Probably AM3, and yes AM3 cpus will be compatible with AM2 just without DDR3 support. Need AM3 for DDR3
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Phenom & Spider & Intel QX9770 Comparo @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Probably AM3, and yes AM3 cpus will be compatible with AM2 just without DDR3 support. Need AM3 for DDR3
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
"AMD claims dramatic performance-per-watt improvements in HPC applications with Bulldozer cores" --Wikipedia.
I sincerely hope thats right and I hope they're running ahead of schedule.
I sincerely hope thats right and I hope they're running ahead of schedule.
jhtrico1850
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 71
You can get 8800gt or 3870 with both platforms. If you can get dual graphics, then obviously cost isn't an issue for you, and it's clear who wins there. 790fx isn't exactly a compelling solution either http://techreport.com/articles.x/13628/14 "In its current state, we simply can't recommend the 790FX."
I believe it's the same for AMD, meaning no current socket architecture will support Bulldozer whenever it gets released. The most recent info I heard regarding the latest sockets is that they *should* support the upcoming 45nm die shrink, but that's it.
As a few have said in this and other threads, don't wait, purchase what you need when you need it. I think that's probably the best advice anyone can give someone looking into upgrading computer componentry, especially considering what a roller-coaster ride we've all been on this year in the industry.
i totally agree
I've seen a Vid of a person representing the H about 10 months back, talk with the Benchmark staff at AMD and thought they were on good terms, (AMD even praised the H) and even though the Benches (Synthetitics are just Balogna with no real world meaning), a little less constructive Criticism and a little more encouraging words would have been nice to see....But since Kyle has shown and "Stated" that he is a Intel Fan Boy, well i would not expect anything less from him.......LOL
a very Biased review and one-sided review as well.
also these are Engineering Samples that Kyle Used right?
its still to early in the game to dog AMD and deem them doomed.
Try being more Unbiased Kyle will ya?
ps
yes i am an AMD Fan Boy......LOL
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,133
well the whole NB / L3 cache @ 2ghz can't be good 
I wonder if this is why the chip isn't scaling well, is it the same case for their server parts?
I wonder if this is why the chip isn't scaling well, is it the same case for their server parts?ya kyle, I mean, why do you have to go and benchmrk da phenom all badly like that? damn Intel fanbois will ALWAYS try to give unbiased benchmarks and then tell us and show us which item is the better buy. DAMN YOU INTEL FAN BOIS AND YOUR LOGIC!!!
Wow. I'm almost speechless.
1.) In any case, you may not want to accept this, but for the moment, Intel processors are superior in nearly every way. It doesn't take a degree in electrical engineering to figure that out. The only two things the Phenom has going for it is low price, and AM2 motherboard support. That's about it.
Processors don't rely heavily on drivers. As for competing in the budget processor segment, AMD will probably do well there. Even if the processors were the same price, the motherboards for the AMD platform are cheaper than their Intel counterparts. So sure, AMD will probably do a decent job in that market. That's a far cry from their Core 2 Duo killer that they promised several months ago.
2.) It sounds like you are making excuses for AMD here. Intel has nothing to do with the fact that AMD has failed to create the Core 2 Duo killer they were touting not so long ago. As for Intel chipsets, I have to agree with you there. The upgrades are incremental and the power usage and heat output are staggering, but they are not nearly as bad as the NVIDIA chipsets in this area. Even though they aren't offering very much in the way of new features, the newer chipsets are great overclockers that surpass their predecessors with ease.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Phenom have separate power planes for each proc? could the that be the reason for the increase in wattage as the clock increases in speed wth the added voltage? different power path for each CPU?
The Spider platform does look very interesting, and when the new SB is released, might be something to look into even if the Phenoms aren't quit up to snuff yet. I'd like to see what they'll be like in about 6 mo. since that about the time i plan to replace my 939skt opty.
The Spider platform does look very interesting, and when the new SB is released, might be something to look into even if the Phenoms aren't quit up to snuff yet. I'd like to see what they'll be like in about 6 mo. since that about the time i plan to replace my 939skt opty.
It really shouldn't be that interesting to you. AMD was given ample amounts of time to not rest on their laurels after releasing a superior K8 architecture, and even claimed that the Phenom would be superior. How could one not be disappointed?
AMD clearly new it would suck for some time. Yet they released one esoteric benchmark that they do win at and used that to pump Barcy/Phenom.
Even if they didn't have the current glitch limiting clock speed, they are behind on IPC. Intel leads in IPC and clocks up easily, they could release 3.5GHz if they wanted to, they have their stuff nailed.
Phenom will not compete even when fixed, so all they can do is offer cheaper prices than Intel, until they spin a new architecture.
I guess I'm not following how this is a "disappointment"? Maybe that's because I'm more budget/market conscience than most here, but it seems to me that the performance vs price of these new AMD CPUs is unfathomably higher than that of the equivalently performing Intel CPUs.
Did I miss something?
This means that AMD will be offering the better deal from a budget/market aspect, regardless of the fact that they don't have something equivalent to the costs-more-than-gold model of Intel CPU.
I think what your missing and others are seeing is, at least this is what I did,
I compared the bench marks between Phenom @ 3.0GHz with the X6800 @ 3.0GHz and here is why,
When you compare the Price/Performance ratio it is clearly in Intels favor. A Q6600 can easily hit 3.0GHz (X6800 runs @ 3.0GHz stock). So just think of the X6800 as a overclocked Q6600 @ 3.0GHz. Now you see why Intel is beating the pants off AMD it terms of price per performance ratios for the enthusiast that overclocks.
vxspiritxv
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,614
Just sad to see amd quad not doing faster than intel dual. I don't know, I guess I just thought with all this 'native' hype it would be faster than intels quad.
Hey Steve do one test for me, test hard drive usage/seeking during gaming on amd vs intel. My main reason for staying AMD was because when there is hd usage on every intel box I ever used, game would jitter, all ways pissed me off. AMD ether wouldn't jitter at all or much much less. (Use a simple game that doesn't max out the system like counterstrike or wow)
Hey Steve do one test for me, test hard drive usage/seeking during gaming on amd vs intel. My main reason for staying AMD was because when there is hd usage on every intel box I ever used, game would jitter, all ways pissed me off. AMD ether wouldn't jitter at all or much much less. (Use a simple game that doesn't max out the system like counterstrike or wow)
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
AMD's marketing fluff about "native" dual/quad-core has always been a big hoax.
Intel's south bridges have for some time now been very solid top performers. I've never experienced nor heard of others describe such issues. More info, other sources?
vxspiritxv
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,614
Source is myself. Every intel box, even my bran new XPS laptop (m1210) barely playable in counterstrike. I haven't seen any review sites test this kind of condition, but I figure with vista the way it is, it should be tested. I love vista on my AMD box, other than the noise of the raptor seeking all the time for no reason, I have nothing but good experience with vista.
wow thg did a 41 page review http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html
"AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors. The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks. On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor. Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money."
good stuff and i think what i quoted hits the nail on the head
"AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors. The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks. On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor. Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money."
good stuff and i think what i quoted hits the nail on the head
As a budget part there is an even greater attraction to the AMD parts and that's cheaper motherboards. Motherboards that are compatible with AMD processors are on average much cheaper than their Intel compatible counterparts.
I don't know, the MSI board is decently priced at ~$180, but the DQ6 is $270 at newegg, which is pretty steep. Chances are that if Gigabyte is charging that, other manufacturers like ASUS will be charging at least that for their high-end board.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,101
People tend to severely overlook this fact. It's even better if you already have a compatible AM2 motherboard. Just waiting on MSI to pass off on my board. They say it's still "UNDER TESTING." Sigh.
What I really want to see is how these suckers perform in a vanilla AM2 board...
I see good and bad for AMD here. Obviously the bad is the current performance and clockspeed scaling issues with Phenom. If it had released when it was supposed to, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. That didn't happen and so the processor is not in very good shape right now, no matter how you look at it.
There is some possibility of light at the end of the tunnel for the current Phenom but it will require something along the lines of of a respin ala Tbred-a to Tbred-b back in the K7 days. That respin dropped power usage a lot as well as allowing the processor to scale much better in speed. I'm sure as hell not counting on this and I would say it's very unlikely but it is a possibility.
I don't bring up respins in regards to the K8 for a couple of reasons. I didn't really follow CPUs all that well during that time since I didn't have the money to do an upgrade. The other reason is that I don't think AMD had any great respins during that time period. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is another reason why I don't count on a respin like the Tbred-a to Tbred-b. It doesn't look like AMD has it in them right now to do this.
The good news for AMD is obviously the platform which has me much more interested concerning long term viability. As was stated many times in previous years, AMD had a hell of a time in the business OEM market due to a couple of factors. One of them was not having a full "platform" which could be used. Now, AMD does have that platform. Only time will tell what will happen with it, but I think it's the main thing which will keep AMD in the game for the mid term. However, I am very disappointed with the use of the southbridge like everyone else is.
As I type I have an AMD 690 chipset based board with 4000+ AM2 CPU on its way to my place. I also have 2 gig of RAM, aftermarket cooler and a PSU to run it included in that order. Before mail in rebates it's the same price as a Q6600. I'd love to have a Q6600 as I could drop it into my current system. However, I need a fourth computer more so this won out. I bring this up because I should be able to drop a Phenom into this board in the future if I want to. I doubt it will happen anytime soon but it is a possibility in the future as I plan on keeping this setup for a while as my secondary computer.
The bottom line is that the Spider platform is nice and something AMD needed. The Phenom is disappointing for performance at the moment especially since it was released so late. However, I still get the feeling that it's really nothing but a stopgap measure. The platform was the first real step concerning the the AMD/ATI merger. However, I think the next CPU architecture is where the real fruits of the merger will show. Then again, I never expected Phenom to be all that great. Sure, I hoped it would be great but I didn't expect it. As long as AMD stays healthy business-wise until Bulldozer can launch, I think we'll see something different. Spider is a stepping stone to something bigger and Phenom is a stopgap processor until AMD can get the design out that Phenom was supposed to be to begin with.
There is some possibility of light at the end of the tunnel for the current Phenom but it will require something along the lines of of a respin ala Tbred-a to Tbred-b back in the K7 days. That respin dropped power usage a lot as well as allowing the processor to scale much better in speed. I'm sure as hell not counting on this and I would say it's very unlikely but it is a possibility.
I don't bring up respins in regards to the K8 for a couple of reasons. I didn't really follow CPUs all that well during that time since I didn't have the money to do an upgrade. The other reason is that I don't think AMD had any great respins during that time period. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is another reason why I don't count on a respin like the Tbred-a to Tbred-b. It doesn't look like AMD has it in them right now to do this.
The good news for AMD is obviously the platform which has me much more interested concerning long term viability. As was stated many times in previous years, AMD had a hell of a time in the business OEM market due to a couple of factors. One of them was not having a full "platform" which could be used. Now, AMD does have that platform. Only time will tell what will happen with it, but I think it's the main thing which will keep AMD in the game for the mid term. However, I am very disappointed with the use of the southbridge like everyone else is.
As I type I have an AMD 690 chipset based board with 4000+ AM2 CPU on its way to my place. I also have 2 gig of RAM, aftermarket cooler and a PSU to run it included in that order. Before mail in rebates it's the same price as a Q6600. I'd love to have a Q6600 as I could drop it into my current system. However, I need a fourth computer more so this won out. I bring this up because I should be able to drop a Phenom into this board in the future if I want to. I doubt it will happen anytime soon but it is a possibility in the future as I plan on keeping this setup for a while as my secondary computer.
The bottom line is that the Spider platform is nice and something AMD needed. The Phenom is disappointing for performance at the moment especially since it was released so late. However, I still get the feeling that it's really nothing but a stopgap measure. The platform was the first real step concerning the the AMD/ATI merger. However, I think the next CPU architecture is where the real fruits of the merger will show. Then again, I never expected Phenom to be all that great. Sure, I hoped it would be great but I didn't expect it. As long as AMD stays healthy business-wise until Bulldozer can launch, I think we'll see something different. Spider is a stepping stone to something bigger and Phenom is a stopgap processor until AMD can get the design out that Phenom was supposed to be to begin with.
I think this is overrated.
A platform is not the chipset, it's the chipset and the CPU together (and in AMD's case they want to include the Radeon series aswell, but for people who just want to use one or two GPUs, they work fine with nVidia or Intel chipsets aswell... and quite possibly two 8800GTX or Ultras will outperform 4 Radeons anyway).
The chipset is good, but the CPU isn't (and neither is the GPU, if you want to include it). So the Spider platform as a whole isn't that impressive. I think most people would look at CPU performance first, and look at chipset features later. I know I do. I think there are a lot more people who want a high-performance quadcore than there are people who want four (mid-end!) GPUs.
With news like this, I'm glad I stuck with socket 939. I am probably going to go AMD for my next complete upgrade because I like the Spider architecture and AMD's supposed committment to cheaper prices for their spider motherboards.
Right now maybe I'm in a different reality then everyone else, which is not entirely impossible, but my OC'ed 4200+ keeps up with Q6600's in most gaming tests. I tend to play every game that comes out whether its demo or retail and anything else I do on my pc, any decent cpu will do fine.
But if games start sharing the the trend Crysis started with the heavy bottlenecking coming from the GPU rather than cpu, then raw performance from just the CPU will be less important. I lose about 3-5fp/s gaming in Crysis on stock X2 4200+ speeds compared to the 2.7ghz OC. The only real difference is that it raises my min fps like 8fps.
So it seems that getting a Phenom would be a better move if you were on AM2+ already cause you can use the extra money to buy better GPU's. There are very few games that have optimizations for 4 cores as opposed to 2. I however, will wait till the new SB comes out and the second refresh of AMD's chips that will give me more performance, or very cheap 9600's.
Right now maybe I'm in a different reality then everyone else, which is not entirely impossible, but my OC'ed 4200+ keeps up with Q6600's in most gaming tests. I tend to play every game that comes out whether its demo or retail and anything else I do on my pc, any decent cpu will do fine.
But if games start sharing the the trend Crysis started with the heavy bottlenecking coming from the GPU rather than cpu, then raw performance from just the CPU will be less important. I lose about 3-5fp/s gaming in Crysis on stock X2 4200+ speeds compared to the 2.7ghz OC. The only real difference is that it raises my min fps like 8fps.
So it seems that getting a Phenom would be a better move if you were on AM2+ already cause you can use the extra money to buy better GPU's. There are very few games that have optimizations for 4 cores as opposed to 2. I however, will wait till the new SB comes out and the second refresh of AMD's chips that will give me more performance, or very cheap 9600's.
And you are looking at the completely wrong aspect of the business. You are trying to apply the platform to the enthusiast. The enthusiast is not where the majority of money is made in the computer world for a company like AMD or Intel. The money is made in the OEM sector with bulk purchases for primarily business and home machines. OEMs look for a complete solution. For desktop/workstation use the platform has always been the chipset, CPU and graphics. In the case of Intel it was always the integrated graphics. AMD pushed the platform out a little further with the inclusion of the add in graphics card. However, AMD has their own chipsets with integrated video which I'm sure is considered part of the platform.
Platforms sell CPUs. Intel has known this for a long time and it is one of the reasons they have held onto so much of the business PC market. Intel platforms have been known for their stability and reliability for a long time. People equate this to being because the main components are all designed in house and that they should work great together. This is now what AMD has. It will be a bit of struggle to overtake the stranglehold Intel has on the platform "monopoly" but there is the chance it can be done.
A platform solution is a lot more important than how you make it sound. Just look at the success of the Centrino mobile platform. A platform is an all in one solution an OEM can jump onto and reduce the amount of time needed for designing a box. Anything which will lower costs for an OEM is considered good by the OEM. Standardization is the key to the OEM market and a platform is essential to have standardization.
Somebody give this man a cookie!
Not me, AMD did.
The main feature of the Spider platform is the quad xfire right... that and/or the fact that it has lots of PCI-e lanes in general.
Tell me how this can be applied to any users other than enthusiasts?
So what does Spider do for the OEM-sector that sets them apart from the Intel platforms?
That's what I meant with my post. They need to conquer the OEM-sector, but Spider doesn't seem to be all that interesting for that same OEM-sector, but seems to be aimed more at enthusiasts.
crossfire is just one aspect of the platform and not a major one at that. how may of us even run SLI or crossfire? I don't and i'm sure there's a lot more that have a single gpu the multiple gpus. you have to take in the whole picture of what AMD is trying to do with the Spider platform.they're trying to go after the cpu/chipset/gpu combos that INTEL has had for years.Yes, they're showing off the Crossfire, but that going to be a small number of those sold.just like nvidia has several different versions, with sli being top of the line, so will AMD with the 790 series, and the crossfire will be the top of the line.
It is a very interesting concept for the HPC market, and possibly also the graphics market, and then obviously also the gaming market...
Those are just three examples off the top of my head. All of them very profitable markets. Additionally for other markets where all these GPU's arent required, they arent necessary. As it turns out it is very flexible in being able to address many different markets with the same product... Pretty cool if you ask me.
You don't understand...
Other than quad xfire, what reasons could there possibly be for going with Spider instead of an Intel solution?
As you already say yourself, most people won't care about quad xfire.
See, I obviously understand that AMD is trying to go after Intel's platforms... But Intel's platforms are already very popular in the target market... Something considerably better has to come along before people move from their trusty Intel platforms to AMD platforms.
The CPUs for Spider are no reason to move. The GPUs aren't either. So, what is going to pull the people over from Intel to AMD platforms? I don't see it.
Even after an explanation, you miss the forest for the trees.
Stop emphasizing one single little part of the platform and how you think it applies to everything. There are different versions of the 790 chipset. The 790FX just happens to be the top of the line. Does Intel have a single chipset? Does Intel push the X38 on all OEMs? No, Intel has several different chipsets ranging from budget to enthusiast. Each one has different or better features than the model below it. Surprisingly enough, AMD is doing the same thing. They just happened to release the top of the line chipset first.
Does AMD or Intel promote the slowest CPU over the fastest CPU when a new architecture is released? No, they focus on the fastest they have in an effort to show that their's is the best.
It takes no special insight or knowledge of the computer industry to understand any of this. Simple observations of any part of the industry would have shown you the same thing. Please quit trying to play dense as it does not help the thread or discussion at all.
Easy, cost. If the Spider platform is cheaper than an Intel platform and found to be just as reliable; it's a big reason for OEMs to jump on it. The OEM computer business is run on very low margins. Anything to raise those margins even a little bit can and will be looked at. Performance in most OEM systems is never considered the most important aspect. Depending on the market segment, either price (home systems) or reliability (business/workstation systems) is going to be the main factor in the decision on what is put into a system. Performance is usually pretty low on the totem poll. Therefore, an underperforming (compared to Intel's current lineup) AMD processor will not have much effect on the OEM market. Especially if it's even remotely close to the performance of the Intel solution.
Few people buying these systems would notice any difference between the two platforms. OEMs know this and won't worry about it. As long as a platform has reliability and stability, it will be looked at as a definite option to build a system around. This is how CPUs get sold. AMD has had their foot in the door of the OEM market for a while. Now, AMD has a platform solution to take on Intel's platform.
Income from CPUs, chipsets and graphics will help out AMD as long as they can keep a steady flow of products from all three parts.
One more thing to mention. Marketing is a powerful tool as everyone knows. The ability to market an AMD CPU, with an AMD chipset and an AMD graphics card sounds really nice to the marketing department. They can sell this as a total AMD system. It doesn't necessarily mean much, but to the average joe it can be the difference between looking at something and ignoring something.
I could say the same thing. Re-read my last post and tell me what Spider offers that Intel doesn't with their platforms. Quad xfire is the only thing I can think of, and yes, that's only available on the enthusiast 790FX. But what does the rest offer?
Value? Probably not. OEMs don't pay retail prices.
If retail prices are lower, why wouldn't the prices for OEMs also be lower?
You want a reason why the Spider platform can be successful? It's simple, it's a total platform solution. It's something AMD has never had which is a step up from before. Since AMD already has a decent presence in the OEM sector, this is a large added benefit to going with AMD.
The only thing AMD has to offer above and beyond the Intel platform for the OEM market is pricing. Again, read what I wrote about how OEMs look at building systems. You keep beating the drum of performance and advantages. What you refuse to accept is that in the OEM sector AMD doesn't need performance and major feature advantages over the Intel platform to sell. The platform has to "just work" and be cheaper in price to be successful. Quit thinking like an enthusiast who scrutinizes every little feature and performance difference as that is irrelevant to this market.
Very glad to see you haven't left morfinx. I was a little concerned when you posted the other evening.Somebody give this man a cookie!
Volume discounts. Intel has historically had larger volume contracts, and larger discounts for OEMs. Pretty much the main reason why Dell never went AMD until recently. Intel wasn't cheaper for us consumers, but it was cheaper for big OEMs like Dell.
I don't think that's a good enough reason.
I know, but we don't know if this platform is actually going to be cheaper, especially since AMD can't supply Phenoms in large volumes at this time.
Well yes, price, performance and features go hand in hand. It all has to do with value for money.
Cheaper in price means it has at least the same performance and the same features.
Again, it's about value for money, not about who can make the cheapest product, no matter how crappy it is.
The volume of the OEM market is in decent office PCs and notebooks. They do have to have some bottomline performance (especially when they're Vista-ready)... Power consumption is also an issue. AMD isn't exactly impressive there with Spider.
I don't think the OEMs will suddenly go "Wow! Let's drop Intel and move to AMD, this Spider platform is fantastic!".
I'm not. You're looking at it from the wrong angle. I'm saying Intel already has ample features, so the Spider platform can't really impress there.
AMD's Phenom line is too expensive and too poor on performance aswell (and when 45 nm hits in volume, that problem only increases)... So how is the rest of the platform going to save AMD?
Well, perhaps if they give the chipsets away for next-to-nothing, they may have a chance. But in the long term that's going to hurt AMD's financial situation again.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,101
Then why did several OEMs use Cyrix chips back in the day? Not because they were faster across the board than Intel...
Bullshit. It's priced appropriately for the performance it gives. THG hit the nail on the head. All said and done...
STFU or GTFO.
I wouldn't even bother with him. He'll do just about anything to put a negative spin on anything AMD does or has. This includes ignoring anything and everything that shows his conclusions are incorrect. The fact that AMD processors are used in OEM systems should be proof enough that a platform solution from AMD can only help things yet he disregards this information as if it doesn't exist.
I haven't defended AMD once in any of my posts, yet he is acting as if I'm a spin doctor trying to cover up bad press for AMD. The only thing I have done is point out the strengths and weaknesses in AMD's current solutions and how focusing on the strengths can mitigate some of the weaknesses. He acts as if it's impossible to do despite every company doing this including Intel. Intel was the company that basically pioneered the "platform solution" and used it to it's advantage for a long time. Now, another company is putting out a platform and according to him it can't be a success because it's not the best solution for the enthusiast. Every one of his examples for why the Spider platform will fail is based on how an enthusiast would look at the platform. He makes the statement that he's not looking at it from an enthusiast standpoint but then points out problems with the platform that only an enthusiast would notice or care about.
I will state it again, OEMs don't care about which CPU has the best performance. They look at cost. The cost of the components themselves as well as the time and money it takes to do R&D on systems based around those components. Since OEMs already sell AMD processor based systems due to demand and/or pricing the Spider platform can only make the future solutions cheaper than current ones. An enthusiast looks at price/performance first when buying/building a system. The average joe looks at price first. The average business looks at reliability and price first. The only known problem with the current Spider platform is the performance of the CPU. For the target audiences of OEMs, the main negative of the Spider platform does not rank anywhere near the top of the list and therefore is not significant to any real degree.
He has not actually shown any of my points to be false. Therefore, until he does there really is no reason to argue with him any further. All I can do is keep repeating the same points over and over until he decides to actually disprove. Constantly repeating myself would be counterproductive to the thread and the discussion.
Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
Priced right OEMs will eat this platform up,and make AMD a fair bit of $$$.And Scali2 how do you know AMD cannot produce,or ship enough chips right now ? They are in stock everywhere I have bothered to look.I am only waiting for the BE's myself.Well,that and more mature Bios's to be released.
I think the Spider platform has a fair bit of value for money.More so on the graphics side,but still its certainly there.But they do need to drop current Phenom pricing even more,and ramp up the clockspeed in a hell of a hurry.
I think the Spider platform has a fair bit of value for money.More so on the graphics side,but still its certainly there.But they do need to drop current Phenom pricing even more,and ramp up the clockspeed in a hell of a hurry.
Very glad to see you haven't left morfinx. I was a little concerned when you posted the other evening.
Thanks, I'm still around. I'm just going to refrain from commenting on unreleased products, as well as avoiding arguments
No, because they had decent performance at a decent price. Cyrix chips were actually better than AMD chips too, at that time.
You don't find it a little bit suspicious that Tomshardware is the ONLY reviewer with such a positive conclusion? The review at Hardocp here, or at Anandtech, or even Extremetech, are a lot less positive.
Besides, you have to take into account that Intel can still lower prices... and these prices Tomshardware speaks of are *retail* prices, and we're talking about OEM. AMD actually sued Intel for their pricing strategy, saying that Intel sells its parts cheaper to OEMs that don't sell AMD. We don't know how much of that is true, but apparently AMD thinks so.