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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trombe said:
If gaming is your primary (or even only) concern, that's your perogative, and nobody's really saying otherwise within the context of games. Your uses for a computer, however, aren't the only uses for a computer. Other people may have different priorities where a Core i7 platform would benefit them more than a Core 2 or Phenom 2 setup, and can justify the price difference on those grounds alone.
Click to expand...

No, gaming isn't my only concern as I am 55, however, I do game a bit and use my computers for ebay, inet browsing, and other non-heavy duty activities. If you read what I wrote I included the i7 920 and other Intels as a good budget CPU's, so you are simply not reading nor comprehending what I said, and yes, PH1's and PH2's still offer good performance to their Intel counterparts including the i7 920 and Qx9770 as many tests have indicated. Many businesses can and do use CPU's that cost well under $1,000 and $500 including engineering firms using CAD etc. programs, and these lower priced but cost and performance effective CPU's suit their needs just fine. That's a fact Jack.
 
Trombe said:
If gaming is your primary (or even only) concern, that's your perogative, and nobody's really saying otherwise within the context of games. Your uses for a computer, however, aren't the only uses for a computer. Other people may have different priorities where a Core i7 platform would benefit them more than a Core 2 or Phenom 2 setup, and can justify the price difference on those grounds alone.
Click to expand...

That's why we have two companies offering two different types of products. Did you ever think that maybe Intel is taking one market, and AMD is taking another? It's not about being cheap or expensive.

AMD is taking a very smart position right now. They can run with high end intel parts in gaming, but because they aren't as good at other things, they can charge less for them. There's a lot of PC gamers out there who are students (from high school to college), that don't have 800 dollars to spend on a Core i7, mobo, and ram. If they're just going to play games, the AMD system is awesome for them.

This doesn't mean that the AMD system is cheap, or an inferior product. It's tailored to the gaming market (why do you think AMD pushes their whole platform thing so hard?).

Not to mention the economy is in the shitter right now. It only makes sense to try and make products that provide the best value as opposed to something that's by far superior yet has a way high cost. Note how Intel isn't selling core i7 like they thought they would, they had lower profits than expected, and they pushed their roadmaps back?

Notice how AMD is still planning new competitively priced CPUs and gaining ground on Intel?

I realize I am using an Intel, but I am not a fanboy of any camp. I do prefer AMD, but I'll go with what I think suits my needs and I'll buy what I can afford. I'll also recommend the best option to people based on what they need and what they can afford. I also understand that have a duopoly on x86 desktop chips is far better than a monopoly, and I appreciate the competition.

Some of you idiot intel fanboys need to wake up and realize that both companies make great products, and that both are necessary to provide the consumers with the best products possible, for the widest range of markets.

I think it's great AMD is going to be able to release a stock 3.5Ghz part. I also don't think it matters if it's slower clock for clock, even with a Pentium 1. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that this AMD will be able to make up for it with it's faster clockspeed. I don't know how many of you idiot fanboys lurk in XS, but someone with a Deneb ES managed 3.7Ghz ON STOCK VOLTS from 2.xGhz. Also, [H] review of Phenom 2 is known to be garbage. There's even a 6 page thread on XS talking about how biased it is and how many errors they made in their testing method.
 
Wins pure performance metric. Sometimes I wish I had build a dual-core (either brand) ddr2 system instead of this i7 box, well that's what my wallet is saying (as I shop for a 30" LCD, lol...)
 
Atech said:
The better question would be:
Can a PhenomII OC'ed to the max beat a Core2Quad OC'ed to max on air? ;)
Click to expand...

The better question than that is ... what are you using an overclocked quad core for that it really makes any difference? I personally have a $200 max budget for processors... I get the best I can for that price. Max speed at any cost isn't realistic or obtainable for a lot of people. My [email protected] is overkill for most of what I do now... there's getting to be fewer and fewer good PC games that make it worthwhile to upgrade my PC for $$$ every year. I finally caved in and bought an XBOX 360... Put the game in, and it works. No crashes, no driver conflicts, no wierd lockups, no controller calibrations and best of all, the whole system cost less than a decent video card upgrade.

I still think FPS and RTS games are best suited for PCs, or at least, keyboard/mouse, but I'm getting too old for twitch gaming, and starcraft 2 will most likely run just fine on my 8800GT.
 
Logan321 said:
The better question than that is ... what are you using an overclocked quad core for that it really makes any difference? I personally have a $200 max budget for processors... I get the best I can for that price. Max speed at any cost isn't realistic or obtainable for a lot of people. My [email protected] is overkill for most of what I do now... there's getting to be fewer and fewer good PC games that make it worthwhile to upgrade my PC for $$$ every year. I finally caved in and bought an XBOX 360... Put the game in, and it works. No crashes, no driver conflicts, no wierd lockups, no controller calibrations and best of all, the whole system cost less than a decent video card upgrade.
Click to expand...

And it looks a lot more ugly than on the PC...you forgot that part.

I still think FPS and RTS games are best suited for PCs, or at least, keyboard/mouse, but I'm getting too old for twitch gaming, and starcraft 2 will most likely run just fine on my 8800GT.
Click to expand...

Games are GPU limited, this should be no news to anyone on [Hard].
 
Atech said:
And it looks a lot more ugly than on the PC...you forgot that part.
Click to expand...

I'll take an ugly game that's fun over a pretty one that isn't... Graphics are only there to enhance the story telling or game play. They shouldn't be the primary focus. Control system, mechanics, story/plot, these are the core of every great game. Graphics are like salt... they enhance the flavor, but too much and you can't taste anything else.
 
Originally Posted by Atech
The better question would be:
Can a PhenomII OC'ed to the max beat a Core2Quad OC'ed to max on air?

Zero82z said:
And the answer to that is obviously no.
Click to expand...

Did you just discover this somewhat vague semi-fact?? Clock for clock the Intels are faster but we don't live in a clock for clock world and some of the Intel CPU's just as some of the AMD CPU's don't OC to well either.

It depends on what Intel Quad or Dual Core and what applications and games, because for instance the Q8200 doesn't OC too well and is beaten by PH2's. There are also other examples. At stock speeds the PH2's also beat some Intel CPU's at certain apps. and not at others. I have to laugh :D because I paid $66.01 for a 5400+ BE on Fleabay and it did slightly better on 3DMark16 OCed at 3.2GHz than a 3x the price E8400 stock, and my $75 X2 7750 at ~3.18GHz scores about 12,503 3DMark06 pts. using DDR2 compared to about 15,700 pts. for a $230 - $300 i7 920 stock using DDR3. Performance of both the 5400+ BE and X2 7750 are fine in all apps. I run.
 
xorbe said:
Wins pure performance metric. Sometimes I wish I had build a dual-core (either brand) ddr2 system instead of this i7 box, well that's what my wallet is saying (as I shop for a 30" LCD, lol...)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you paid $230 for the i7 920 when it was on sale then you got an excellent deal and are set for a couple/few years down the road.:D That's a nice system you have. :)

Myself, I am a bit half-screwed because I have a new and excellent Ascrock 790Gx mobo to be returned from an RMA (no, I didn't screw up the mobo :D, luckily, it actually had weird power problems etc.) and I am not going to waste that mobo (and I went and bought an Asus M3A78-T mobo in the meantime for my X2 7750) so I will HAVE TO buy an X4 940 or more likely an X3 720 BE for the Asrock mobo, and that stops me from getting a new AM3 DDR3 mobo, unless I sell the Arock or Asus mobo and I really don't want to do that but probably should sell one of them. I don't know. I confuse myself but the unlucky DOA Asrock mobo (that is rated very highly BTW) has bricked me good. Pooh-poop.
 
christof139 said:
Did you just discover this somewhat vague semi-fact?? Clock for clock the Intels are faster but we don't live in a clock for clock world and some of the Intel CPU's just as some of the AMD CPU's don't OC to well either.

It depends on what Intel Quad or Dual Core and what applications and games, because for instance the Q8200 doesn't OC to well and is beaten by PH2's. There are also other examples. At stock speeds the PH2's also beat some Intel CPU's at certain apps. and not at others. I have to laugh :D because I paid $66.01 for a 5400+ BE on Fleabay and it did slightly better on 3DMark16 OCed at 3.2GHz than a 3x the price E8400 stock, and my $75 X2 7750 at ~3.18GHz scores about 12,503 3DMark06 pts. using DDR2 compared to about 15,700 pts. for a $230 - $300 i7 920 stock using DDR3. Performance of both the 5400+ BE and X2 7750 are fine in all apps. I run.
Click to expand...
The question that I responded to had nothing to do with stock clock comparisons, price/performance, or value. It was a question about which CPU is faster at both of their maximum speeds, and I answered it, plain and simple. Unless you'd like to dispute my answer, it really makes no difference what your opinion is on the matter. Fact is fact, and regardless of whether or not an AMD CPU is good enough for you, that doesn't change the fact that Intel CPUs are still faster.

It really seems like you're just responding to my posts to pick fights, even when you don't actually have a real argument.
 
No, you are the one that goes OT and picks 'fights' and rattles on and on and purposefully misconstrues what other people state, and even try to add things to what other people have said that those other people didn't say in the first place. Sorry, you are quite obvious.
 
Zero82z said:
It's about cost because AMD can't compete from a performance standpoint. The only place they have in the market is the budget segment, so by nature their entire product line is based around cost.
Click to expand...

That is the point I suppose.
I mean, in the past, with Pentium 4/D vs Athlon/XP/64/X2 there was one company on top, but the other was never too far behind.
It's not really about who is faster, but rather about how much faster.
Currently the gap is so incredibly large, that AMD simply is no longer a valid choice for people with larger budgets. If I have $300 or more to invest in a new CPU, why would I go with AMD? I can save money, but in return I can only get performance from 2 years ago. What if I already invested $300 or more in a Q6600 2 years ago, and already HAVE that performance?

That is the problem here. This is what makes me tired about people doing price comparisons between AMD and Core2 Quad/Core i7.
Yea, AMD is cheaper, might even be better value for money, but it isn't relevant because of two basic facts:
1) The money isn't an issue. $300 or more for a CPU easily fits into the budget. Same with motherboards or DDR3, a small premium is no issue. The money is there.
2) In order for something to be good value for money, it actually has to be significantly better than what you were coming from. If you already have a Q6600 or better, no current AMD product qualifies (the same goes for Intel by the way, I doubt that many Q6600 owners even contemplated buying a Q9xxx processor, it's too small a step to be worth the investment).

An enthusiast by definition has a larger than usual interest in computers and performance, and as such, he will put aside more money for future upgrades, and upgrade more often. The old saying "Too little, too late" is just spot-on for AMD's Phenom and Phenom II products.
I think that was also what Kyle was referring to in his first review of the Phenom II. It's not an enthusiast part, because it's not faster than what the average enthusiast already owns... And the price advantage isn't going to sway an enthusiast because it's not relevant.
 
sdlvx said:
AMD is taking a very smart position right now. They can run with high end intel parts in gaming, but because they aren't as good at other things, they can charge less for them. There's a lot of PC gamers out there who are students (from high school to college), that don't have 800 dollars to spend on a Core i7, mobo, and ram. If they're just going to play games, the AMD system is awesome for them.
Click to expand...

That argument doesn't hold because the good old Core2 Duos still perform great in most games aswell, and are even cheaper. And they are good enough for office/email/web/etc aswell.
Why would they get a Phenom II instead of a Core2 Duo? I think the price argument and the performance argument are out.

sdlvx said:
This doesn't mean that the AMD system is cheap, or an inferior product. It's tailored to the gaming market (why do you think AMD pushes their whole platform thing so hard?).
Click to expand...

They push it because they want to give off the impression that using an all-AMD system is somehow better than using AMD+nVidia, Intel+AMD or Intel+nVidia.
The idea in itself is nonsense, obviously, but AMD just wants to sell more products, so I don't blame them for trying to create a brand this way.

sdlvx said:
Notice how AMD is still planning new competitively priced CPUs and gaining ground on Intel?
Click to expand...

Where did they gain ground exactly?
The original Phenom fell short of Kentsfield, Phenom II falls short of Yorkfield. So in both cases, AMD failed to catch up with an Intel architecture that was released a year earlier.
In the meantime, Intel launched Nehalem, which is a much bigger step than Kentsfield->Yorkfield. Which means that AMD has an even bigger task ahead.
If anything, AMD is further behind today than it was with the original Phenom.

sdlvx said:
I think it's great AMD is going to be able to release a stock 3.5Ghz part. I also don't think it matters if it's slower clock for clock, even with a Pentium 1. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that this AMD will be able to make up for it with it's faster clockspeed. I don't know how many of you idiot fanboys lurk in XS, but someone with a Deneb ES managed 3.7Ghz ON STOCK VOLTS from 2.xGhz. Also, [H] review of Phenom 2 is known to be garbage. There's even a 6 page thread on XS talking about how biased it is and how many errors they made in their testing method.
Click to expand...

I don't think AMD will be able to close the gap with Core i5. I doubt that a 3.5 GHz Phenom II will outperform a 3.0-3.2 GHz Core i5.
And that's without even taking next year's 32 nm processors into account.
 
Atech said:
The better question would be:
Can a PhenomII OC'ed to the max beat a Core2Quad OC'ed to max on air? ;)
Click to expand...

Do you want to compare an unlocked PII to an unlocked C2Q or a $200 PII to a $1000 C2Q? ;)

The better question would be:
Can a similiar priced C2Q OC'ed to the max beat a PII OC'ed to max on air?
 
Scali2 said:
That argument doesn't hold because the good old Core2 Duos still perform great in most games aswell, and are even cheaper. And they are good enough for office/email/web/etc aswell.
Why would they get a Phenom II instead of a Core2 Duo? I think the price argument and the performance argument are out.
Click to expand...

I would agree if the Core2's are cheaper than the Phenom II's at the same level of performance, but if its a toss up then I have to factor in the prices on the supporting components as well. If, after comparing all specs and prices, the costs are the same (or at least very close) then either one would be a fine choice. I'm not slavishly compelled to buy Intel - at least not yet anyway - and those who are just prove themselves to be fanbois.
 
BigMacAttack said:
I would agree if the Core2's are cheaper than the Phenom II's at the same level of performance,
Click to expand...

Seems to me that they are, at least as far as games are concerned (as brought up in the post I was responding to).
I mean, an E8400 (3 GHz) is cheaper than a Phenom II 920 (2.8 GHz). The E8400 will be as fast or faster in most games, especially if we also factor in overclocking (E8400 are capable of 4+ GHz speeds even on air).
See here for example:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=18
It often even outperforms the 940, even at stock speeds, even in demanding titles like Crysis Warhead.
 
Scali2 said:
That argument doesn't hold because the good old Core2 Duos still perform great in most games aswell, and are even cheaper. And they are good enough for office/email/web/etc aswell.
Why would they get a Phenom II instead of a Core2 Duo? I think the price argument and the performance argument are out.
Click to expand...

You'll be more prepared for the future with 4 threads as opposed to 2.

Scali2 said:
They push it because they want to give off the impression that using an all-AMD system is somehow better than using AMD+nVidia, Intel+AMD or Intel+nVidia.
The idea in itself is nonsense, obviously, but AMD just wants to sell more products, so I don't blame them for trying to create a brand this way.
Click to expand...

What do you think the point of a platform is? It's all marketing. So are sales, discounts, MIRs, etc. And those are all good for the consumer.

Maybe if we want to not pay attention to any marketing gimicks, we should just close the [h]ot deals forum right now, we are [h]ardxcore and we don't need crappy marketing tricks.


Scali2 said:
Where did they gain ground exactly?
The original Phenom fell short of Kentsfield, Phenom II falls short of Yorkfield. So in both cases, AMD failed to catch up with an Intel architecture that was released a year earlier.
In the meantime, Intel launched Nehalem, which is a much bigger step than Kentsfield->Yorkfield. Which means that AMD has an even bigger task ahead.
If anything, AMD is further behind today than it was with the original Phenom.
Click to expand...
Different markets.

Scali2 said:
I don't think AMD will be able to close the gap with Core i5. I doubt that a 3.5 GHz Phenom II will outperform a 3.0-3.2 GHz Core i5.
And that's without even taking next year's 32 nm processors into account.
Click to expand...

Price will be different and account for the performance differences.
 
sdlvx said:
You'll be more prepared for the future with 4 threads as opposed to 2.
Click to expand...

With that logic, you're even more prepared when you go for the Core i7 920, with 8 threads, and better performance per thread, at only a small extra investment.

sdlvx said:
What do you think the point of a platform is? It's all marketing. So are sales, discounts, MIRs, etc. And those are all good for the consumer.
Click to expand...

Well, you brought it up as being a reason why AMD would be a good gaming solution. Now you seem to agree with me. It's just marketing, AMD wants you to believe it's a good gaming platform, that doesn't mean it actually is.

sdlvx said:
Different markets.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. When Kentsfield came out, that was the high-end market. Then Yorkfield came out, and Kentsfield dropped into the mainstream, and Yorkfield took over the high-end role.
Now Yorkfield is mainstream, and Nehalem is the high-end. The next obvious step is that Nehalem will become mainstream (which is what Core i5 is for).
Problem is, all this time, AMD hasn't had anything high-end, so what if Nehalem hits the mainstream? It will push AMD out of the mainstream and put them into the budget market only, together with Yorkfield.

sdlvx said:
Price will be different and account for the performance differences.
Click to expand...

The price will only be different because Intel will have Core i5 replace Yorkfield's price points, and push Yorkfield down in price. As a result, AMD will have to drop its prices aswell, and lose grip of the mainstream.
 
Logan321 said:
I'll take an ugly game that's fun over a pretty one that isn't... Graphics are only there to enhance the story telling or game play. They shouldn't be the primary focus. Control system, mechanics, story/plot, these are the core of every great game. Graphics are like salt... they enhance the flavor, but too much and you can't taste anything else.
Click to expand...


I have it the total opposite.
I hate the LACK of control on consoles, I find the GFX looking 2005'ish...and if you compare games on PC vs. console this becomes evident.

Only thing I dislike more than console(games) are the ports...keep the crap away from the PC thanks.
 
Scali2 said:
AMD wants you to believe it's a good gaming platform, that doesn't mean it actually is.
Click to expand...

Whle I will admit I'm not as "up" on some of this stuff as most of you seem to be I have to say that some of the things I've been reading seem to indicate that it is good for gaming. Perhaps not the very best but certainly good enough that if one wants to grab a PII it certainly wouldn't be a waste of money.
There is no question i7 is a beast - but not everyone needs it. PII seems to fill a niche and performs well enough to be taken seriously - at least for a medium grade build. It seems to me you are very pro Intel and don't want to give consideration to AMD's offerings. That's your choice of course and I appreciate your point of view but thankfully we still have an alternative in AMD that works well enough for others.
 
BigMacAttack said:
Whle I will admit I'm not as "up" on some of this stuff as most of you seem to be I have to say that some of the things I've been reading seem to indicate that it is good for gaming. Perhaps not the very best but certainly good enough that if one wants to grab a PII it certainly wouldn't be a waste of money.
Click to expand...

I will just refer to my earlier post... The E8400 is cheaper than both the Phenom II 920 and 940, yet it is faster than the 920 in all the game tests I linked to, and faster than the 940 in 3 out of 4 game tests.
"Waste of money" might be a bit too strong, but still... it's not exactly the most sensible choice for gaming.
And painfully enough, the Phenom II 940 is AMD's best offer. It's getting outperformed in games by a last-generation dualcore budget chip from Intel.

BigMacAttack said:
It seems to me you are very pro Intel and don't want to give consideration to AMD's offerings.
Click to expand...

I'm not pro Intel per se. I'm pro buying the best products for your money.
I have bought AMD systems in the past, but AMD has not offered anything that I am interested in for years now.
I think it's more that a lot of people keep trying to find excuses for AMD.
I mean, look at what just happened... People were trying to push AMD as a good gaming platform. So I point to a cheaper yet faster Intel dualcore, which just gets ignored.
 
Scali2 said:
With that logic, you're even more prepared when you go for the Core i7 920, with 8 threads, and better performance per thread, at only a small extra investment.
Click to expand...

By the time we see octo-threaded games, odds are the i7 will be obsolete. We are just now seeing the transition from 2 threads to 4 threads. The transition from 4 threads to 8 threads isn't as close.

Scali2 said:
Well, you brought it up as being a reason why AMD would be a good gaming solution. Now you seem to agree with me. It's just marketing, AMD wants you to believe it's a good gaming platform, that doesn't mean it actually is.
Click to expand...
Everything is marketing, even benchmarks. Why do you think Intel and AMD give out free samples to reviewers?

