AMD to release 3.5GHz 990 by the end of the year.

Status
Not open for further replies.
BigMacAttack said:
You are the one who views this as "highly debatable" so who is the more sensitive?
Click to expand...

I've named a handful of processors that aren't Intel's "top dog", yet have no "little dog" from the AMD camp to choose from (and no, not all of them were i7 either).
That proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that your view is indeed highly debatable. Give me one good reason why I would have let it go at that point? I can't agree with something that is obviously not true.
Now had you said "But for those looking in the sub-$200 pricerange there are plenty of little dogs available in both camps that will fill the bill nicely.", we might have actually been able to agree on that.
But there's this huge gap between Intel's "top dog" (the Core i7 965/975) and the $200 pricepoint which you just ignored.

BigMacAttack said:
All I said was "there you go again..." (after your lengthy response) with a smiley in front of it hoping you'd get the humor in what we had just talked about concerning brand loyalty but you missed it entirely and got your feathers all ruffled.
Click to expand...

Don't make it personal. Don't you understand that to someone like me, who's doing his best to be honest and objective, it is a huge insult to be accused of being brand-loyal?
If you want to talk about things like being tactful and showing respect, these are some basic things you need to understand. People like myself actually take pride in the fact that they don't blindly follow a certain brand or thing, but actually bother to study the underlying technology and make well-educated assessments.. and take the time to try and explain it to others who might be interested in CPUs at a slightly deeper level than just "CPU a is cheaper than CPU b" or "CPU a gets more FPS in game x than CPU b".

BigMacAttack said:
Here is a tip for you - learn some tactfulness and discernment - it will take you a long way.
Click to expand...

Again, don't make it personal.
 
big dog = bill clinton, such a hound

btw, clinton is remembered for going after women, who have bushes (potentially)

bushes preceeded and followed him, bush remembered for going after muslims

muslim takes office, reaches for hope

amd delivers on competitive cpu hopes, would take office but... their company is better off financially than the government
 
For having such as awesome computer and being such a hardcore enthusiast Scali2, you sure spend a lot of time trolling on messageboards looking to ruffle some feathers in a competitors thread. I'm surprised your not constantly gaming or encoding stuff 24/7, but yet you have time to respond every 5 minutes to post crap.

Don't worry, that can't beat the facts, so they try with fallacies...typical fanboyism
Click to expand...

This is like Chris Brown calling another man a no good woman beater.
 
racinGSRstyle said:
big dog = bill clinton, such a hound

btw, clinton is remembered for going after women, who have bushes (potentially)

bushes preceeded and followed him, bush remembered for going after muslims

muslim takes office, reaches for hope

amd delivers on competitive cpu hopes, would take office but... their company is better off financially than the government
Click to expand...
And the moral of the story: ___________________________ ?
mufdvr3669 said:
For having such as awesome computer and being such a hardcore enthusiast Scali2, you sure spend a lot of time trolling on messageboards looking to ruffle some feathers in a competitors thread. I'm surprised your not constantly gaming or encoding stuff 24/7, but yet you have time to respond every 5 minutes to post crap.
Click to expand...
Save time and money with the Intel Core 2 Quad: Now you can ENCODE, GAME, POST on message boards, and BE ACCUSED of trolling them all in the same moment!
 
mufdvr3669 said:
For having such as awesome computer and being such a hardcore enthusiast Scali2, you sure spend a lot of time trolling on messageboards looking to ruffle some feathers in a competitors thread.
Click to expand...

Most of your post really doesn't deserve a response...
But I will say this for everyone:
I don't see it that way. I don't see Intel forums and AMD forums as "competing forums".
I repeat, I'm an engineer and I stick to technology, facts and logic.
In order to evaluate how good a certain technology is, you compare it against similar/competing technologies. Now, you could ofcourse compare it against previous technology of the same company... But since neither Intel nor AMD operate in a vacuum, it makes perfect sense to also compare the products of competing companies.
I don't think the fact that there are two different forums for two different brands should stand in the way of discussing technology, and create some kind of artificial vacuum or alternate reality where one ignores the competing technology that the manufacturer's products are actually up against in the real world.

For an engineer such as myself it is absolutely of no importance which company developed a certain technology in the discussion and evaluation thereof. In fact, it is actually highly annoying that all these brand-related discussions keep popping up.
I don't understand what they do on a tech forum such as this. If this were a financial forum, and people were trading stocks of either company... then yes, I'd understand... but what purpose does it serve here? What difference does it make what company does what?
 
This makes me wonder back to AMD 754/939 vs Intel 478 days.

I wonder if the same thing was going on back then for AMD... AMD fanbois screaming AMD AMD AMD!
 
Not to dive into this dogpile, but you guys (by which I mean everyone who isn't Scali2) really need to let go. Nothing he's saying is remotely debatable and you are now sitting arguing over the semantic definition of "big dog" and "little dog".

Let me boil down Scali's arguments from a fresh perspective:

1) As of right now, AMD does not have a competitive product on the desktop above the ~$215 level whereas Intel has a nicely fleshed out product line stretching all the way to $1000. This is indisputable unless you want to single out some exotic benchmarks or use dishonest benchmarking tactics.

2) AMD will not have a product on Socket AM3 that will exceed the performance clock for clock of the Core 2 Quad line. The clock for clock point is important since Intel will likely severely gut the prices of the C2Q after Core i5 is released. This argument is slightly more debatable than argument #1, but Scali still has a pretty solid foundation in speculating this. And unless AMD ramps up the clocks big time, they won't be able to compete with price slashed C2Qs AT ALL, let along Core i5.

Guys, I'm sorry if these arguments bother you, but it doesn't make Scali a fanboy to be stating them. Sure he may enjoy going into the AMD forum and striking up this debate, but that indicates that he likes arguing about this, not that he's a fanboy. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to debate the performance of various parts; indeed isn't that why we are all here?
 
Scali2 said:
Most of your post really doesn't deserve a response...
I repeat, I'm an engineer and I stick to technology, facts and logic.
In order to evaluate how good a certain technology is, you compare it against similar/competing technologies.
Click to expand...

That's why a few posts back you said AMD couldn't compete with a $1000 9770. Since it's logical to compare a $1000 processor to a $200 one. Then you say this forum doesn't really matter anymore since AMD is so far behind, since that's factual. Hardly anything you say is logical or factual. It's all highly opinionated fanboy rhetoric. You start arguments on a competing forum to get a rise out of some people. That is why you have probably a third of the posts in this thread.
 
mufdvr3669 said:
That's why a few posts back you said AMD couldn't compete with a $1000 9770. Since it's logical to compare a $1000 processor to a $200 one. Then you say this forum doesn't really matter anymore since AMD is so far behind, since that's factual. Hardly anything you say is logical or factual. It's all highly opinionated fanboy rhetoric. You start arguments on a competing forum to get a rise out of some people. That is why you have probably a third of the posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

Actually it IS logical to compare these parts in the context of what he was saying because the release of Core i5 is going to give Intel the ability to drastically slash the prices of these parts to drive down AMD's prices even further. So if you are speculating about 3.4 Ghz Phenom II parts in Q3/Q4, it's fair to look at the 9770 as a potential competitor.

The point Scali was making was that AMD is unlikely to have a part over the life of Socket AM3 which will be better than the 9770, which is probably the fastest part Intel will release on Socket 775. He's not doing a direct price/performance comparison at current levels, which you'd know if you read his posts.
 
thekernel said:
Nothing he's saying is remotely debatable and you are now sitting arguing over the semantic definition of "big dog" and "little dog".
Click to expand...

Only in flawed benchmarks.
In proper benchmarks, Core2 Duo is better.
Click to expand...

Feel free. I'm the expert on the subject however
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no indication that Am3 will ever outperform the current 775 CPUs.
Click to expand...

I still stick with my recommendation of the E8400 as best value for gaming systems.
Click to expand...

You can easily overclock an Q9650, it is a better overclocker than a 920.
Click to expand...

but buying a more expensive AMD system which performs worse is not a good choice for a gaming platform.
Click to expand...

How are these not debatable. None of these are factual. Nobody is saying that i7 isn't fast. But for most people AMD's offerings are just as good as Intel's. His posts are littered in this thread with crap. Maybe you should let it go since your argument is flawed also.

The clock for clock point is important
Click to expand...

Yes, clock for clock Intel's offerings on the quad core's are more expensive than AMD's. That is important. How about compare processors price for price. That is also what was flawed in the original review of the PII on this site.
 
Scali2 said:
Most of your post really doesn't deserve a response...
But I will say this for everyone:
I don't see it that way. I don't see Intel forums and AMD forums as "competing forums".
I repeat, I'm an engineer and I stick to technology, facts and logic.
In order to evaluate how good a certain technology is, you compare it against similar/competing technologies. Now, you could ofcourse compare it against previous technology of the same company... But since neither Intel nor AMD operate in a vacuum, it makes perfect sense to also compare the products of competing companies.
I don't think the fact that there are two different forums for two different brands should stand in the way of discussing technology, and create some kind of artificial vacuum or alternate reality where one ignores the competing technology that the manufacturer's products are actually up against in the real world.

For an engineer such as myself it is absolutely of no importance which company developed a certain technology in the discussion and evaluation thereof. In fact, it is actually highly annoying that all these brand-related discussions keep popping up.
I don't understand what they do on a tech forum such as this. If this were a financial forum, and people were trading stocks of either company... then yes, I'd understand... but what purpose does it serve here? What difference does it make what company does what?
Click to expand...

you asked for facts I gave them to you
you asked for numbers I gave them to you
now you ignore me =(

there is no way that logically, you can say that an E8400 has better value then an X3 720

btw I thought you were a code-optimizer / developer , now you're an expert on Direct X and multi-threading 0.0 and an engineer o.0
unless your a software engineer
and even then, you stated you had an Athlon XP system while in University, which means you couldn't have graduated more then 7 years ago, meaning you couldn't possibly be an expert on anything yet :p.
 
mufdvr3669 said:
How are these not debatable. None of these are factual.
Click to expand...

Let's examine these shall we?

Only in flawed benchmarks.
In proper benchmarks, Core2 Duo is better.
Click to expand...

For the most part it is true that C2D at high clocks is a better performer on current games. You can argue that quads offer better future proofing, but with that logic, Core i7 offers even BETTER future proofing and all the people who say that the i7 is useless for games are wrong.

The point Scali was trying to make (which I think you missed) is that you can't have this argument both ways. Either a quad makes sense for future proofing your gaming experience or it doesn't and either way you can make a compelling case for Intel.

There is absolutely no indication that Am3 will ever outperform the current 775 CPUs.
Click to expand...

The Core 2 9770 runs at 3.2Ghz. AMD would probably have to produce a 3.5 Ghz part to trade blows with it. As such Scali is right as there's no indication that AMD will exceed 3.5Ghz on AM3. It's certainly POSSIBLE, but it's not in any way certain.

I still stick with my recommendation of the E8400 as best value for gaming systems.
Click to expand...

This certainly depends on your definition of "value". If he meant "best bang for the buck in current games", he's not incorrect.

You can easily overclock an Q9650, it is a better overclocker than a 920.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of a better overclocker. It certainly will produce more favorable results (thanks to being faster clock-for-clock).

but buying a more expensive AMD system which performs worse is not a good choice for a gaming platform.
Click to expand...

See the comment on the e8400. If you are buying a system solely for gaming and NOTHING ELSE, Scali makes a good point that a fast dualcore is probably the way to go. It's not like he's the only person who has ever made this argument before you realize.

Nobody is saying that i7 isn't fast. But for most people AMD's offerings are just as good as Intel's.
Click to expand...

That depends entirely on your price range and the usage scenarios now doesn't it?

His posts are littered in this thread with crap. Maybe you should let it go since your argument is flawed also.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could actually point out HOW it is flawed instead of pointing to vague generalizations.

Yes, clock for clock Intel's offerings on the quad core's are more expensive than AMD's. That is important. How about compare processors price for price. That is also what was flawed in the original review of the PII on this site.
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the point Scali was trying to make with the clock-for-clock comparison which was to demonstrate platform longevity.
 
Wow you guys he's trolling.

He's been here all day. He also changes his argument whenever someone proves him wrong. Not only that, all he does is spew out opinions and vague facts. Everyone needs to do the AMD forum a section and mute scali2.

I've been here for over a year, and all this guy does is turn the AMD forum into a fanboy fight. He instigates long threads like this that only leads to fighting.

He turns this whole forum into a steaming pile of shit. This forum is really a laughing stock. Members here pride themselves on being so "[H]", but this is utter crap. This forum is no different than a bunch of 14 year olds who love computer hardware.

Pathetic. I hope some mods read this and finally grow some balls and realize that their AMD section is a real piece of shit. Oh wait, they never will, kyle has some sort of boner for writing bad reviews for AMD. He could give two shits less.
 
sdlvx said:
Wow you guys he's trolling.

He's been here all day. He also changes his argument whenever someone proves him wrong. Not only that, all he does is spew out opinions and vague facts. Everyone needs to do the AMD forum a section and mute scali2.

I've been here for over a year, and all this guy does is turn the AMD forum into a fanboy fight. He instigates long threads like this that only leads to fighting.

He turns this whole forum into a steaming pile of shit. This forum is really a laughing stock. Members here pride themselves on being so "[H]", but this is utter crap. This forum is no different than a bunch of 14 year olds who love computer hardware.

Pathetic. I hope some mods read this and finally grow some balls and realize that their AMD section is a real piece of shit. Oh wait, they never will, kyle has some sort of boner for writing bad reviews for AMD. He could give two shits less.
Click to expand...

have you read kyles last review?
 
thekernel said:
Let's examine these shall we?

For the most part it is true that C2D at high clocks is a better performer on current games. You can argue that quads offer better future proofing, but with that logic, Core i7 offers even BETTER future proofing and all the people who say that the i7 is useless for games are wrong.

The point Scali was trying to make (which I think you missed) is that you can't have this argument both ways. Either a quad makes sense for future proofing your gaming experience or it doesn't and either way you can make a compelling case for Intel.

The Core 2 9770 runs at 3.2Ghz. AMD would probably have to produce a 3.5 Ghz part to trade blows with it. As such Scali is right as there's no indication that AMD will exceed 3.5Ghz on AM3. It's certainly POSSIBLE, but it's not in any way certain.

This certainly depends on your definition of "value". If he meant "best bang for the buck in current games", he's not incorrect.

Depends on your definition of a better overclocker. It certainly will produce more favorable results (thanks to being faster clock-for-clock).

See the comment on the e8400. If you are buying a system solely for gaming and NOTHING ELSE, Scali makes a good point that a fast dualcore is probably the way to go. It's not like he's the only person who has ever made this argument before you realize.

That depends entirely on your price range and the usage scenarios now doesn't it?

Maybe you could actually point out HOW it is flawed instead of pointing to vague generalizations.

You obviously missed the point Scali was trying to make with the clock-for-clock comparison which was to demonstrate platform longevity.
Click to expand...

X3 720 is within 5% for gaming, and beats the E8400 in most non-gaming apps I think that is an over all better buy

keep in mind , the test set I used to produce the % are all with DDR2 on a an AM2+ platform.
there is a good chance with DDR3 instead of 2 on AM3 that 1-2% could be added to the total

also
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYyMSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

you can see here an X4 810 @ 3.2ghz is pretty close to the 9770, it beats it in 2 tests, and loses in 2.

and to summarize
The X3 720 Black Edition looks to be a great enthusiast CPU for those on a budget that are looking for some very solid performance in the gaming arena. Match it up with some inexpensive DDR3-1333, which should be fairly easy to do since AMD’s internal memory controlling is not as restricting as Intel’s in terms of voltage, and you can have yourself a scorching 3.5GHz barebones gaming system easily around $400 sans the video card.

Kudos to AMD for bringing “value” and “black edition” together like should have been done a long time ago.
Click to expand...
 
sdlvx said:
Wow you guys he's trolling.

He's been here all day. He also changes his argument whenever someone proves him wrong. Not only that, all he does is spew out opinions and vague facts. Everyone needs to do the AMD forum a section and mute scali2.

I've been here for over a year, and all this guy does is turn the AMD forum into a fanboy fight. He instigates long threads like this that only leads to fighting.

He turns this whole forum into a steaming pile of shit. This forum is really a laughing stock. Members here pride themselves on being so "[H]", but this is utter crap. This forum is no different than a bunch of 14 year olds who love computer hardware.

Pathetic. I hope some mods read this and finally grow some balls and realize that their AMD section is a real piece of shit. Oh wait, they never will, kyle has some sort of boner for writing bad reviews for AMD. He could give two shits less.
Click to expand...

From where I am sitting you are the one trolling?
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
X3 720 is within 5% for gaming, and beats the E8400 in most non-gaming apps I think that is an over all better buy

keep in mind , the test set I used to produce the % are all with DDR2 on a an AM2+ platform.
there is a good chance with DDR3 instead of 2 on AM3 that 1-2% could be added to the total
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the X3 720, I actually thought the E8400 had a price advantage over it and wasn't aware that they are selling for the same price. My mistake.

you can see here an X4 810 @ 3.2ghz is pretty close to the 9770, it beats it in 2 tests, and loses in 2.
Click to expand...

Here you can't have a pass on sorry. ;)

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16382/6

It's pretty clear here that C2Q has a significant clock-for-clock advantage on Phenom II in all flavors under a wide variety of applications benchmarks. Sometimes the PII comes close, but the C2Q 9550 is usually quite a bit faster and at a lower clockrate.

I want to reiterate that I DO think AMD has some bright spots in its product line, they just are frighteningly narrow in the price bracket and Intel could pretty much crush the life out of the entire lineup by dropping the price of the Q9xxx line by a bit.
 
thekernel said:
I stand corrected on the X3 720, I actually thought the E8400 had a price advantage over it and wasn't aware that they are selling for the same price. My mistake.



Here you can't have a pass on sorry. ;)

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16382/6

It's pretty clear here that C2Q has a significant clock-for-clock advantage on Phenom II in all flavors under a wide variety of applications benchmarks. Sometimes the PII comes close, but the C2Q 9550 is usually quite a bit faster and at a lower clockrate.

I want to reiterate that I DO think AMD has some bright spots in its lineup, they just are frighteningly narrow in the price bracket and Intel could pretty much crush the life out of the entire lineup by dropping the price of the Q9xxx line by a bit.
Click to expand...

While I realize that clock for lock Core 2 wins the majority of the time(I wouldn't use world bench, rather use real individual benchmarks
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYyMSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

look for your self.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=6

there are situations where the Phenom II is faster then the C2Q clock for clock, and a lot o situations where they are very close.
 
Let's examine these shall we?
Click to expand...

This was in response to "Nothing he's saying is remotely debatable". I don't disagree with you. It is debatable. Hardly factual though.

Scali's arguments are like this, he says the 8400 is best for games and a budget, you say the 720 is comparable, he says they lose in benchmarks, you say yeah by 5% or less in gaming benchmark, then he says get i7 or core2quad because it's faster than anything AMD has to offer. It's not logical to start with a debate in one area, then end up in another.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
btw I thought you were a code-optimizer / developer , now you're an expert on Direct X and multi-threading 0.0 and an engineer o.0
unless your a software engineer
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm a software engineer... I was referring to the frame of mind that an engineer in general has.
And yes, I'm a code-optimizer... Multithreading and DirectX happen to be the types of code I usually optimize.
So I can have it all :)
Here's some of the hobby projects I've been doing over the years:
http://bohemiq.scali.eu.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
As you see, they're mostly graphics-related, and some of them are optimized for multithreading.

Digital Viper-X- said:
and even then, you stated you had an Athlon XP system while in University, which means you couldn't have graduated more then 7 years ago, meaning you couldn't possibly be an expert on anything yet :p.
Click to expand...

I was an expert before I even started university, because of hobby projects and work on the side :)
I'm not a regular person, I am in the top percentile and as such was often ahead of what was being taught in school. I was in the demoscene, and as such had already developed highly advanced 3d engines long before 3d graphics ever came up in any subject at university :)
A lot of the things I've done outside of university are things that aren't even taught at all... They rely purely on experience and insight. Google for "The story of Mel" to get an idea of what some people do, which is not exactly in any textbooks ;)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
X3 720 is within 5% for gaming, and beats the E8400 in most non-gaming apps I think that is an over all better buy
Click to expand...

I brought up the E8400 as a gaming solution, and you'll have to agree that for the same price, 5% better gaming performance is the better deal.

Then you argued that the X3 would be better in all other applications because of the extra core. To which I said "The difference is not that big, not so big that it can't be covered by the overclocking potential that E8400 offers".
And indeed, if you look at the application results... the E8400 actually wins some of those, sometimes with a huge margin.
Then there are a few where it's within a few % of the X3... to which the same argument would apply as with the X3 being 'only 5% slower' in games.
Leaving only a handful of applications where the X3 is significantly faster.

Now all this boils down to two things:
1) It is indeed not all that far-fetched that in an overclocking scenario the E8400 will actually be the better overall performer than the X3, given the E8400's huge overclocking potential, and the overall difference being so small.
2) Bottom line is that X3 is slightly better at applications, with a deficit in gaming, where the E8400 is the other way around. The final choice depends on what the user will consider most important. Will he sacrifice a bit of gaming performance for applications, or vice versa? The differences are so small that you could go either way.
Which reminds me of the Athlon64 vs Pentium 4 era... Most people picked the Athlon64 because it was slightly faster in games, while sacrificing some performance in tasks like 3d rendering, video encoding and multithreading (HT).
 
So much arguing over 5%...

It is like kids fighting over 5 pennies.
 
DTN107 said:
So much arguing over 5%...

It is like kids fighting over 5 pennies.
Click to expand...
WELL I'M GONNA ARGUE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT OF ANOTHER ARGUMENT BY SUPPLYING A QUESTION TO THE CONUNDRUM THAT ONLY I KNOW THE ANSWER TO! :mad:

IF x amount of kids were FIGHTING for 5 pennies that are DIRECTLY representative of the 5% performance DIFFERENCE of the aforementioned processors, HOW MANY kids are there, assuming the INTEREST index of such kids are 2.43% per 3 processors, REPRESENTATIVELY speaking? Also CALCULATE the return on investment of energy SPENT should one win the FIGHT, and possess all pennies. Assume 75kg males each having EATEN 3 slices of bacon, 2 eggs, a slice of toast, and a glass (2.66 cups exactly) of orange juice up to this POINT in the day, 10:30 AM CST. The cost of orange juice is $2.34 on the liter, and the combined food cost, per 2 children, is $1.78, per STATE recommendation of school served food. Also assume LIMITED air resistance and no 3rd-party INTERVENTION in the fight, as well as a TOTAL fighting floor area of 34.10 square meters. 2 minutes into the fight, a shrill WHISTLE 16.3m away can be heard by how many LEFTOVER children involved in this fight? Assume aforementioned children are SEEKING their respective NASH equilibria.
 
my i7 is working on generating an intelligent reply to this thread, but it shows no sign of progress despite the overclock...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top