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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sparky79

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2007
47
0
18,530
0


Is that a socket 939 or AM2 X2 3800?
I liked the 939 boxes. :D
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0
Wow.. This is hilarious. This is just bad. Who the hell comes on a hardware enthusiast site and then complains that we look at benches?

You are right, I can't tell the difference between a 3.6 GHz Q6600 and a 1.8 GHz E2160 when I'm surfing the net. But I can when I'm gaming. I can tell the difference between a 2.3 GHz Phenom and a 2.4 GHz Q6600 as well.

Seriously if you just come on here to bash people who look at benchmarks and compare them, you might want to find a new site.
 


Less pins sounds less complicated. As long as it is "fast enough" that's good enough for me.

Sweet, now that I've picked an inferior processor to love, is there a nearby hardware enthusiast site that I can go and try to argue that my processor is better because we should measure them subjectively and dismiss any benchmarks because they're not relevant?

I wonder what kind of reception I'll get...
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0


You could try... yea nm, won't mention that site.

Either way, you should compare them in the ultimate benchmark. Web surfing.

After all, that's all AMD users do, surf the web and defend their processor.
 

martyjs

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2006
367
0
18,780
0
cnumartyr I personally didn't "bash" people who looked a benchmarks. Simple pointed out to the people who stated us people who don't care about bench marks are not enthusiasts.
Computer enthusiasts like any other enthusiast come in many forms and all should be respected. :)
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0


I actually wasn't even refering to you.. Or anyone in general, I was joking with the guys who started joking about people bashing Benchmarks.

I don't care what you are into as an enthusiast. However to come on an enthusiast site and say "Benchmarks are crap" (in essence what some have said) don't expect there to be no retribution.
 

martyjs

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2006
367
0
18,780
0
Fair enough if that's what they are doing, :) but sometimes the wording people use is too liberal and open to interpretation which can ruffle some feathers. :fou:
As I said in an earlier post I've been into computer long before they were considered main stream. I work all day with computers and go home and play with computes, (Eg building, gaming, surfing and tweaking) I like every thing about computers not just one narrow stream. Yet time and time again I see references in this forum and others that people who don't OC or benchmark are not enthusiast and that's just plain silly. :eek:
SO THERE :kaola: :kaola: :kaola: :kaola: :kaola:

 

caamsa

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,830
0
19,810
13
When I come to Tom's forums and see such stupid posts as this one I reserve the right to be an A$$.

No offense but someone please tell me why I need to care about all these benchmarks that people get so offended about?

Open source benchmarks

* Dhrystone: integer arithmetic performance
* Fhourstones: an integer benchmark
* HINT: It ranks a computer system as a whole.
* Iometer: I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems.
* Linpack / LAPACK
* NAS parallel benchmarks
* PAL: a benchmark for realtime physics engines
* POV-Ray: 3D render
* TPoX: An XML transaction processing benchmark for XML databases
* VMmark: a server virtualization benchmark suite from VMware.
* Whetstone: floating-point arithmetic performance

When I am sitting at my computer playing City of Heroes......why should I really care? That is all I am saying. There are two sides to a coin, and computer performance is relative to the user. That is all that I am saying. It is an argument that neither one of us can win. :non:

Just because some thing does not bench well does not mean there is not a market for it. AMD cpus are selling very well regardless.

Ok you can bash me now............. :kaola:
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,028
0
20,810
5


Nature benchmarks nature even more than people benchmark nature. Fastest cheetah eats the best, gets the best mates, etc. A local variation in rainfall? The animals / plants that are better adapted survive, even thrive, while the less well adapted either have to migrate or die off. That's nature benchmarking nature...

Man benchmarks nature all the time as well. A dairiest will know the average, peak and low litre of milk production for every animal in their herd. A meat producer will know how fast his breed will get to marketable size, and whether or not its worth buying extra feed or just moving to better pasture. Cotton producers will know how many litres of water it takes to produce a bale. And what hybrids will increase their productivity, etc.

So I guess you are illogical?

Back on topic, what irritates me about AMD / ATI right now is the number of bragging slideshows that were presented (Phenom will be 40% faster core for core) and the release schedules that always kept slipping ATI at least, never did the bragging that AMD did, but it took them well over a year to release a chipset that was even close to Nvidia's top offering.

My old Opty needs an upgrade, as well as my old 6800 Ultras Which processor do you think I'm going to get? Which Vid card(s)? (Hint: AMD no longer supports 939...)
 

ZOldDude

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2006
1,251
0
19,280
0
Whatever.
Most people who even -read- this forum do not even OC.
I just bought parts for a customer who opted for a AMD AM2 5600+ vs a Intel E21** for the same price.
He is not going to OC so the AMD @ .8Ghz stock over the intel was a no brainer for his build.

What I want to see is a all around AMD/Intel 4 Ghz dual for $100 USD with a boxed HS and fan on low power.
I could upgrade a simi-truck load of systems then.

The truth is almost nobody outside of the movie GFX area has any -real- need for any brand of quad-core...and the movie GFX end of things are,and will be,using AMD.
CRAY and the USA's largest Super Computer Center are also using AMD becuase of their interconnect...the more CPU's you use the faster the system is over Intel.

That fact given...us desktop users are in another ballpark from them,and as I said I just want to see a 4 Ghz Dual from BOTH @ $100.
 

wh3resmycar

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2007
2,491
0
19,960
57
hmm this is a little OP but my friends q6600/8800gt loads c&c tiberium wars 3 seconds faster than my x2 4000+/8600gt. and he's on 1024x800 (hes monitor limited) and im on 1280x1024. if 3 seconds of your life is worth $500-$1000 then go ahead people....
 

3Ball

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
1,736
0
19,790
1


I am sick of explaining this, but alas...I will again. Most people here know, but I will say it again. I own both a 6000+ @ 3.2ghz and the processor that you see in the sig. Now, the systems are no longer identical, but before I got my new video card...they were. With X1900XTX's in them. Yes, my benchmark scores were higher. My max FPS and average FPS was minute @ best maybe a 10% increase in performance, which when you are averaging 50+ or more then it doesn't really matter all that much.

The kicker is that I would usually get the same increase in my MINIMUM FPS. If I can get a 10% or more increase in fps on my MIN FPS then I am all for it because that is where the smoothness in games comes from. I also edit video (just for kicks, not professionally...honestly I am terrible at it). The performance in that area is incomparable as you seem to understand. So to answer what I am pretty sure was rhetorical...Yes, I can see/tell the difference.

My multitasking in XP seems to be very similar on both machines, and to be honest it isn't that great on either, but in vista it is pretty good on my rig in the sig and noticeably less responsive on my 6000+. These are not benchmark numbers...they are personal comparisons just as you have shown and yes I can tell the difference.

The reason why phenom sucks is not because it doesn't stack up to C2Q, but rather because of its performance comparison to its MUCH older brother, which is not very impressive at all. Also, because a company that bases alot of its sales on rep, lied and disappointed many loyal fans. That is another disappointment of the product. So the the complaints arent only with the performance.

I feel your pain on disliking all of the negative threads aimed a struggling company, but you may want to just take a break from the forums as I did. Because it isnt going to stop. I could continue going on, but I dont want to stray into the area of being a d*ck.

I leave you with this: To each his own I suppose, but dont take credit away from anyone or give anyone credit for any undeserved reason. Intel deserves credit for a great arch and AMD deserves credit for not delivering on promises and for having the worst management in silicone history.

Best,

3Ball
 

keithlm

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2007
735
0
18,990
2


You can use sarcasm and attempt to make all opinions made by subjective experiences seem absurd and less than "real". But at the end of the day... it is a person's subjective experience that will really matter to them.

Besides some of these "subjective" aspects COULD actually be benchmarked.

Run a virus scan of all files WHILE you run other benchmarks. Or maybe run a two copies of Prime95 while you run the other benchmarks. Maybe run Prime95 AND a virus scan while you run other benchmarks. Maybe run a game in a window on a second monitor WHILE you run 3dMark. While running these multiple benchmarks you could switch between the windows every 30 seconds or so. You get the idea. Stuff that would be easy to reproduce. Of course how to convey the results might be difficult.

Seeing some reviews with conglomerated benchmarks like these that stress a multiple core CPU system would be very helpful. It might stop some subjective claims. (And it might reveal things that some people don't want revealed.)
 
Use a gaming benchmark! Silly!

I don't believe in artificial benchmarks. I believe in real-world benchmarks.

What you've done is quoted a bunch of benchmarks for one thing, then stated you want to do another, and then you say that all benchmarks are stupid and irrelevant?

If you game, use GAMING BENCHMARKS.

If you encode, use ENCODING BENCHMARKS.

If you photoshop, use PHOTOSHOP BENCHMARKS.

If you're a hopeless AMD fanboy, use MEMORY BANDWIDTH BENCHMARKS.


 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

Right, some clearing up to do...
I would absolutely buy a processor that gave more FPS etc. for the same £ or less.
But I probably wouldn't spend more if I couldn't see the difference.
My GTX is overkill for what I need really (although a benefit in say CoD4 & Crysis) so an Ultra would be a total waste of money!
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

Thats the thing, even on my gaming PC I probably spend more time doing non-gaming stuff while it is powere up, so the fact another CPU can achieve 5 more FPS in crysis is, to ME, an irrelevance :)
Not to say, I don't have a system that is plainly more than I need anyway...
 


Can you find a website that has subjective benchmarks?

Yes, they can be benchmarked. However, because there would be no value or reliability in a subjective benchmark, we use objective ones.


My point which I try to make using my dry sarcastic humor is:

If you don't care about benchmarks, why come here? Just go out there and buy the cheapest motherboard/processor combo you can find and be happy with it. The rest of us, who do care, will go to website, compare products (USING OBJECTIVE BENCHMARKS), and will make informed decisions so we can get that extra 10 fps in a game, so we can turn physics to 'medium' instead of 'low'.

People come here to discuss computer hardware, the only reliable and logical way to measure it is using objective benchmarks.


If I offended anyone with my dry sarcastic humor, please accept my apologies.



Here's a challenge for you: Breifly describe a subjective benchmark for processors. How would it work? What questions would you ask the consumer? Would you pick consumers that are running the same applications?

Imagine this benchmark: Is your computer fast enough?

Grandma: Yes! I love it!
Mother: Well, it seems alright, it always works.
Kid: I can't play Oblivion, this computer sucks!


They could all be talking about the exact same computer and get different responses. Thus, no value because the opinions are subjective.
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0

I do agree a lot with what you say 3Ball, I was trying to take a different perspective on a view (Intel vs. AMD) that is pretty much teh contents of the CPU forum.
I don't get annoyed with the argument, but I'd like to think that some of my comments may be regarded as from a different perspective as opposed to "AMD/Intel is pwning" (or whatever the latest slang is...) I don't care about that.
If I came on and said Intel sucks, my AMD system is better, most people would tell me to try one, but all the Intel fans just sit there saying AMD is **** while never having tried a Phenom system...
There are very few people on here that I actually read responses to now, because as you said, you need time out from all the BS. (Yourself, TC, cnumartyr and a few others are the people I look out for! :))
But I'm glad there is discussion over the point I brought up (other than the guy who said I "ran for the hills", which I plainly didn't...) and it didn't turn into a flame war.
Even if Turpit wants to exorcise me for having a Mac.... :D :D
Good discussion and long may it continue. :)
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0
 

speedbird

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2007
547
0
18,990
2
I don't think the AMD Phenom is that awful useless processor some on here like to make it out to be. It appears to offer solid performance, but it's disappointing that AMD fell short of the kind of performance Intel Quads offer. Will the average computer user notice the difference? maybe in some Encoding tasks, but in games and general usage probably minimal.
The problem is the Phenom 9600 is priced in the same range as the better Q6600, so there's little point purchasing for a new system. I'm not sure AMD can afford to do this, but the Phenoms really do need to drop in price.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS