AMD Phenom II X4 Model 940 @ [H]

[Mr.Pernod]

nice review, borderline harsh at times, but then again, being politically correct in your wording doesn't always get the right message across.
entertaining thread, some good questions (and answers) posted (respect to Dan_D),
but I seem to missing one vital question here ... why wasn't this a video review??

 

[Pkirk618]

well there's plenty of am2 owners that'll be happy to have an option so for them, thank your lucky stars. Aside from that, unless the prices drop as low as their fc2 scores, it's a hard sell.

Lastly, excellent review. I often wonder what you guys think when u hit an wall and you know the readers are going to balk at the numbers. Either way, you guys are thorough.

 

[FrgMstr]

nice review, borderline harsh at times, but then again, being politically correct in your wording doesn't always get the right message across.
entertaining thread, some good questions (and answers) posted (respect to Dan_D),
but I seem to missing one vital question here ... why wasn't this a video review??

I thought there were just too many specifics to be covered to do it well in a video review. That FC2 chart alone would have been a nightmare to verbalize.

well there's plenty of am2 owners that'll be happy to have an option so for them, thank your lucky stars. Aside from that, unless the prices drop as low as their fc2 scores, it's a hard sell.

Lastly, excellent review. I often wonder what you guys think when u hit an wall and you know the readers are going to balk at the numbers. Either way, you guys are thorough.

QFT and...we hit the wall a long time ago. We are just stoopid enough to keep boucing off of it.

 

[XMAN245]

Kyle, good review IMHO. The AMD fans are finding it to acidic for theirs tastes, but all it did for me to prove my [email protected] is better than the P2 at the same, even 3.2. And that wont change much at 3.6(mine, just need to get better cooler, 9700 aint cutting it) vs the P2 at 3.8 either.

I also liked the FC2 benches, very informative. Why anyone would want to use it as a bench of CPUs with only 1 or 2 gpu setup is beyond me as they would still be GPU bound and would make for an almost lvl playing field across all processors.

 

[alg7_munif]

First of all, I did RTFA but I found nothing about the mobo used by the C2Q system in the Tri-SLi "non-CPU Bound" gaming page. Did I miss something here? Does the X48 on the Rampage Extreme now support Tri-SLi? Does the Intel X58 chipset play a role here compared to the nVidia chipset?

 

[Scali2]

still like the review just proves that amd is getting back to the ballpark instead of sitting in traffic now they just need something to get them IN the damn park heh

Problem is, Intel already moved the ballpark while AMD was still in traffic. So AMD is still as far away as they were before.

 

[Zero82z]

Haven't you ever wondered why die shots of the E4500 and teh E6600 look exactly the same even tho the E4500 has half teh cache? I'l tell you
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it....
.
.
.
.
THEY USED FUCJING LASERS TO CUT TEH CACHE IN HALF RENDERING HALF OF IT UNUSABLE BECAUSE IT FAILED TESTING!

Actually, that part is incorrect. The E6600 uses the Conroe core which is manufactured with 4MB of L2 cache. The E6300 and E6400 are Conroe chips with half the cache disabled. However, the E4xxx series uses the Allendale core, which is manufactured with only 2MB of cache. This was presumably done because Conroe yields were high enough that it wasn't cost-effective to keep putting out versions of the chip with half the cache disabled.

 

[Dan_D]

Quote from Dan D.
There are no engineering differences between these CPUs

then how does these engineering differences occur then since you quote it never happens its the same?

There are no engineering differences between any Intel Core 2 Quad 45nm LGA775 CPUs. The differences are due to binning of the specific processors based on either quality control or order fulfillment requirements at the time these processors are made. Intel gets I believe 300 dies per silicon wafer. Some of them that end up defective are salvagable by disabling certain features and selling them at a lower price point. AMD does this as well. For example, a Phenom X3 is a Phenom X4 with a defective core. They sell the processor as a Phenom X3 after disabling the failed core. If they didn't do that then they would have to throw away all four cores. Lasers are used to cut trace paths severing the links to features that didn't work properly. In the case of the Phenom X3, it would be an entire core. The best processors are often sold as the premium models like the QX9770. While the CPUs that don't meet clock speed or thermal requirements and or posess defective L2 cache are sold as a Q9300 or something else.

Q9450 -These processors support the 775_VR_CONFIG_05A specifications
Q9770 - does not

The "05A" specifications refer to the "Intel Platform Compatibility Guide." These specifications are for matching compatible Intel Desktop boards with the correct processors. You match the Intel Desktop motherboard that supports 05A processors with processors that support the 05A specifications to ensure compatibility. The QX9770 isn't an 05A processor because it defaults to a 1600MHz (400x4) FSB. There are motherboards out there that only officially support a 1333MHz (333x4) FSB. The board must also support processors with the 130watt TDP of the QX9770 vs. the 95watt TDP of the Q9450. (Since we are comparing those two CPUs.) With that said, the differences between the two processors is due to how they were binned. It is not an engineering difference.

I wouldn't use specifications you do not undertand to support your argument.

Q9450 - These parts have Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (Intel® TXT) enabled
Q9770 - does not

This is a feature marketed to the business computing segment. The Extreme Edition QX9770 is not. It doesn't need this feature as it will never make use of it given the enviroment that is likely to use it. I assure you however, that this feature is present on the die of the QX9770. It is simply disabled.

Q9450 - These parts have Extended HALT (C1E) power of 12W
Q9770 - does not

The QX9770 has a TDP of 130 watts compared to the Q9450's 95watt TDP. The QX9770 does support C1E, but it doesn't run at 12w because those processors conform to different thermal and power specifications. What you need to understand is that all these processors can share the same silicon and die design, yet actually (due to manufacturing variances) behave slightly different in regard to maximum clock speeds, thermal and power envelopes. As such they are binned for different markets and price points as different models.

Q9450 - does not
Q9770 - These parts have Deep Sleep State (C3E) enabled

The feature for whatever reason is present on both, yet Intel chose to leave it enabled on one CPU and disable it on the other.

Well Dan you stated they are not Engineered differently,

They aren't. You are wrong.

Looks to me these are real engineering differences between them, oh wait i think the cook put those features in 1 but not the other randomly right.

It looks to you like those are real engineering differences because you have no grasp of the engineering involved, or the processes in which these processors are manufactured.

Seems intel did engineer them with different features more then CLOCK's alone Dan aye ??

No they didn't.

or did a the cook do that to make em equal when i oc a [email protected][email protected]

This statement doesn't even make any sense.

Ill bet if we tested a q9770 vs q9770 same speed, the results would be a hella lot closer in over all numbers vs a oc's 9450 trying to similarize to a q9770 in a full suite of tests

No, they would perform within an acceptable margin or error (less than 3%) of each other because they ARE the same. Until you can provide data showing different, you can not solidify this claim.

Which pretty much proves they are not = as you seem to be deadlocked into

It proves nothing as you've provided no data proving anything. You are making statements based on a flawed understanding of the information you are looking at and referring to. I'm deadlocked on the facts. Semi-conductor manufacturing and engineering isn't something you seem to have a solid grasp of. You are deadlocked on an opinion based on nothing more than casual observations of specification data which you have used to draw nearly baseless conclusions from.

I've tried to explain it to you but you don't seem to be able to grasp what myself and others have been saying concerning processor manufacturing. There is no engineering differences between these processors. These processors are all identical silicon. The "differences" in features are disabled or left enabled by Intel for specific model CPUs intended for specific markets. They are binned based on clock speed tests and thermal envelope at a given clock speed. Processor manufacturing is like baking cookies in that no two cookies are 100% identical. Meaning that each processor will be capable of slightly difference clock speeds, operational voltage ranges and will run within slightly different thermal envelopes. Somewhere during initial development Intel decided what a QX9770's specifications were going to be. They made this decision all the way down the line from the Q9300 on to the QX9770. So when they test a batch of processors they bin them where their specifications fall in line. So if a processor can run at 3.2GHz and does so within a specific thermal envelope with a specific amount of voltage it will be set "aside" as a QX9770. Because the QX9770 is marketed as a gaming processor features like TXT that aren't needed or aren't desired for that market are disabled. The processor die supports it and the feature is physically present but it doesn't fit within the feature set they've decided suits that market space. Some processors from the batch may include defective L2 cache or certain features may not work properly. If the die is viable as another model lasers will be used to disable specific features of that CPU and lock down the multiplier thus rendering it a lower clock speed part. So a Q9450 that didn't want to run at 3.2GHz with a TDP of less than 130watts, that may have required too much voltage to run at 3.2GHz or simply was incapable of running at 3.2GHz will be set aside as a lower end CPU. If all the cache works it can be binned as a Q9550 or a Q9450. If some of the L2 cache is defective some of that cache can be disabled thus rendering the CPU a Q9300 or something similar.

In many cases all the processors within a given batch are capable of being Q9550's or QX9770's. However Intel may have more orders for Q9300's or Q9450's so instead they'll use the lasers to cut the trace paths locking them down to the required multipliers (and thus specific clock speeds) and they'll disable additional L2 cache if needed so that the silicon meets the specifications set fourth for the lower end or lesser binned processor models. This happens quite frequently with Intel CPUs which is why there are so many of them that are capable of running well past their intended clock speeds.

A Q9450 has the same multiplier as the QX9770 defaults to. If you run it at 400MHz FSB x 8 it will run at 3.2GHz. Running that processor in that way will result in performance identical to that of the QX9770. Remeber, the TXT feature doesn't impact performance so the fact that it is enabled on one CPU and disabled on the other won't change the benchmark or testing data. They will perform within an acceptable margin of error between one another (all tests run within a margin of error each time they are run even on the same hardware) because they all use the same die. They have all the same features. Some of the features may have been disabled for specific models for reasons that may only relate to marketing purposes but all the features supported by the processor family are present on each die, even if they aren't in the specs. (Why would the disabled features be in the specifications data for a given processor?)

As it relates to the thread and the article in question, it would have made no difference if Kyle had used the Q9450 instead of the far more expensive QX9770 at 3.2GHz and compared it to the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition. If you think it would, you have a flawed understanding of how these CPUs work and perform.

 

[xBanzai89]

I really don't feel like reading through all this to figure this out, but clock for clock how much faster is C2 vs the Phenom II?

 

[XamediX]

I really don't feel like reading through all this to figure this out, but clock for clock how much faster is C2 vs the Phenom II?

The C2, clock for clock, is faster than the Phenom II by the amount specified in the article that was posted on the frontpage of H and the first post of this thread. I hope this helps.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Im going to buy a Phenom II Seems like a decent CPU to me.

 

[Dan_D]

Im going to buy a Phenom II Seems like a decent CPU to me.

To each their own I suppose. I wouldn't buy one unless I already had a Phenom II compatible motherboard.

 

[trivial]

Having lost some, but not all interest in PC gaming over the last couple of years, I plan to pick up a 95w AM3 PII ASAP.

Some of the bad attitude in the [H] review would have been more justified if Core i5 mobos were already available at much reduced cost in comparison to X58. I fully expect i5 to do as well in games as i7.

 

[panfist]

Having lost some, but not all interest in PC gaming over the last couple of years, I plan to pick up a 95w AM3 PII ASAP.

Some of the bad attitude in the [H] review would have been more justified if Core i5 mobos were already available at much reduced cost in comparison to X58. I fully expect i5 to do as well in games as i7.

Question: what about the new phenom sparks your interest more than...an older Core 2 Quad? Or...what if x58 motherboard price drops when AM3 comes out? Which is about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow morning.

 

[trivial]

I referred to a newer phenom (95w TDP) than the new one (125w), although the wait won't be long. C2Q has better IPCs, but by a smaller % margin than the % difference in system power consumption between C2Q and 95w PII.

Sure the X58 mobo price will drop over time. But AM3 as the force pushing it down seems unlikely. i5 and its mobos are further in the future than AM3; that's my issue with Intel. For the performance, I'd gladly pay for an i7 chip. But a more expensive chipset--requiring a mobo with hundreds more traces--is a bad bargain for gaming without a performance increase relative to an i5 mobo.

 

[Zero82z]

I referred to a newer phenom (95w TDP) than the new one (125w), although the wait won't be long. C2Q has better IPCs, but by a smaller margin than the difference in system power consumption between C2Q and 95w PII.

Aside from the Extreme Edition series, all C2Qs have a TDP of 95W as well. And traditionally, AMD CPUs have run closer to their TDPs than Intel chips. Power consumption is not a very good reason to go with a Phenom II.

 

[trivial]

I want an i5. That's the debate as I see it. By the time they're available, 32nm will provide new temptation to wait just a few months for the next best thing.

 

[Dan_D]

Aside from the Extreme Edition series, all C2Qs have a TDP of 95W as well. And traditionally, AMD CPUs have run closer to their TDPs than Intel chips. Power consumption is not a very good reason to go with a Phenom II.

Intel has always been quite conservative with their ratings. The actual TDP of many of their processors are no where near what they are rated for. The QX9775 for example never gets anywhere near 150watts which is what it was rated for. Not sure why they did that either considering the QX9770 is the same thing for all practical purposes yet only has a TDP of 130watts.

 

[Zero82z]

Intel has always been quite conservative with their ratings. The actual TDP of many of their processors are no where near what they are rated for. The QX9775 for example never gets anywhere near 150watts which is what it was rated for. Not sure why they did that either considering the QX9770 is the same thing for all practical purposes yet only has a TDP of 130watts.

My point exactly. I think trivial is just looking for ways to justify his purchasing decision.

 

[Pkirk618]

Intel has always been quite conservative with their ratings. The actual TDP of many of their processors are no where near what they are rated for. The QX9775 for example never gets anywhere near 150watts which is what it was rated for. Not sure why they did that either considering the QX9770 is the same thing for all practical purposes yet only has a TDP of 130watts.

Yeah Dan, they can afford to be conservative when there's nothing on their tail. I suspect they're getting really used to this.

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

i said this in the other thread, but i'll say it here too: i love the new review style/format you guys used for this processor.....

agreed you guys have the cpu tests down, I really wish the video card tests we're done differently though. Custom benchmarks plus apples to apples comparisons ftw. I love seeing results given using the exact same settings.

 

[SheepCake]

Every Kooltime's posts gives me a case of

dont u mean

or more appropriate here would be

its like argueing with somebody who cant understand that an opteron(939/am2) is the same core as the 1mb L2 cache per core athlon x2's, just diffrent name set via fuses/briges.

 

[Miss Banana]

I am sure many of you will not agree with my opinion, but ah well, here goes.

The review on this website is the worst Phenom II review I have seen on the internet.
The difference in memory size, memory speed, and the ever enduring biased and immature attitude of the reviewer, make this review just, well, not as useful as some of the other reviews seen on the internet, to put it mildly.

There is nothing wrong with being disappointed with AMD, and being disappointed with Phenom 1 and even being disappointed with Phenom 2, but to let your personal feelings about a company mess up a review like this is beyond surprising to me.

I don't suspect anyone is interested in how some of the tech enthusiasts in other communities look at [H] in relation to this review, but if this turns out to be the case:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213691&page=15

 

[Atech]

I am sure many of you will not agree with my opinion, but ah well, here goes.

The review on this website is the worst Phenom II review I have seen on the internet.
The difference in memory size, memory speed, and the ever enduring biased and immature attitude of the reviewer, make this review just, well, not as useful as some of the other reviews seen on the internet, to put it mildly.

There is nothing wrong with being disappointed with AMD, and being disappointed with Phenom 1 and even being disappointed with Phenom 2, but to let your personal feelings about a company mess up a review like this is beyond surprising to me.

I don't suspect anyone is interested in how some of the tech enthusiasts in other communities look at [H] in relation to this review, but if this turns out to be the case:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213691&page=15

You are right i don't care for people posting crap that HAS been debunked several times in this thread...go away please.

 

[Miss Banana]

You are right i don't care for people posting crap that HAS been debunked several times in this thread...go away please.

Sorry I must have missed that, where was it debunked?
I did read the thread, but all I could find was some "I could not get faster memory to work" excuse by Kyle, and then some silly explanation about how 4 GB is actually slower than 2 GB on Phenom systems, also by kyle.

Obviously Kyle knows little about memory usage of tri sli systems, as well as memory usage of the games he used to bench, as well as performance impact of using underrated memory with the Phenom II processor, but even if I would ignore all of this, to use such an immature and bitter tone throughout the entire review just makes it very hard to take anything in the review serious.

Objectivity is not a bad thing when making a review.

 

[Atech]

Sorry I must have missed that, where was it debunked?
I did read the thread, but all I could find was some "I could not get faster memory to work" excuse by Kyle, and then some silly explanation about how 4 GB is actually slower than 2 GB on Phenom systems, also by kyle.

Obviously Kyle knows little about memory usage of tri sli systems, as well as memory usage of the games he used to bench, as well as performance impact of using underrated memory with the Phenom II processor, but even if I would ignore all of this, to use such an immature and bitter tone throughout the entire review just makes it very hard to take anything in the review serious.

Objectivity is not a bad thing when making a review.

Read the fucking thread

/ignore

(Am i the only one tired of these clone n00b's still beating the same dead horse?)

 

[Scali2]

Well, I think most reviewers are giving AMD more credit than they deserve.
I mean... Where was AMD with the Phenom line? They were more or less competing with Q6600 (a CPU of more than a year old at the time, more than 2 years old now... the new 45 nm Penryn line was already on the market and out of reach for AMD).
Now that was about a year ago, and AMD has done a lot of work to the Phenom CPU, and moved to 45 nm production and all...
And what did it get them? They moved up one notch, maybe two, and can now compete with the Q9400/9450. Which are over a year old aswell now. So really, AMD didn't actually get anywhere. They're still not much more competitive with Intel. In fact, they're even less competitive now, because back then they may not have competed with Penryn... but Penryn wasn't as far ahead of Conroe as Nehalem is of Penryn.

Therefore I think Kyle Bennett is right in his conclusion, and most other reviews sound too 'apologetic' to me. Phenom II is not a big step for AMD, and it's not a very desirable CPU. If Intel goes through with pricecuts, Phenom II may in fact not matter at all, just like Phenom didn't matter in the face of the super-cheap Q6600. Heck, even quite a few AMD fans by their own admission have moved to Q6600 because they were tired of AMD not delivering the goods, and the Q6600 was too good a deal to pass up. I think most of them still don't feel bad about their choice now that Phenom II is out. After all, it's still barely faster than a stock Q6600. Nothing a bit of an overclock won't fix.

AMD is behind on so many levels now, technically. Their CPUs are actually LARGER than Core i7, yet they have less ALUs onboard, they don't have the new SSE instructions, they don't have HyperThreading, they have smaller caches, they don't have a triple channel memory controller... and they are all around just way slower in performance. On top of that, so far they don't even seem to overclock that well, so they have less clockspeed headroom aswell (aside from already having a clock speed deficit at the highest stock clockspeeds).
All around, AMD's CPU is just poorly engineered compared to Intels. Yes it's cheaper, but only because AMD has no choice. Since Intel has a more mature 45 nm process, and Core i7 is actually a smaller die (cheaper to produce), and has much better performance (they don't need their top bins to compete, so their yields will be better for the competitive parts), Intel would have no problem beating AMD in price/performance and still turning in a healthy profit.

Therefore reviewers saying AMD is back in competition, just don't seem to get the bigger picture. Core i7 took away AMD's last advantages (onboard IMC, HyperLinks and 'native quadcore'), and gave Intel some new advantages that Phenom II fails to answer. Phenom II's obsolescence is just waiting to happen. If not by Core2 Quad pricecuts, then certainly by the introduction of the mainstream Lynnfield variation of Nehalem.

 

[panfist]

You are right i don't care for people posting crap that HAS been debunked several times in this thread...go away please.

If there was any website that I thought might be totally in support of Kyle's review, it would have been xtremesystems. This just goes to show that there are morons/fanboys everywhere.

Yes, this crap has been debunked, but it's still a lingering sore point, even with those who agree with Kyle's conclusions. It wouldn't have to be debunked if Kyle just tried harder with the AMD setup. If somebody wants to post a review that disagrees with everyone else, he better do his best to eliminate as many variables as possible. Gimping the Phenom II with DDR2 800 may not make a difference in the real world, but if you had just gone the extra mile and put as much effort into the Phenom II setup as you did with the Intel setup, it would have gone a long way toward shutting up all the haters.

The ironic thing is that Kyle's numbers are the same as everyone else's, it's just his conclusion that is different. So, all of the people that are complaining about Kyle's review obviously have their heads up their asses.

 

[Miss Banana]

No, kyle's numbers are not the same as everyone else's.
If you manage to find a website that used 1066 mhz memory you will find that the results differe quite a lot.

 

[panfist]

No, kyle's numbers are not the same as everyone else's.
If you manage to find a website that used 1066 mhz memory you will find that the results differe quite a lot.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4_7.html#sect0
xbit: PII 940 (3.0GHz) is 10% slower than Q9550 (2.8GHz) in Unreal Tournament. In World in Conflict, Crysis, and Far Cry 2 the PII 940 is even slower than Q8300 (2.5GHz), Q9400 (2.6GHz), and Q9550 (2.8GHz). In Left 4 Dead, the PII 940 is slower than the Q9400 and Q9550.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=18
In Fallout3, PII 940 is slower than Q9550. In Left 4 Dead, PII 940 is slower than Q9450. In Far Cry 2, PII 940 is slower than Q8200, Q6600!!!, Q9300... In Crysis, PII 940 is slower than Q9400.

I could go on. Why don't you show me some reviews that are different?

 

[Miss Banana]

Right.
Guru3d, techreport and bit-tech.net all use 1066 mhz memory and show much different numbers.

Guru3d:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/21

bit-tech
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/7

techreport
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16147/5


All these reviews conclude that AMD is competative again, and that intel will probably respond to the phenom with pricecuts.
Besides this, the 45nm proces will mature and AMD has yet to reap the benefits of ddr3, something intel is allready doing.

AMD is not the fastest, but Kyle's conclusion that the phenom II is a "loser" is just a little hysterical and biased.

 

[dmfg]

Why are people so angry that the HardOCP review has different testing methodology and conclusions to other websites?

First of all, if Kyle's review was the same as everyone else's then it would tell us anything we don't already know from elsewhere, making it worthless.

Secondly, if you imagine two motoring magazines, one called "Family, safety and cars" and one called "The most ridiculously fast cars in the world" and they both reviewed the Bugatti Veyron, don't you think they'd run completely different tests and get completely different results?

To a community of enthusiasts who overclock as a matter of course and want progress from technology, the PII is somewhat of a disappointment. To a community of average home users, it's a viable alternative to i7. That doesn't make either party wrong.

 

[Scali2]

To a community of average home users, it's a viable alternative to i7.

You mean a viable alternative to C2Q I assume.
Core i7 is not aimed at average home users. Neither the price nor the performance are what the average home user wants/needs.

 

[trivial]

Neither the price nor the performance are what the average home user wants

Yes, home users don't want better performance.

In any case, the debate should be over Lynnfield vs. Phenom II. Punish Intel for keeping Lynnfield back so long that a die shrink will be imminent. You won't suffer much for it unless you're made of money.

 

[dmfg]

You mean a viable alternative to C2Q I assume.
Core i7 is not aimed at average home users. Neither the price nor the performance are what the average home user wants/needs.

I meant i7, since I'm not convinced PII will actually be a viable alternative to Core2 for home users. Being quad core, Core2 Duos will outperform it (for price) on most applications as is, and since Intel are bound to cut prices on C2Q if PII becomes a threat I think C2Q will end up outperforming them for price/performance soon.

So yeah, hypothetically if there was a home user who wanted a new PC and for some reason wanted a latest gen quad core but didn't want to OC, he would have the alternative of getting a PII instead of an i7. Whether such a user exists or not is another matter altogether.

 

[Scali2]

Yes, home users don't want better performance.

Only at the same price, which does not hold for Core i7. Intel specifically marketed it as an enthusiast product. And the main issue with price is not the CPU itself, but rather the fact that there only is an enthusiast chipset, which means expensive motherboards because of all the features supported (many PCI-e lanes, SLI support etc, requiring complex board designs with many layers and many traces, driving prices up).

Punish Intel for keeping Lynnfield back so long that a die shrink will be imminent.

I think the high prices for 45 nm Core2 Quad are a bigger issue at this moment.
Intel has always introduced high-end/enthusiast parts first, and mainstream later. Nobody ever complained before. I don't think now is the right time to start, to be honest.
However, currently various Core2 Quad CPUs are far more expensive than the i7 920, and even the 940, without having any performance to back up the price. That is something that Intel should address. Give us a sub-$300 Q9650 so it's more in line with the price of the i7 920.

Ofcourse we could also punish AMD for taking so long to give Intel a reason to even think about pricecuts.

 

[trivial]

Ofcourse we could also punish AMD for taking so long to give Intel a reason to even think about pricecuts.

"We" did and continue to do so. i7 is not an enthusiast part in comparison to Lynnfield. Three memory channels don't help in games.

 

[Scali2]

I meant i7, since I'm not convinced PII will actually be a viable alternative to Core2 for home users. Being quad core, Core2 Duos will outperform it (for price) on most applications as is, and since Intel are bound to cut prices on C2Q if PII becomes a threat I think C2Q will end up outperforming them for price/performance soon.

So yeah, hypothetically if there was a home user who wanted a new PC and for some reason wanted a latest gen quad core but didn't want to OC, he would have the alternative of getting a PII instead of an i7. Whether such a user exists or not is another matter altogether.

I fail to see your logic, to be honest.
You say Core2 Duo's will outperform it. Then Core2 Quads will SURELY outperform it, because they are literally two C2Ds strapped together.
And if price cuts do emerge, and C2Q has better price/performance, why would you even consider Phenom II in the first place? Just because it's 'latest gen'? That's a rather poor argument, because AMD's 'latest gen' can't even compare to Intel's 'previous gen', let alone Intel's 'latest gen'.

If you are so much as even considering the Core i7, then it's no contest. If you can afford a Core i7, you'd be an idiot to settle for a Core2 Quad or Phenom II, because Core i7 920 is the best bang for the buck on the market today, and is the most future-proof option.

Now if I were to build a new system today, it'd be a Core i7 920, no doubt. I can afford it. I am just not going to, because I have a Core2 Duo E6600 which has some life in it yet. I'd like to ride it out a bit longer, get more return on my investment.
My motherboard supports all 45 nm Core2 Quads, so I'm just waiting to see if they get attractive enough to drop one in. That will give my setup a few more years, and I can skip Core i7 altogether. But currently it just feels wrong to buy a CPU that costs more than the i7 920, and doesn't deliver anywhere near the same performance.

 

[Scali2]

"We" did and continue to do so. i7 is not an enthusiast part in comparison to Lynnfield. Three memory channels don't help in games.

Since when is enthusiast equivalent to games?
And since when is the triple memory controller the only thing that matters?
Heck, even if you were to take games as your sole milestone, Core i7 has proven that it performs very well in the new multithreaded game engines, and it has proven that it can drive SLI setups much better than any other CPU.

Core i7 is enthusiast because it's the fastest thing on the market, and the chipsets/motherboards are armed to the teeth with features and performance-tweaking capabilities. That's what enthusiasts want: features and performance. Nothing else comes close. i7 rewrote the book on both.

 

[trivial]

You sound like Steve Jobs, Scali2. In this case, though, we know what's coming (Lynnfield), we know why it's late (profit margin), and we can hazard a guess that it would be so much cheaper than i7 is now no one would even be considering a C2Q if it were available. Or a Phenom II for that matter.