Well, I hate to say this, but if there's no demand, it's easy to keep products in stock
But we were talking about OEMs, again. Have we seen Spider-based systems from big OEMs yet?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Phenom & Spider & Intel QX9770 Comparo @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Well, I hate to say this, but if there's no demand, it's easy to keep products in stock
But we were talking about OEMs, again. Have we seen Spider-based systems from big OEMs yet?
Well, I hate to say this, but if there's no demand, it's easy to keep products in stock
But we were talking about OEMs, again. Have we seen Spider-based systems from big OEMs yet?
Or, when you have plenty of supply to begin with you don't have to worry about shortages. You really should stop trying to twist everything about AMD to a negative somehow. It only hurts any credible argument you might have.
Also, do we see new Intel based platforms from OEMs the same day the platform is announced/released? Nope. It usually takes several months before you seem them. Yet the motherboards and processors that make up the platform are for sale in retail and OEM channels.
Geez, you AMD fans have no sense of humour do you?
And who cares about credibility? A fact is a fact. People who choose not to believe facts depending on whether or not they like the source have no business on an enthusiast tech forum.
The THG conclusion is invalid as the prices are $50 too high on the Q6600. A Phenom 9600 is NOT better value than a Q6600 at the same price, which it is IN THE REAL WORLD.
It's interesting now that THG has an AMD biased review, they are no longer paid Intel pumpers. Previously, you would be shot down in flames for trying to use a THG article in an AMD vs Intel debate.
It's interesting now that THG has an AMD biased review, they are no longer paid Intel pumpers. Previously, you would be shot down in flames for trying to use a THG article in an AMD vs Intel debate.
Did you read the Hardocp review?
It also includes the 65 nm Q6600.
Guess what? According to Hardocp the Q6600 is $3 cheaper than the 9600, and it outperforms it aswell, across the board, so their conclusion is that the 9600 is overpriced.
Most other reviewers come to the same conclusion. Tomshardware is the odd one out.
Saying that reviewers pit it against Penryn shows that you haven't paid a lot of attention to most reviews. Most of them include the Q6600, since that is the direct competitor.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,085
Really? I've had several Cyrix CPUs in the day and they all sucked monkey balls for gaming compared to Intel (think less than half of the comparable Intel Pentium's frame rate) because they were built for office use and little else and they were dirt cheap. Price is GOD to OEMs, performance or no.
If you bought into the hype, of course you're going to be extremely dissapointed. I think THG was getting the bigger picture without dissapointment slightly skewing their outlook. Yeah you're going to say it sucks if all along you thought it was going to be just as fast or faster than Intel's offering clock-for-clock. IIRC, even Kyle said it wasn't horrible for gaming, and is faster clock for clock than K8...
Geez, you AMD fans have no sense of humour do you?
And who cares about credibility? A fact is a fact. People who choose not to believe facts depending on whether or not they like the source have no business on an enthusiast tech forum.
I believe my posts more than prove I'm not a fan of either processor company. The only thing I have defended are my conclusions concerning OEMs, the way they do business and how AMD's Spider platform fits into the way OEMs do business.
I also don't consider someone who tries to spin everything AMD does as bad or useless as humorous. Especially when there are no proven facts to back up that spin. The history and trends of the past ten years in the computer industry are 180 degrees in a different direction than what you are trying to spin. That makes it very difficult to find any "humor" in your posts.
Something represented as fact is not always a fact. Most of what you have posted is FUD badly disguised as fact. It also has to be pretty badly disguised and used a lot in order for me to call it FUD as I hate that acronym due to it's overuse (although I find my person breakdown of that acronym as Fucked Up Drivel as at least as accurate as the real breakdown). You have not, not even once, refuted my statements and conclusions with facts. It's common knowledge that most OEMs worry more about price than they do performance. Why else to you think you see a lot of systems come out with integrated graphics, 512 meg of RAM and with Vista preloaded. Or in the previous generation, a system with integrated graphics, 128 meg of RAM and XP preloaded. The OEMs definitely weren't concentrating on performance. They were looking for the box they could put together for the least amount of money. If OEMs were so concerned about performance and price/performance, they would never have put out a single system with those specs.
Your "facts" don't add up and don't hold true when applied to the real world. My observations and conclusions do hold up when applied to the previous computer industry trends. Trends that are not likely to change just because AMD has their own platform out instead of Intel being the only one with a platform solution.
Again, please post some credible arguments with proof that actually backs up what you have to say. I don't normally tell or suggest anyone to be quiet, but in your case I think it would be a good idea until you use credible arguments and credible proof. This request is as much for your own sake as well as an attempt to stop your unfounded spin which has a tendency to mislead those without enough experience in computer history to see through your spin to the truth.
Geez, that particular remark was obviously meant as tongue-in-cheek, and even included a smiley to indicate that it wasn't to be taken entirely seriously.
Yes, but still AMD's K5s were worse.
Cyrix had very good integer performance (higher IPC than the Pentium). FPU was poor, but for most office tasks, that was not a problem. And since the biggest OEM market is the office sector, they were reasonably successful. Just as Celerons and Semprons were pretty successful in office PCs, while especially the Celerons were far from gaming rigs.
And since AMD's current line of processors handles office tasks just as fast as the Intel counterparts, why would AMD lose sales after they bring out a platform solution? That is basically what you have been saying all along. You're flip flopping on your arguments here trying to take any side that makes AMD look bad. Again, you continue to ruin any possible credibility your arguments may have.
His comment had nothing to do with AMD. His comment was in regards to many OEMs going with Cyrix because they were cheaper. According to you, they Cyrix processor should never have made it in the OEM world at all since it's Intel counterpart was basically as good as it was in most instances and much better known. Yet you try and turn it into "AMD sucks" even though the comment had nothing to do with AMD.
You keep agreeing that OEMs look at price first and everything else later despite repeatedly stating that price is not the main factor concerning OEMs.
I never said AMD will be losing sales. I'm just saying that I don't see how Spider makes a difference at this point.
Their dualcore processors are better for the office sector, since they are much cheaper, and in most office applications actually deliver the same or better performance (mostly single-threaded stuff).
Phenom just isn't cheap at this point, because you only have two quadcores. It's not a good value platform.
No, back then Intel CPUs were considerably more expensive for the same kind of (integer) performance. And platforms weren't invented yet (although Intel already offered its own chipsets... Then again, most Intel-based motherboards could also run Cyrix or AMD CPUs, so it was a non-issue back then).
Cyrix at that time just had good value for money for that market.
I don't see how we can compare that to today's Spider platform with Phenoms not being very cheap, and Intels solutions being cheaper and outperforming them.
If someone wanted to build a cheap AMD system today with good value for money, I'd recommend an Athlon X2, not a Phenom. It's as simple as that.
And Athlon X2 is not Spider.
That's all in your mind, I'm afraid.
K5 being worse performance/value for money than the Cyrix 6x86 of that era is a wellknown fact. That is not saying "AMD sucks", but rather "Cyrix was on a roll in the OEM market there".
You're the one that brought AMD sucks into a post that had nothing to do in regards to AMD. The poster was speaking about Cyrix processors and you made sure to say "AMD sucks" into it. I'm not the one that has something on their mind.
All I have done is show the fallacies of your arguments and the your repeated hatred of AMD in your posts; even when the topic wasn't even discussing AMD.
Also, just because you don't have the ability to look at previous recent trends by OEMs and therefore are unable to comprehend how this can change things despite evidence to the contrary, this is not anyone else's fault. Continuing to bash something because you have no comprehension of the business is not a valid argument.
Someone brought up the Cyrix during the Pentium era, being reasonably successful in OEM office systems. So I remarked that it was a pretty good architecture for this, actually better than what AMD had to offer back then:
"No, because they had decent performance at a decent price. Cyrix chips were actually better than AMD chips too, at that time."
The rest is all in your head (I certainly did not use the words "AMD sucks", or anything remotely in that direction).
And you don't even respond to my explanation that Phenom is not as good value for money as Athlon X2, and therefore Spider isn't. People were giving me flack for saying Spider is mostly a performance platform, but really... considering it only has two quadcore processors at 2.2 and 2.3 GHz, and the main new feature is quad xfire... what exactly makes it a value platform instead of just a performance platform?
Even the Hardocp review right here shows that the 6400+ is better value, even for most games.
Now drop it. Your constant bashing of me, and accusing me of things I'm not doing is getting annoying.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
why does every thread in the AMD section become Scali vs duby or Scali vs someone else ?
?If there is a bug that prevents reliable operation above 2.3GHz, what is the benefit of an unlocked overclockers edition.
I overclock but only if it can be done reliably. I wouldn't buy a CPU to overclock that has known issues above stock speed.
It may only occur in certain cirmunstances, but I don't wan't to add any instability to my hardware.
I overclock but only if it can be done reliably. I wouldn't buy a CPU to overclock that has known issues above stock speed.
It may only occur in certain cirmunstances, but I don't wan't to add any instability to my hardware.
