• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Phenom updates

frag85 said:
they want to release a far superior product, hense the wait. think about other releases in the computer industry that kept getting delayed but made big sales(HL2 comes to mind). even if AMD's new chips are not superior, they will make sure they are the bigger bang for the buck. if you know anything about economics then you will see what AMD is doing.

i have mostly used Intel over the years. but if you look at the price per performance aspect, it is very difficult to beat AMD.
Click to expand...

all indications are that it wont be a 'far superior' product however...and I find that AMDs pricing for X2s has sucked for quite some time now. Perhaps the price drops will align them to something more suitable.
 
Ethug said:
...and I find that AMDs pricing for X2s has sucked for quite some time now. Perhaps the price drops will align them to something more suitable.
Click to expand...

yeah right $70 for a dual pulling 2.7 ghz per core simple o/c really sucks, lol
 
Glow said:
Well since AMD has been dead in the water releasing nothing innovative in a year and a half and still just cutting costs of AM2s and upping their clock speeds to seem like a good value you can't be surprised some AMD fans have switched. Look how dead the AMD forum is in gerneral compared to Intels over the past year. I love AMD but I'm sure as hell not going to buy an upgraded 939 than runs DDR2 thanks. A little competition is good maybe all this will teach AMD something. Until then I'll stick with my cheapy Intel system but I've seen a lot of people switch and are harsh on AMD for such reasons and many others. You can't expect everyone too just keep on cheering for AMD when they aren't really doing anything so I think your being just as ignorant as the Intel fanboys who hang out in here. This is really funny especially when AMDs were kicking ass couple years ago and AMD fanboys were giving the Intel guys crap.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself... I too "prefer" AMD over Intel, but my personal preference comes a distant second to who actually has the better product. I'm currently running and AMD system simply becuase at the time of this build, AMD had the best prodcut IMO. I have not yet had a reason to upgrade, If I were to upgrade today however, I would be going Intel without the shadow of a doubt. Intel+nVidia to be more precise.
 
I've built several systems in the past few weeks for some friends who are just average computer users so everything run at stock, I must say that a combo with a 2.4GHz AMD X2 with an AMD 690G mobo is really hard to beat in term of price/performance. I know this is [H]ard forum but for most computer users, an AMD platform has a better value for money since the mobo is also cheaper and the extra money can be used towards another hardware like a better GPU or a larger HDD.
 
Since you AMD fans are now playing the "value" card, can we assume that if in the future AMD comes out with a better, but more expensive processor than Intel, you will then jump on the Intel bandwagon and praise it's "value?"

Yeah, um, something tells me that isn't going to happen, instead you will be singing a different tune, something like, "it's a better processor so it should cost more." :rolleyes: Go play on the interstate.
 
RamonGTP said:
Since you AMD fans are now playing the "value" card, can we assume that if in the future AMD comes out with a better, but more expensive processor than Intel, you will then jump on the Intel bandwagon and praise it's "value?"

Yeah, um, something tells me that isn't going to happen, instead you will be singing a different tune, something like, "it's a better processor so it should cost more." :rolleyes: Go play on the interstate.
Click to expand...

when AMD was on top Intel was playing the value card with a $125 PD 805, AMD has now taken that spot. and that is a sweet spot for OEMs, because when they advertise dual core, the average j0e doesn't care if its the Pentium D 805 or Pentium D 965 or the x2 3600 vs x2 4800 etc

So I'm not sure where you're comment comes from, but lower end cpus sell far more then high end ones =p at least in my machines ^^

and simply put, you can't beat 2.x ghz for $70 on a dual core chip for a value machine
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
when AMD was on top Intel was playing the value card with a $125 PD 805, AMD has now taken that spot. and that is a sweet spot for OEMs, because when they advertise dual core, the average j0e doesn't care if its the Pentium D 805 or Pentium D 965 or the x2 3600 vs x2 4800 etc

So I'm not sure where you're comment comes from, but lower end cpus sell far more then high end ones =p at least in my machines ^^

and simply put, you can't beat 2.x ghz for $70 on a dual core chip for a value machine
Click to expand...

I understand that, thanks... Where I'm coming from is that the AMD fans around here have one of these two types of mentalities...

1) AMD is better than Intel becuase they have a better performing CPU
2) AMD is better than Intel beucase they have better value

So when is AMD ever not better than Intel in the eyes of AMD fanboys?
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
when AMD was on top Intel was playing the value card with a $125 PD 805, AMD has now taken that spot. and that is a sweet spot for OEMs, because when they advertise dual core, the average j0e doesn't care if its the Pentium D 805 or Pentium D 965 or the x2 3600 vs x2 4800 etc

So I'm not sure where you're comment comes from, but lower end cpus sell far more then high end ones =p at least in my machines ^^

and simply put, you can't beat 2.x ghz for $70 on a dual core chip for a value machine
Click to expand...


Very true.Its just too bad AMD has backed itself into this corner.AMD cannot afford to play the value card forever,they need to start charging more and making money.AMD cannot afford to become the WalMart of the x86 market,not in this day and age,of multi
billion dollar 45nm fab costs.
 
Manny Calavera said:
Very true.Its just too bad AMD has backed itself into this corner.AMD cannot afford to play the value card forever,they need to start charging more and making money.AMD cannot afford to become the WalMart of the x86 market,not in this day and age,of multi
billion dollar 45nm fab costs.
Click to expand...

Thats fine too, but remember yesterdays top end is todays low end :p they havn't played the value card long, they had the X2 on top now they are taking the back seat, hard to compete against a company with massive pockets like intel =p, I guess we'll find out where they stand when the desktop phenoms drop, maybe not on top, but maybe not behind either, who knows.

btw the way AMD is heading with fusion looks really interesting, offloading the right work onto the GPU sounds like an idea both intel and amd shoud have been working on long time ago with the power of the last few gens of GPUs.

for Ramon -
What do you expect? its the same exact deal for intel. people were talking about the value 805s when x2's were on top and Intel dropped their prices. I don't think either Comapny has had both high and low end dominated for the last while. it always seems to be a trade off. I bet they are in cahoots, we keep buying up the high end new gens, and low end old gens from both companies. haha
 
Viper, I think you've missed my point once again... The same people who praise AMD for having the better processor and bash Intel for having an inferior one are the same ones who flip their story when the roles are reversed. They will continue to praise AMD, this time for value. And the cycle will continue, if/when AMD regains the performance crown, everyone praising them now for value will praise them for their performance, and they will not give Intel their credit, even though they may have the better value at the time.

If you do not see the irony in that, I'm not sure what else to tell you.
 
RamonGTP said:
Viper, I think you've missed my point once again... The same people who praise AMD for having the better processor and bash Intel for having an inferior one are the same ones who flip their story when the roles are reversed. They will continue to praise AMD, this time for value. And the cycle will continue, if/when AMD regains the performance crown, everyone praising them now for value will praise them for their performance, and they will not give Intel their credit, even though they may have the better value at the time.

If you do not see the irony in that, I'm not sure what else to tell you.
Click to expand...

This can be said of all fanboys. Intel or AMD
 
a good sub 80 dollar board would be the board i picked for my 3600 brisbane "biostar tforce560 am2"
 
Well at least AMD isn't going to die just because they didn't have a top end CPU like some Intel fans said. OEM market is where the money really being made and AMD won't go anywhere as long as their products have a good value.

Digital Viper-X- said:
I think a good board is also the ASUS M2A-VM AMD 690G chipset, not great for ocing =p but great for HTPC has DVI built in
Click to expand...

This is also a very good board.
 
RamonGTP said:
Since you AMD fans are now playing the "value" card, can we assume that if in the future AMD comes out with a better, but more expensive processor than Intel, you will then jump on the Intel bandwagon and praise it's "value?"

Yeah, um, something tells me that isn't going to happen, instead you will be singing a different tune, something like, "it's a better processor so it should cost more." :rolleyes: Go play on the interstate.
Click to expand...

<sigh> I said it before and will say it again ...

