at home are so small, my PB would probably be more than good enough) and I don't OC that I'm not an enthusiast?
My machine for me is pretty much all I need.
My PB is great for just picking up and using and my PC (when she works again :() is mega for crysis and big photoshop files and stuff like that.
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

He he I'm glad someone can fight AND justify their corner, I very much appreciate it TC (I should have researched mine a touch more! ;)
I'd very much like a Phenom at 2.6 or higher on my system and then I'd be really happy :)
Although going from PB back to the 6000+ when it's working again, will feel like going from errrr a 1.5 single, to a 3.0 dual-core... :D :D
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

I bought my 6000+ precisely for that, (I bought it in oct '07) because I didn't want to wait for Phenom.
I'm glad I was impatient, as otherwise I'd probably be really disappointed to see the B3 come out when I have a B2!
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS