AMD Phenom II X4 Model 940 @ [H]

I repeat, bottom line is that Core i5 will make Phenom II a non-competitive chip.
The argument that Phenom II is still "good enough for most people" is silly.
Even a Pentium 4 fits that requirement. That doesn't mean a Pentium 4 is still a competitive chip, let alone that it would be a good buy.
Phenom II is simply not good enough for AMD to remain competitive once Core i5 comes out, and that will probably have big consequences for the future of that company. Especially considering that they are also going to lose in the server market.
The only thing AMD can do is massively reduce prices across the board, and I am not too sure if they can survive that as a company.
 
christof139 said:
Yeah you did. You keep trying to tell me what I said and what I meant and what I wrote and you are stone cold wrong. You are the one that is ignoring what I say, and from what I have seen what some other people also say, and I believe you simply like to argue and try to prive you're right about everything.

I clearly stated what I meant and provided documentation to prove that Microsoft made a 32-bit Windows Sever Enterprise Edition that could utilize 32MB of RAM, and that this coding technology could have been included in a 32-bit Consumer Home Windows Edition but Microsoft shorted the consumer.
Click to expand...

Just give it up.
You are right in saying that theoretically Microsoft could have enabled > 4 GB support in consumer versions of Windows... But Zero82z is also right in explaining why Microsoft didn't, which is a different reason from what you originally stated.
 
Scali2 said:
Just give it up.
You are right in saying that theoretically Microsoft could have enabled > 4 GB support in consumer versions of Windows... But Zero82z is also right in explaining why Microsoft didn't, which is a different reason from what you originally stated.
Click to expand...

You and your BOYS 'give it up'. Many IT etc. people, including programmers, engineers, etc. have the same view, and that view is that Microsoft shorted the home consumer due to Microsoft's reasoning about what the home consumer would need. Typical dictorial, know-it-all, monopolistic reasoning, same as what you and the good old boys here are doing.

You all need to realize that you and your own opinions, knowledge, experiences, etc. are not the only ones in the world.
 
christof139 said:
You and your BOYS 'give it up'. Many IT etc. people, including programmers, engineers, etc. have the same view, and that view is that Microsoft shorted the home consumer due to Microsoft's reasoning about what the home consumer would need. Typical dictorial, know-it-all, monopolistic reasoning, same as what you and the good old boys here are doing.

You all need to realize that you and your own opinions, knowledge, experiences, etc. are not the only ones in the world.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with opinion. It is a simple FACT that there's quite a lot of software and hardware that wouldn't work in a 32-bit OS with > 4 GB.
Microsoft's reasoning was simply that it would be in the interest of the consumers to limit the consumer OSes to 4 GB and as such ensure compatibility with all existing software and hardware.
With the server OSes they could get away with more stringent requirements for software, hardware and drivers. But as a result, it is a FACT that these server OSes support less hardware and software than the consumer editions do.
So if "many people have the same view", those people are simply not informed properly, and as a result they are wrong.

And you might want to drop your attitude. It's rather annoying that you constantly insult people, lump them together with whatever groups you see fit, or accuse them of whatever suits your agenda.
 
christof139 said:
Many IT etc. people, including programmers, engineers, etc. have the same view, and that view is that Microsoft shorted the home consumer due to Microsoft's reasoning about what the home consumer would need.
Click to expand...
Yeah? Who has that view? And how well-informed are they? I bet those people are the same ones who still think Vista is a bad OS. Most "IT Professionals" don't concern themselves with any sort of computer-related knowledge outside their specific area of expertise, so any insight they might have into a topic about which they have no authoritative knowledge is essentially meaningless.

And, like Scali2 said, regardless of the opinions held by these people, that doesn't change the fact that there are intrinsic issues with enabling PAE support for more than 4GB of RAM in a consumer OS that cannot be resolved. So in any case, Microsoft still had very good reason not to include that capability in their desktop OSes, and to only allow it in server environments in which the specific hardware used is much more tightly controlled.
 
Zero82z said:
Yeah? Who has that view? And how well-informed are they? I bet those people are the same ones who still think Vista is a bad OS. Most "IT Professionals" don't concern themselves with any sort of computer-related knowledge outside their specific area of expertise, so any insight they might have into a topic about which they have no authoritative knowledge is essentially meaningless.

And, like Scali2 said, regardless of the opinions held by these people, that doesn't change the fact that there are intrinsic issues with enabling PAE support for more than 4GB of RAM in a consumer OS that cannot be resolved. So in any case, Microsoft still had very good reason not to include that capability in their desktop OSes, and to only allow it in server environments in which the specific hardware used is much more tightly controlled.
Click to expand...

:DMany people have that view and many other views because there are many people in the world and all their views differ slightly.:rolleyes:

Mmmmm, yeah, you're OT again, but we all know that consumers cannot enable PAE support for more than 4GB of RAM and I never mentioned that they could :rolleyes: but for some reason you are trying to bring this ridiculous nonsense to the table and make it as if I said this could be done by a consumer enabling PAE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I did truthfully state that Microsoft could have done this as they did in thier 32-bit Windows Server Enterprise Edition. I think you are lost and just try to start an argument/epenis thing again as you usually do.;)
 
Hmm, I must have looked at the wrong person in that single vid I looked at here a while back. I assumed that guy was kyle, but whoever it was looked a little older than the 13 or so that this article sounded like it was written by. Geez dude, couldn't have you had your tantrum in private? lol
 
christof139 said:
:DMany people have that view and many other views because there are many people in the world and all their views differ slightly.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Again, who?
christof139 said:
Mmmmm, yeah, you're OT again, but we all know that consumers cannot enable PAE support for more than 4GB of RAM and I never mentioned that they could :rolleyes: but for some reason you are trying to bring this ridiculous nonsense to the table and make it as if I said this could be done by a consumer enabling PAE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. I did however explain why Microsoft does not allow you to do that.
christof139 said:
I did truthfully state that Microsoft could have done this as they did in thier 32-bit Windows Server Enterprise Edition.
Click to expand...
Yes, they could have. But they didn't, for the reasons which I have explained to you several times already.
christof139 said:
I think you are lost and just try to start an argument/epenis thing again as you usually do.;)
Click to expand...
You're the one starting the arguments here. I posted concrete evidence which should have ended this debate a long time ago. You keep dragging it out by putting words into my mouth, and not actually paying attention to what I'm trying to say.
 
christof139 said:
You and your BOYS 'give it up'. Many IT etc. people, including programmers, engineers, etc. have the same view, and that view is that Microsoft shorted the home consumer due to Microsoft's reasoning about what the home consumer would need. Typical dictorial, know-it-all, monopolistic reasoning, same as what you and the good old boys here are doing.

You all need to realize that you and your own opinions, knowledge, experiences, etc. are not the only ones in the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those bastards! Fuck them for offering 64-bit versions of their operating systems! They should have just said the hell with technological advancement and forced that PAE workaround down our throats! Who would have cared if it broke shit and caused incompatibilities? I feel fucking downright shorted.
 
gtg465x said:
Yeah, those bastards! Fuck them for offering 64-bit versions of their operating systems! They should have just said the hell with technological advancement and forced that PAE workaround down our throats! I feel fucking downright shorted.
Click to expand...

That is not the point, and there were many driver etc. problems with 64-bit OS when they were released and for some good amount of time afterward. Too bad MS didn't make 32-bit Home Consumer OS because many people would have appreciated and actually needed the ability to have 8GB DRAM to run the many good but heavy duty DRAM using 32-bit apps. MS screwed up, so screw MS. PAE only gives you up to 4GB DRAM with MS 32-bit Home Conumer and Enthusiast OS, and that is not enough DRAM sometimes.
 
christof139 said:
That is not the point, and there were many driver etc. problems with 64-bit OS when they were released and for some good amount of time afterward. Too bad MS didn't make 32-bit Home Consumer OS because many people would have appreciated and actually needed the ability to have 8GB DRAM to run the many good but heavy duty DRAM using 32-bit apps. MS screwed up, so screw MS. PAE only gives you up to 4GB DRAM with MS 32-bit Home Conumer and Enthusiast OS, and that is not enough DRAM sometimes.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really help your applications themselves. Even with PAE, 32-bit applications can only use 3 GB at most. Consumers tend to run only one such memory-hungry application at a time. Running multiple heavy applications in parallel tends to be server-oriented, and as such you will use a server OS (and for the few exceptions, it's perfectly possible to use a server OS for desktop tasks).

PAE just isn't the solution. Never was, never will be. Intel never even intended PAE for the consumer market anyway. They just added it to the Pentium Pro because some server/workstation tasks were getting close to the 4 GB mark, and x86 needed some breathing space before going 64-bit. PAE isn't elegant, it isn't easy to use, and it isn't very efficient.
64-bit is the only good solution, and by now it is mature enough for the consumer market. In fact, even 32-bit applications can use the full 4 GB in a 64-bit OS, so even if you only use 32-bit applications, it's still a better solution than using a 32-bit server OS with PAE.
 
christof139 said:
That is not the point, and there were many driver etc. problems with 64-bit OS when they were released and for some good amount of time afterward. Too bad MS didn't make 32-bit Home Consumer OS because many people would have appreciated and actually needed the ability to have 8GB DRAM to run the many good but heavy duty DRAM using 32-bit apps. MS screwed up, so screw MS. PAE only gives you up to 4GB DRAM with MS 32-bit Home Conumer and Enthusiast OS, and that is not enough DRAM sometimes.
Click to expand...

So get Vista 64-bit (also a consumer OS)? You're right about one thing... I'm obviously missing the point you're trying to make.
 
Hey guys I heard AMD was back, I can ditch my dirty Intel C2D now. Sorry I'm late to the party, just read the news.
 
gtg465x said:
So get Vista 64-bit (also a consumer OS)? You're right about one thing... I'm obviously missing the point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are missing a lot. I don't need nor want to give more $$ to Microsoft for a 64-bit OS since I use a lot of older apps. that may not be compatible with it and see no reason to move to 64-bit from 32-bit. Many people have the same and similar reasons, even though 64-bit OS's have become more stable with fixes added and more older driver updates released for older peripheral equipment such as printers etc. Many people and BUSINESSES are not in the habit of switching older but good and functioning equipment or ditching older apps. and games just to get a 64-bit OS. Hope that clarifies some things with you, and I may add one more thing, I have no need for a 64-bit OS as of now or in the near future and I don't want to buy one from MS anyway, so I may use a Linus program instead but I haven't made up my mind, if that is OK with you of course. :p
 
christof139 said:
I don't need nor want to give more $$ to Microsoft for a 64-bit OS
Click to expand...

In the case of Vista, there's no extra $$ involved. You can use the same key to install 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

christof139 said:
Many people have the same and similar reasons, even though 64-bit OS's have become more stable with fixes added and more older driver updates released for older peripheral equipment such as printers etc.
Click to expand...

In the case of Vista (unlike XP) the 32-bit and 64-bit version are built on the same codebase, which makes driver development for 64-bit trivial, once you have a 32-bit driver.
Aside from that, Microsoft requires that you have both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers, before you are allowed to carry the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo.
As as result, in 99% of the cases, if it works in 32-bit Vista, it works in 64-bit Vista.

christof139 said:
so I may use a Linus program instead but I haven't made up my mind, if that is OK with you of course. :p
Click to expand...

It's rather silly to first argue about backward compatibility, and then mention you want to move to linux.
 
Scali2 said:
In the case of Vista, there's no extra $$ involved. You can use the same key to install 32-bit and 64-bit versions.



In the case of Vista (unlike XP) the 32-bit and 64-bit version are built on the same codebase, which makes driver development for 64-bit trivial, once you have a 32-bit driver.
Aside from that, Microsoft requires that you have both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers, before you are allowed to carry the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo.
As as result, in 99% of the cases, if it works in 32-bit Vista, it works in 64-bit Vista.



It's rather silly to first argue about backward compatibility, and then mention you want to move to linux.
Click to expand...

True about the free 32-bit to 64-bit upgrade, however the rest of what I stated is true, and Vista can be a system hog in either 32 or 64-bit. You see, I also feel no need, necessity, or desire to upgrade to Vista, if that is allright with you.

Since you are in the habit of telling others what to do, I have a suggestion for you, don't do that becuase it is obnoxious and someday someone may knock your block or similar off in more ways than one, or perhaps that is your problem, someone has already knocked your block off your shoulders or similar in more ways than one, even verbally.

There are many people that have not upgraded to Vista, or did upgrade to Vista and didn't like it, and are satisfied to use XP, even though they may still be PO'd that they cannot use more than 4GB DRAM on 32-bit Vista or 64-bit Vista, and BTW you were insinuating that 32-bit Vista supports more than 4GB DRAM when in fact it doesn't, so why did you mention upgrading to 32-bit Vista to begin with??

Have a good one after you sort your crap out and realize your errors and failabilities.
 
christof139 said:
There are many people that have not upgraded to Vista, or did upgrade to Vista and didn't like it, and are satisfied to use XP, even though they may still be PO'd that they cannot use more than 4GB DRAM on 32-bit Vista or 64-bit Vista, and BTW you were insinuating that 32-bit Vista supports more than 4GB DRAM when in fact it doesn't, so why did you mention upgrading to 32-bit Vista to begin with??
Click to expand...

At no point did I insinuate that 32-bit Vista supports more than 4 GB DRAM. I have no idea where you got that from. It seems you are confusing me with someone else (just like most other stuff in this post of yours).
My point is just that if you're going to upgrade to Vista (or Windows 7, or whatever future OS down the line), there's no extra cost involved in going 64-bit, and there is little difference in hardware compatibility between the 32-bit and 64-bit version. I think I stated that very clearly in my post anyway.
 
Scali2 said:
At no point did I insinuate that 32-bit Vista supports more than 4 GB DRAM. I have no idea where you got that from. It seems you are confusing me with someone else (just like most other stuff in this post of yours).
My point is just that if you're going to upgrade to Vista (or Windows 7, or whatever future OS down the line), there's no extra cost involved in going 64-bit, and there is little difference in hardware compatibility between the 32-bit and 64-bit version. I think I stated that very clearly in my post anyway.
Click to expand...

Hogwash.
 
simmadown.gif


The [H]ard|Forum Rules:
(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.
 
Atech said:
Press the report button instead, that way you stop trolls.
Click to expand...

I receive the reported posts as I'm am a moderator. What you see above is a general warning before I start issuing infractions which lead to temp and perm bans.
 
The thing I like about the quad core black ed PII is that it is a drop in upgrade to my current DDR2 and Asus M3A.

So 600+ for the slowest i7, cheapest mobo, and cheapest 3x2GB ddr3.
Or 229 for the PII X4 Black, 44 for 2x2gb more of low timing g.skill DDR2, for under 300. Maybe 10-15% less performance for 50-60% less money. And an unlocked multiplier? Yes please.
I just ordered one and 4gb more ram right now actually =)
Coming from an X2 brisbane at 2.8 ghz this is a MONSTER upgrade for 270 bucks.
 
Malakai said:
The thing I like about the quad core black ed PII is that it is a drop in upgrade to my current DDR2 and Asus M3A.

So 600+ for the slowest i7, cheapest mobo, and cheapest 3x2GB ddr3.
Or 229 for the PII X4 Black, 44 for 2x2gb more of low timing g.skill DDR2, for under 300. Maybe 10-15% less performance for 50-60% less money. And an unlocked multiplier? Yes please.
I just ordered one and 4gb more ram right now actually =)
Coming from an X2 brisbane at 2.8 ghz this is a MONSTER upgrade for 270 bucks.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course it is an excellent drop-in upgrade for an AMD system. It just isn't a compelling option to put together a new system around it.
 
Malakai said:
The thing I like about the quad core black ed PII is that it is a drop in upgrade to my current DDR2 and Asus M3A.

So 600+ for the slowest i7, cheapest mobo, and cheapest 3x2GB ddr3.
Or 229 for the PII X4 Black, 44 for 2x2gb more of low timing g.skill DDR2, for under 300. Maybe 10-15% less performance for 50-60% less money. And an unlocked multiplier? Yes please.
I just ordered one and 4gb more ram right now actually =)
Coming from an X2 brisbane at 2.8 ghz this is a MONSTER upgrade for 270 bucks.
Click to expand...

That same logic applies to people with a socket 775 system wanting to get a Core2 Quad.
If you can upgrade, it's interesting. If you're building from scratch, the price difference with Core i7 is not that big, and the Core i7's extra performance and features (triple channel DDR3, 8 logical cores through HT!) are very compelling.
Let's face it, both Core2 Quad and Phenom are yesterday's news.
 
Zero82z said:
Yes, of course it is an excellent drop-in upgrade for an AMD system. It just isn't a compelling option to put together a new system around it.
Click to expand...

As long as it is cheaper it is compelling. Most everyone has a budget and has to draw the line somewhere. For some, more HDD space or a better GFX card are more compelling reasons to go with a lesser CPU.
My compelling reasons were an included onboard GFX card with its own RAM, as I need/want 4 displays, 8GB RAM for a song, a decent gaming GFX card and a new HDD and future AM3 CPU upgradeable . If I went for the i7 platform I would have ended up with 6GB RAM, no GFX card, no onboard GFX card, and no HDD. So to get the system I wanted I would have had to go over budget. Not very compelling at all.
 
I'm coming from having a 2.8ghz p4 with HT.

Going to put together a Phenom II build becuase its $500 with a graphics card. An I7 would be $500 without RAM or a GFX card... Not a hard choice here.
 
I picked up the Phenom II X4 940 Biostar combo that was listed on Hotdeals. I wanted to jump back over to AMD. Phenom II X4 940 BE 3ghz and Biostar TA790GX XE. Could not be happier. Hit 7.4 on my Processor score in Win7. I need to compare that against my i7 920 processor score.

Based on the price and performance this thing is incredible.
 
topslop1 said:
I'm coming from having a 2.8ghz p4 with HT.

Going to put together a Phenom II build becuase its $500 with a graphics card. An I7 would be $500 without RAM or a GFX card... Not a hard choice here.
Click to expand...

Stop comparing the i7 to the PhenomII...they are not in the same class.
 
Atech said:
Stop comparing the i7 to the PhenomII...they are not in the same class.
Click to expand...

Though I agree with you but I partly disagree. There is nothing else to compare i7 to really. When building a computer today it is either go with the affordable AM2+/AM3 or spend a load on the powerful i7. Yes they are in different class however they are in the same generation.
 
DTN107 said:
Though I agree with you but I partly disagree. There is nothing else to compare i7 to really. When building a computer today it is either go with the affordable AM2+/AM3 or spend a load on the powerful i7. Yes they are in different class however they are in the same generation.
Click to expand...

Dosn't matter the Phenom II is to be compared to the Core2Quad.
The i7 is in a leauge of it's own for now.
 
Atech said:
Dosn't matter the Phenom II is to be compared to the Core2Quad.
The i7 is in a leauge of it's own for now.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and I respect that.

Right now I am a bit unsure what you mean though when you say i7 is in a league of it's own now. Since the poster earlier was talking about his $500 budget I assume you mean the i7 is in own league on price?

If your comparing to power then you are correct. But the earlier poster wasn't talking about CPU power but about what he can get with his $500 budget.

You can say people can't compare the i7 to PHII all you want but it is happening since they are both in the same generation. Like I say before... building a computer today your good choices are going AMD AM2+/AM3 or Intel i7 route. People are going to compare them since not everyone has pretty bank account today.
 
DTN107 said:
That is your opinion and I respect that.

Right now I am a bit unsure what you mean though when you say i7 is in a league of it's own now. Since the poster earlier was talking about his $500 budget I assume you mean the i7 is in own league on price?

If your comparing to power then you are correct. But the earlier poster wasn't talking about CPU power but about what he can get with his $500 budget.

You can say people can't compare the i7 to PHII all you want but it is happening since they are both in the same generation. Like I say before... building a computer today your good choices are going AMD AM2+/AM3 or Intel i7 route. People are going to compare them since not everyone has pretty bank account today.
Click to expand...

Performance wise...not matter how much you dress up the Phenom II...it's not comparable to the i7....except maybee in die size...and that is not a good thing for the Phenom II
 
Darknyt said:
Looks like we've hit that mark by now, 4.5 months later and the price is down about $100. At 190, this is looking like a great option for my aging M2N32-SLI to replace my X2 4600. Sheesh, in the non-gaming benchmarks, some sites have it double my current proc.
Click to expand...
you are really holding that gtx260 back with a 4600 X2. at 1680 you are losing on average probably 35-40% of the performance that card is capable of newer games. heck for Far Cry 2 I had a 30% increase in performance going from a 5000 X2 to an E8500 and that was with a wimpy 4670 card. just think how bad the gtx260 is being held back.
 
cannondale06 said:
you are really holding that gtx260 back with a 4600 X2. at 1680 you are losing on average probably 35-40% of the performance that card is capable of newer games. heck for Far Cry 2 I had a 30% increase in performance going from a 5000 X2 to an E8500 and that was with a wimpy 4670 card. just think how bad the gtx260 is being held back.
Click to expand...

I know, I've had it about 3 days, forgot I had updated my sig.

I actually had a thread about which to upgrade first and a deal that was too good to pass on up on the 260 came around, so I jumped. I bought it intending to upgrade to a 940 shortly.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420713

I'm picking up the 940 tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top