Neither does AMD, hence why they pulled the higher speeds, but I agree with your point
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
the problem is with the NB/L3 cache isn't it? thats why the 3ghz / 2.2 / 2.3 ghz chips are all stuck on 2ghz NB/L3 speed
why does every thread in the AMD section become Scali vs duby or Scali vs someone else
Didn't figure it out yet? I'm an Intel fanboy
Recognizing the problem is the first step to recovery. j/kDidn't figure it out yet? I'm an Intel fanboy
Didn't figure it out yet? I'm an Intel fanboy
Boooooooo
Recognizing the problem is the first step to recovery. j/k
I think I'll recover as soon as AMD gives me a good reason
Right now I have Core2 Duo for both my desktop and notebook, and I couldn't be happier.
I have AMD in both, but I received a μATX Clovertown board today and I have two quad Xeons laying around here somewhere for the past few months. We'll see how it goes with this setup.
You haven't responded to any of my points with a single fact or believable train of logic.
I haven't attacked you once; I've attacked your so called facts and arguments. I've poked holes in them until they make a block of swiss cheese look airtight.
I haven't accused you of anything. I have merely pointed out your arguments have no merit and are nothing more than an attempt to bash AMD any chance you get or try to spin anything AMD does as bad or useless.
What you are finding annoying is that you have no logical arguments to show anything I have said is incorrect. You find it annoying that I will challenge you on your so called facts. You are annoyed because someone is giving the actual facts and logical scenarios of why the Spider platform can very well be a major success for AMD and you have no way to counter those facts and scenarios.
I will tell you a little bit about myself. I get a large amount of pleasure from "arguing" with people like you because you generally go off the deep end due to not having a way of backing up what you say and no way of combating an argument based on facts, logic and previous trends in the computer industry which are easily recognizable.
I don't like people who spread misinformation and attempt to downplay or bury something which is good. Therefore, I make a logical argument based on the above in order to make sure people realize what information is correct and which isn't.
yes not to knock kyle the [H] review was a bit harsh on amd yes its late, yes they screwed up a stepping and did not come out the gate as originally planned manufacturing is to blame the engineers did there job for the most part.
this is what happens when you are a company that takes the hard road rather than the easy one. amd could of pulled an intel with out a doubt chucked 2 dual cores stitched together but they decided to be an inivator like they where with 64bit on the k8 amd will pull it together they have no other options.
on to the over priced comment look at the platform surrounding that Q6600 i can gaurentee it will cost more than amd's platform then add in the fact that you can use your nice shiney phenom in your old am2 board with a bios update is very compelling how long do intel boards last maybe 6th months?! and that is stretching it... uh yeah over priced not from my view point its a cheep step up from a dual core
and it allows amd to compete in the same field as intel instead of being on the outside. will i get one yes the platform can not be matched by intel the chip is havig teething troubles but these should be solved by my purchase time in febuary
Okay, now someone is speaking my language. Now I get it.
I hope that AMD pulls out of this slump though. As much as I am willing to put my money with the best, I'm still an AMD fanboi at heart.
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
P35 boards start at $76.
P965 boards start at around $80.
I don't think anyone would consider this expensive at all.
LOTS of choices and options. Ranging from those prices upto $180ish.
Both offer great performance. You can also find other more budget intel chipsets that perform well and even cheaper like the P31, G31, G33, etc.
790FX boards that Hard talked about in their review for Spider platform.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...000200022+107191003+1071933047&name=AMD+790FX
Only one, single board in stock, $209.
Price/Performance ratio of platform WHAT!@?!?
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
Additionally, your wrong.
P965 chipset launched way back in June 2006.
And it will still support the Penryn based, 45nm Quad-core cpu's just launched and more being launched in January. It will still be a plenty viable platform through Summer 2008. 2 years.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
Welcome to the AMD sub forum, the original 965 didn't support 1333fsb the later boards finaly started to support 1333fsb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200280+107172333&name=Intel+X38
List of the X38 chipset motherboards. The cheapest one is $229 and they have been out a good bit longer. It's usually not a good idea to try to compare the top end chipset for one lineup to the lower end of the other lineup. It makes you look bad. Those are just the prices for the X38. I'm leaving the 680i nVidia chipset boards out of this discussion.
It's unlikely every P965 chipset based board will accept a Penryn. I would be surprised if more than a few did. I don't expect my Gigabyte DS3 to support Penryn based CPUs. For the P965 motherboards that might support Penryn, much of it will have to do with the revision of the board you have.
Intel does not have a very good history concerning new CPUs and older motherboards. There are myriads of Socket 775 boards what will not support the Core line of Intel processors much less the newer Penryns.
