matrix563
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 19,136
i have a 6000+ currently. i just wish amd would come out with a chip that blows intel away like the opteron did
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no no, 790FX is superior to X38.. well for a gamer. the use of SB600 is questionable, so the board partners are really going to have to step up to match some of the features of X38. But 790FX has a couple really big things going for it over X38, the most of which is the excessive amount of pci-e lanes.
i have a 6000+ currently. i just wish amd would come out with a chip that blows intel away like the opteron did
yeah that is a good point. i only got a 6000+ for 170 cause of the price wargood point dan. AMD gouged us for a year when their dual cores were top dog. People shouldnt forget that. I remember 500 dollar Toledo cores...
Its all about the video card.
your friends 8800gtx is a lot faster than your 8800gt.
8800GTX!! has 128 stream units 384bit memory at 768mb.
your 8800gt has 112 stream units at 256bit memory at 512mb.
his card is higher-end than yours.
if you where to compare it to the 8800gts then you might have an edge.
8800gts has 96 stream units and 320bit memory at 640mb.
Also I play only in 1920x1080. Haven't see 1024x768 game in a couple years now.
Thought I'd present another opinion, being as the other side is so vociferous, better represented, and ever-present.
For me, the integrated memory controller, direct connect & hypertransport -- and yes -- native cores, are what make for a more responsive experience. I've seen these sentiments about AMD's superior responsiveness echoed on forums like Anandtech etc. Yes, I have owned both Intel and AMD systems. I have even tested this theory amongst friends (owners of both Intel and AMD systems) with almost unanimous agreement.
Eventually native core's responsiveness will also translate to greater scalability. Even though it has become fashionable to blithely say otherwise, native cores will become an extremely important future technology.
Maybe incremental leaps in responsiveness aren't a factor, and you'd rather have brute speed. AMD also supports hardware virtualization, which people like me find useful. Maybe you need fast memory access, or greater floating point calculation. Or yeah, maybe you just like calculating Pi 24/7 for it's own sake. Everyone has different criteria on what they need in a CPU. I just don't the people who feel threatened or will begrudge having that choice.
To me, this is a theoretical work of art.
It's the platform, stupid.
Use all the circular logic and relativism you want. Even feel free to believe differently. However, I have access to both a C2D and X2 systems in my house, and gravitate more to the X2 for everyday tasks based on real-world performance.
Use all the circular logic and relativism you want. Even feel free to believe differently. However, I have access to both a C2D and X2 systems in my house, and gravitate more to the X2 for everyday tasks based on real-world performance. One of the reasons why I primarily post in the AMD forum here.
Been playing around with the 9500 i picked up for a day or so, and I have owned the 4400 X2 and by far the 9500 is faster. Once I figure out how to get it past 2.4 Ghz it will be cruzing along, I believe it is my memory timings but I regrese
Just curious, what motherboard did you decide to go with?
My next upgrade is going to be an AMD. I fully recognize that RIGHT NOW, Intel is faster for the price. You will get no argument from me there. However, in the interest of the industry overall, I will buy AMD.
Our current processors would not be as fast if AMD had not been around to push Intel. Prices wouldn't be as low either. So, for the interest of OVERALL greater performance in the future, I will sacrifice a little performance now. If AMD gets out of the cpu game, how much incentive do you think Intel has to roll out their newest processors except to outdo themselves over time? The fastest processors from both companies are faster than what I really need anyway. *shrug*
I understand what you're saying. And I do see it is one philosophy. My concern, however, is that in the CPU industry, it isn't as easy as redesigning the shell of a car, relaunching it and raking in the cash. Redesigning is way down the road. They need to keep going until then. I guess you could call it charity, but I more see it as I stated it in my last post. "In the interest of the industry (meaning for US) overall.
Just to clear things up, I am not an AMD fanboy. I used to be, 'back in the day' when they first rolled out the slot A's. My core duo laptop kicks my desktop A64's ass. I have no delusions about AMD. They are in serious trouble and they are not keeping up. The only hope they have at this point, imho, is to try to hang on until 'bulldozer' makes it's appearance or to quickly ramp up the speeds on Phenom. The latter isn't going to happen because if they could, they would have. You only pull your punches when you're barely losing, not when you're getting slaughtered.
Let me ask you this since you're probably more in the know than most people in regards to this subject. Do you think Phenom is a complete failure or with a properly (non bugged) version and some ramping of the clock speeds it can at least be 'competitive' ?
I know this is next to impossibly unlikely, but it almost seems like something just isn't right. Something not turned on or not operating at the right speed. I don't know. I've read though all the benchmarks from multiple sites and while there are brief spots of competitiveness, overall, not so much. The scaling seemed kinda off to me too. But what do I know, been out of the loop for a while.
Let me ask you this since you're probably more in the know than most people in regards to this subject. Do you think Phenom is a complete failure or with a properly (non bugged) version and some ramping of the clock speeds it can at least be 'competitive' ?
I know this is next to impossibly unlikely, but it almost seems like something just isn't right. Something not turned on or not operating at the right speed. I don't know. I've read though all the benchmarks from multiple sites and while there are brief spots of competitiveness, overall, not so much. The scaling seemed kinda off to me too. But what do I know, been out of the loop for a while.
