AMD's Phenom

[preet]

Recently AMD released its quad core processor. And yet it is still lagging behing the Core 2 Quad Q6600, despite being a native quad core processor. I thought this time AMD will knock out Intel but i am a bit disapointed and wonder when will AMD deliver the right ONE.

[Ajmukon]

personally, i always preferred Intel-
see this for more information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto

[preet]

I know AMD will strike one day and we have to wait.

[Rick]

Check this one out :)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3154

If your waiting for AMD
That wait may be lengthening as you read

[George Hallam]

the QX9770 will blow any CPU away at the moment

just look at these

http://images.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9770/quake4.png

http://images.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9770/sandra_cpu_alu.png

all i can say is WOW

http://www.hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1055/fear.png

http://www.hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1055/crysis.png

look how much it beats AMD's latest and greatest even its predecessor beat it the X2 6400+

[preet]

Yap i agree with you. But i wont buy a QX9770, when it comes out, because AMD won't sit back to see Intel reign again after a poor comeback with the Phenom. Don't know what AMD experts are thinking but i am happy to see that this is pushing Intel to do its best to deliver some rather impressive processors.

[Rick]

From what I have seen of this latest release by AMD
I'll be sticking with my little Q6600 for some time to come

Even the Budget E6600 is waxing amd :(

[saphalline]

Those charts look completely unbalanced. Someone tell me how a 2.4 GHz E6600 can beat a 2.4 GHz Q6600! And why is the vastly improved QX9650 just barely edging out an E6850? Same thing on AMD's side: X2 6400+ beating a Phenom 9700?

Amateurs!!

Those charts are NOT indicative of the full power of any of those CPU's! The reviewers should have seen that before the numbers even made it out onto the web! FEAR may be understandable in the quad-core performance area, since it's a much older game and has given me countless problems in Vista 64-bit. But there's no excuse for the Crysis demo! Whoever did those benchmarks somehow dropped quad-core CPU's down to mere dual-core performance - using the most advanced game engine currently available! :eek: WTF did they do!? :mad:


Phenom is still up for grabs from what I've read. The benchmarks (reliable ones) are still valid, however, since AMD decided to release Phenom before it was actually ready. But given the problems, I see Phenom performance increasing as the BIOS updates start flowing. Maybe not enough to close the current gap to Penryn (both in performance and cost-effectiveness) but Phenom isn't done yet. There are still a lot of "fixes" left to do that will make Phenom more attractive.

Then again, AMD's decision to release Phenom before it was ready for prime time while being understandable is still incredibly disappointing. I'm starting to wonder if Intel isn't delaying Penryn until January just so it can avoid the bad tech karma of 2007! :eek: It has not been a good year. Half-baked non-releases have plagued us since Vista was released, and the recovery process has been long and painful. Not one single new piece of software or hardware released this year has been devoid of problems! It's like a curse or something...

[Cavalier90]

Perhaps now we are at last nearing the end of the line despite Moore's Law. I can't believe that we can go on making ever smaller CPUs without increasing the potential for problems. How on Earth do they ever detect flaws in them until they are up and running? The size of the games must be getting ever bigger, increasing the potential for screw ups. I know. The computer systems I work on are enormous mainframe systems that no-one knows the full extent of what goes on. Patches and updates are made with more and more trepidation.