Scali2 said:
That's nonsense. When Kentsfield came out, that was the high-end market. Then Yorkfield came out, and Kentsfield dropped into the mainstream, and Yorkfield took over the high-end role.
Now Yorkfield is mainstream, and Nehalem is the high-end. The next obvious step is that Nehalem will become mainstream (which is what Core i5 is for).
Problem is, all this time, AMD hasn't had anything high-end, so what if Nehalem hits the mainstream? It will push AMD out of the mainstream and put them into the budget market only, together with Yorkfield.
Click to expand...
It's not about high/low/mid range products, it's about what you use it for, beit encoding, folding, gaming, etc. A Via may be a lower end product, but if you're encrypting stuff with AES, all of a sudden it looks way more attractive. It's the same philosphy, just not on such a big scale.

Scali2 said:
The price will only be different because Intel will have Core i5 replace Yorkfield's price points, and push Yorkfield down in price. As a result, AMD will have to drop its prices aswell, and lose grip of the mainstream.
Click to expand...

see above.
 
sdlvx said:
By the time we see octo-threaded games, odds are the i7 will be obsolete. We are just now seeing the transition from 2 threads to 4 threads. The transition from 4 threads to 8 threads isn't as close.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. Even with only 4 threads, Core i7 is in a league of its own in terms of performance.

sdlvx said:
Everything is marketing, even benchmarks. Why do you think Intel and AMD give out free samples to reviewers?
Click to expand...

That's not the same though. The benchmark results are actual facts.
AMD being a superior gaming platform is not.

sdlvx said:
It's not about high/low/mid range products, it's about what you use it for, beit encoding, folding, gaming, etc. A Via may be a lower end product, but if you're encrypting stuff with AES, all of a sudden it looks way more attractive. It's the same philosphy, just not on such a big scale.
Click to expand...

Except that unlike VIA, AMD doesn't have *any* specific area in which it has an advantage over other products. Encoding, folding, gaming... you name it, Intel is better at it.
There is nothing attractive about an AMD system.
 
People people i left this train wreck many pages ago ... hears the clock for clock debate fact is intel has the more efficient integer core than amd this has been the case for a while. this is one reason amd is slower on a clock for clock basis. when intel went imc on the i7 the advantage amd had vanished quickly

next up hyper threading yes it offers advantages in multithreaded work loads still curious as to why intel dropped it in the core2 just to bring it back...

the platform debate the am3 platform has long legs even kyle said it. as for the pissing contest between amd and intel in playing games i do not see any advantage that an i7 brings to the table that provides a better real world gaming experience. hell i bet i could have two systems one amd one intel; have you blindly play the same game on both you would not be able to tell the difference between the two.

on the attractiveness of intel to amd umm marketing brainwashing for many years see amd's marketing budget is almost nonexistent but amd still has a very good price to performance ratio a good thing in times of recession
 
maxius said:
next up hyper threading yes it offers advantages in multithreaded work loads still curious as to why intel dropped it in the core2 just to bring it back...
Click to expand...

I guess that's pretty simple:
Core2 is not based on Netburst, and Netburst was the only architecture that Intel had implemented HT on so far.
So Intel had two choices:
1) Delay Core2, add HyperThreading to it, and make it more expensive.
2) Release Core2 without HyperThreading, and add it in a later architecture.

So Intel didn't actually drop anything, they just hadn't added it yet.
They made the right choice. We all know that Core2 could have been better with HyperThreading and an IMC... but the fact of the matter is that it didn't need either to be the performance king. Who knows, we might have been using Pentium 4/D until Core i7 if Intel didn't decide to release Core2 when and how they released it.

maxius said:
the platform debate the am3 platform has long legs even kyle said it. as for the pissing contest between amd and intel in playing games i do not see any advantage that an i7 brings to the table that provides a better real world gaming experience. hell i bet i could have two systems one amd one intel; have you blindly play the same game on both you would not be able to tell the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Again someone who ignores the other side of this debate:
You can take an E8400 and it will perform as well or better than a Phenom II in games. You probably would not be able to tell the difference between the two.
 
Scali2 said:
I guess that's pretty simple:
Core2 is not based on Netburst, and Netburst was the only architecture that Intel had implemented HT on so far.
So Intel had two choices:
1) Delay Core2, add HyperThreading to it, and make it more expensive.
2) Release Core2 without HyperThreading, and add it in a later architecture.

So Intel didn't actually drop anything, they just hadn't added it yet.
They made the right choice. We all know that Core2 could have been better with HyperThreading and an IMC... but the fact of the matter is that it didn't need either to be the performance king. Who knows, we might have been using Pentium 4/D until Core i7 if Intel didn't decide to release Core2 when and how they released it.



Again someone who ignores the other side of this debate:
You can take an E8400 and it will perform as well or better than a Phenom II in games. You probably would not be able to tell the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

#1 i think they did not just leave it out rather take it out to provide more value to the i7 with ht

#2 that's my point you can not tell the difference of what is under the hood whether its a 775 ddr3 am3 ddr3 or i7 ddr3
 
maxius said:
#1 i think they did not just leave it out rather take it out to provide more value to the i7 with ht
Click to expand...
Wrong. The Core microarchitecture was designed completely separately from the P4, and to integrate HT would have required very large architectural changes which would have delayed the release of Core 2 by at least a year. That's why the Core 2 CPUs do not have HT.
 
Zero82z said:
Wrong. The Core microarchitecture was designed completely separately from the P4, and to integrate HT would have required very large architectural changes which would have delayed the release of Core 2 by at least a year. That's why the Core 2 CPUs do not have HT.
Click to expand...

i stand corrected anyways on topic hopefully amd can keep competitive in what ever way they can
 
maxius said:
#2 that's my point you can not tell the difference of what is under the hood whether its a 775 ddr3 am3 ddr3 or i7 ddr3
Click to expand...

Indeed, which leads to the conclusion that there's absolutely no reason to go for a more expensive Phenom II system if you want to play games. Core2 Duo is the best value for money for gamers.
 
Who says AMD can't game?

I mean yea Intel gets a couple more FPS but that doesn't deem AMD "unplayable"
 
DTN107 said:
Who says AMD can't game?

I mean yea Intel gets a couple more FPS but that doesn't deem AMD "unplayable"
Click to expand...

That's not the point, is it? My brother still uses a Pentium D system, and he can play Crysis Warhead at Enthusiast levels aswell, without any problems.

Sure you can game... but buying a more expensive AMD system which performs worse is not a good choice for a gaming platform.
That was just the point. AMD doesn't have anything going for its platform. It doesn't beat Intel in any way. It's not cheaper, doesn't perform better, it consumes more power etc.
 
Scali2 said:
That's not the point, is it? My brother still uses a Pentium D system, and he can play Crysis Warhead at Enthusiast levels aswell, without any problems.

Sure you can game... but buying a more expensive AMD system which performs worse is not a good choice for a gaming platform.
That was just the point. AMD doesn't have anything going for its platform. It doesn't beat Intel in any way. It's not cheaper, doesn't perform better, it consumes more power etc.
Click to expand...

Lets see that intel $99 crossfire motherboard.
 
Scali2 said:
Indeed, which leads to the conclusion that there's absolutely no reason to go for a more expensive Phenom II system if you want to play games. Core2 Duo is the best value for money for gamers.
Click to expand...

Sorry bud. Phenom II is not more expensive. Your recommended 8400 is a little more expensive than the 720 and has one less core. So that must mean there is absoulutely, definitely, positively, no reason to go with the more expensive Intel.
 
Zero I see you can put up a good argument.

But didn't your brother's computer at one time was consider a "waste of money"? Why buy an Intel especially a Pentium D?

But people still bought the Intel CPUs anyway even if cost them a few more bucks. I guess you can call it customer loyalty. Which the same thing is happening right now with AMD.

People are still willing to pay a few more bucks to support their favorite company. Will they lose out on FPS? A bit. Will they notice it? Most likely not.

As for me I like both AMD and Intel. Though I am rooting for AMD a bit because I like to see more competition.
 
mufdvr3669 said:
Sorry bud. Phenom II is not more expensive. Your recommended 8400 is a little more expensive than the 720 and has one less core. So that must mean there is absoulutely, definitely, positively, no reason to go with the more expensive Intel.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, the E8400 is faster than the 920 in 4 out of 4 tests, and faster than the 940 in 3 out of 4 tests. Surely it's faster than the 720 aswell.
There are plenty of cheaper Core2 Duo's to compete with the 720.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top