I don't expect every AM2 board to work with the new Phenoms as there will always be some which won't; but the compatibility will be much better than Intel's more recent history.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,116
also @ 790fx, considering you can get the MSI 790FX board for $179 and the 790X board(not quad cf, just dual cf) for ~$100, I'd say its pretty good for a brand new board (- the SB600) and all the features they include(the msi has SAS?), and pretty much ALL am2 boards will support quad cores with a bios update.
Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
Is one of them running @ 1.8Ghz ??
Recognizing the problem is the first step to recovery. j/k
This is soo true
There own engineers are now saying (publically and privately) they should have pulled an Intel with the Quads.That to me says a lot !
Whatever the case may be,I am willing to give the chip a try on high end air,when the BE's arrive.
I (...and I am sure many others.....) would like to see some articles by [H] on 790xx mobo's and overclocking.Kyle rightly said,that OEM's would be stupid and crazy to not take advantage of the AOD bios hooks,AMD has provided.
I am waiting... and so far so bad.This has to change fast,real fast.Especially if there is any truth to AMD wanting to sell well at retail.Retail,then the OEM's is what I have heard.
Correct me if I am wrong on that.
Its a great selling point (IMHO),but it has to work.If a sales man,in a mom and pop comp store can demonstrate the software working well...
As others have said, there are plenty of P35 boards that are reasonably priced and barely cost over $100.00. I think right now Intel still offers the best bang for your buck, the best overclocking experiences and of course a platform that is mature and quite reliable.
Until AMD expands the Phenom line to hit more price points, or until they come out with a Crossfire X solution with 4 cards that offer superior performance to an SLI setup, I can't really recommend Phenom processors over comparable Intel processors at present.
In the case of the later scenario I mentioned, I for one would take a performance hit processor wise, or at least a processor that's about the same stock for stock in order to have three or four video cards that would outrun anything NVIDIA has on the market. Though with triple SLI becoming a reality, and the possibility of quad SLI coming after that, it seems unlikely that there will be a AMD/ATI solution out there that can match Intel/NVIDIA solutions. Lets not also forget that if Intel motherboards continue to support ATI cards in Crossfire mode, and a triple or quad Crossfire compatible solution gets released that supports the Core series processors, there will be no reason to purchase AMD Phenoms for high end machines at all. At least not presently.
AMD may be able to build off K10 and really bring a product to market that is more compelling than their competition, but that seems unlikely in the near future. I'd like to be wrong on this, but it doesn't seem that way at present.
Well, at least all Asus P965 boards will support Penryn. I'm glad I went with the P5B Deluxe. http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/
This proves that P965 *will* work with Penryn, it just depends on whether mobo makers actually bother to make updated BIOSs for their P965 boards.
Calefaction
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 335
Given the price point, and past history (barring the AMD-64 anomaly, which was just that), this seems to go along the normal lines of thought for me. Intel = expensive, but very fast (the Ferrarri of CPU's), AMD = cheaper, but not as fast (the Corvette of CPU's). Both are still quality vehicles, but if you want to spend the extra cash, you can get yourself a Super Car.
Obviously, that's a serious generalization, but that has always been the case for the most part (besides the obvious K8 vs. NetBurst anomaly).
Obviously, that's a serious generalization, but that has always been the case for the most part (besides the obvious K8 vs. NetBurst anomaly).
Except Intel is not very expensive, unless you mean the Extreme Edition parts...
The Q6600 is priced the same as the Phenom 9600, and outpeforms it. It's rather a case of an entry level Ferrari beating a flagship Corvette. Rather depressing, isn't it?
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
I think your both wrong. If you think about it, Intel is the mega corporation like Chevy in your comparison. Ferrari is the little company, like AMD.
So it's more like the Chevy Impala or something out performing an Enzo.
Or you could just stop comparing electronics and auto industry as it makes little sense whatsoever.
vista_blista
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 480
For now the Phenom 9600 is overpriced. Talk to me in two months from now. Most brand new parts are priced at a premium. And AMD is already bleeding enough cash. I don't blame them for pricing it accordingly. Don't you have any sense of true perspective?
I think your both wrong. If you think about it, Intel is the mega corporation like Chevy in your comparison. Ferrari is the little company, like AMD.
So it's more like the Chevy Impala or something out performing an Enzo.
Or you could just stop comparing electronics and auto industry as it makes little sense whatsoever.
The auto analogy doesn't work here. AMD and Intel don't need all the warranty work and their products far more dependable than most autos.
Size wise you can probably compare them as General Motors (Intel) and Kia (AMD).