Let me ask you this since you're probably more in the know than most people in regards to this subject. Do you think Phenom is a complete failure or with a properly (non bugged) version and some ramping of the clock speeds it can at least be 'competitive' ?
I know this is next to impossibly unlikely, but it almost seems like something just isn't right. Something not turned on or not operating at the right speed. I don't know. I've read though all the benchmarks from multiple sites and while there are brief spots of competitiveness, overall, not so much. The scaling seemed kinda off to me too. But what do I know, been out of the loop for a while.
Yes, actually, I do. AMD not shipping Barcelona's doesn't affect that I want a Phenom - I already have a sweet motherboard, and a Q6600 don't fit in it
Use all the circular logic and relativism you want. Even feel free to believe differently. However, I have access to both a C2D and X2 systems in my house, and gravitate more to the X2 for everyday tasks based on real-world performance. One of the reasons why I primarily post in the AMD forum here.
read further, it's not just Barcelona Opterons....it's a problem with the core architecture in the L3 cache on "AMD's phenominal new architecture" to hear vista_blista tell it...... no matter what box it's in.....and it's a big enough problem they have stopped shipping man....no small matter, that is the absolute LAST thing a CPU manufacturer or any manufacturer wants to do, stop shipping product.....
you could always sell that sweet motherboard and get one the Q6600 fits in and get better performance for your money....but that would make too much sense....of course, that motherboard might not sell so well now....dunno...whatever you like i guess
Then I guess I better pick up one of the 9500 or 9600s before newegg runs out
And please, I've checked the numbers - it isn't like the Q6600 walks all over the phenom.
(In terms of 9600 vs. Q6600)
Lame MP3: -11%
Windows Movie Maker: -8%
DivX: -12%
TMPGEnc: <1% (123min vs. 122min, lower == better)
WinRAR: -7.5%
If the reports of the microcode update adding ~10% performance (I'm not banking on it, just throwing this out there), that will make up (in some cases more so) the performance difference between the 9600 and the Q6600. However, I am primarily a gamer (looking at getting a quad mainly for supreme commander - X2 4200 isn't cutting it anymore), so the hassle of selling my motherboard that I know works great doesn't seem worth it to me. Besides, paying an additional ~$50 for an Intel motherboard of similar build (and an additional $50 for a wifi card to replace the one built into my Asus) and the Q6600 ends up being ~35% more expensive while delivering ~10% more performance. So why again should I switch to Intel? Then again maybe I should just blindly follow your advice and piss away my money
Please do not take me for an idiot or a fanboy. I'm a poor college student who is also in need of a video card upgrade. I would love to get a Q6600, but from a price/performance standpoint it just isn't justified.
Take a trip over to xtremesystems.com for that information. There are quite a few knowledgeable and intellectually curious people testing these chips. You'll get more real-world Phenom answers than rash speculation, posturing, and obfuscation. In my estimation, I definitely believe the entire platform needs a few more weeks/months of maturity though.
I cruised over....They're obsessed with SuperPi?
Then I guess I better pick up one of the 9500 or 9600s before newegg runs out
And please, I've checked the numbers - it isn't like the Q6600 walks all over the phenom.
(In terms of 9600 vs. Q6600)
Lame MP3: -11%
Windows Movie Maker: -8%
DivX: -12%
TMPGEnc: <1% (123min vs. 122min, lower == better)
WinRAR: -7.5%
If the reports of the microcode update adding ~10% performance (I'm not banking on it, just throwing this out there), that will make up (in some cases more so) the performance difference between the 9600 and the Q6600. However, I am primarily a gamer (looking at getting a quad mainly for supreme commander - X2 4200 isn't cutting it anymore), so the hassle of selling my motherboard that I know works great doesn't seem worth it to me. Besides, paying an additional ~$50 for an Intel motherboard of similar build (and an additional $50 for a wifi card to replace the one built into my Asus) and the Q6600 ends up being ~35% more expensive while delivering ~10% more performance. So why again should I switch to Intel? Then again maybe I should just blindly follow your advice and piss away my money
Please do not take me for an idiot or a fanboy. I'm a poor college student who is also in need of a video card upgrade. I would love to get a Q6600, but from a price/performance standpoint it just isn't justified.
um, the microcode update takes 10%, not adds. 10-20, in fact. it's a performance cut to deal with the race condition present in the TLB logic, probably because they're taking it from hardware and running it in some form of software logic built in to the new microcode.
. Plus, do we really know how phenom performs on non-790 boards? And don't forget how well the Q6600 overclocks. Phenom is having trouble reaching shipping speeds.
I've heard it both ways - that the current Phenoms using the Bios workaround have a 10% performance hit and thus the microcode update removes the Bios workaround and restores performance (eg, increases by 10%), and now people are saying the opposite, that this new workaround decreases performance by 10%.
I'm not buying now, so I'm just going to wait for the BEs that have the issue fixed and re-evaluate cost/performance then.
As for overclocking, over at XS they have Phenoms hitting 3ghz, and running stable at 2.8-2.9ghz