I always laugh at this mentality that somehow AMD has to be king of the hill in pure performance to compete effectively, but then again this is an enthusiast board whose opinions not only don't reflect the reality of what's happening out there but whose suggestions would drive AMD into early bankruptcy.

It's been proven over and over again that this scorched earth, no prisoners spared competition for bragging rights only increases the bloodletting at AMD's expense and its shareholders, so tell what the hell sense it makes in a world dominated by cost conscious Joe Sixpacks to make a high end chip that very few would buy as Viper suggested?

All AMD needs is to stay pretty close, keep the value label, and offer a good bang for the buck and they'll do just fine.
 
Actually I'm more interested in AM2+ board, the ability to turn off any core that is not needed is a huge plus for me.
 
RamonGTP said:
I understand that, thanks... Where I'm coming from is that the AMD fans around here have one of these two types of mentalities...

1) AMD is better than Intel becuase they have a better performing CPU
2) AMD is better than Intel beucase they have better value

So when is AMD ever not better than Intel in the eyes of AMD fanboys?
Click to expand...

When C2D came out.
I have been an AMD nutswinger for a long time, but C2D pwns AMD.
I hope AMD can come back. Competition is a good thing. I had a X2-4600 for 2 years, a 754 for almost 2 and before than an XP and before that a Duron. At the time, all of them performed better than anything Intel had for the same price or less money. They had a good run. For now, Intel is on top and pummeling AMD. They after all, the 800kg gorilla.

If anything, major props to AMD for being the 100lb chimpanzee than owned the gorilla for so long. The question is, will the chimp survive this recent pummeling?
 
Okay, back on topic... who's actually going to buy a Phenom X4 this year? At 2.6 Ghz, how much are some of you willing to fork out?
 
Choppyferrari said:
Okay, back on topic... who's actually going to buy a Phenom X4 this year? At 2.6 Ghz, how much are some of you willing to fork out?
Click to expand...

I'm planning on getting a Phenom if I get get a fairly fast quad for around $300 after x-mas. I'm happy with my X2 4200 in every game except supreme commander - 6-7 bots and 1000 unit caps are just too much for it :D The article on core scaling with supreme commander now makes me think that it isn't my video card that is bottlenecking it but the CPU - so thats where my first upgrade will be, and I'm hoping the Phenom is good...
 
alg7_munif said:
Actually I'm more interested in AM2+ board, the ability to turn off any core that is not needed is a huge plus for me.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for AM2+ boards with split power planes as well. The AM3 with DDR3 doesn't interest me. Until then, I decided on holding out on any upgrades.
 
Ethug said:
a 2160 overclocked is quite a beast.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2160_14.html#sect0

"ouch"

loyalty to a brand name is stupid. I'm running an amd processor right now, but I'm far from stupid. The market tells the story very clearly.
Click to expand...
yea everyone who buys a $70 cpu for a value machine is going to spend $200 on a motherboard :p

no one said the low end core 2s suck, but for price / performance the low end amds are hard to ignore, $70mobo with built in DVI, $70 CPU (4000+) $140 you have a very decent combo.

Not sure on USD prices but the Pentium E series here costs ~$100 which is comparable to an AMD X2 4400+
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=012808&cid=CPU.907
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=014197&cid=CPU.84

you can look HERE
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3112&p=8

the 2160 trades blows with a 4200/4000+ so I would say its slightly better then a 4000+ and almost a 4200+

so now you have a 4400+ which would be between a 4200 and a 4800 probably a bit close to a 4200
the E2160 in this midrange cpu comparison loses to the E4000 series in pretty much every "Test" not "benchmark"
or you can grab a 3600 for almost $30 less or a 3800 for $20 less, keep in mind $20 out of 100 is 20% this isn't a $300 CPU

So before quoting 1 article with a $200 mobo comparing overclocks, do some reading, and maybe some thinking, because the second most important point is that when I build 5-10 machines for an office or a pc for a parent / grandparent / general use, they will not be overclocked. and every $10 and $20 counts to some people, specially the people who are trying to make $ and order a few machines at a time.
 
arcturus said:
<sigh> I said it before and will say it again ...

I always laugh at this mentality that somehow AMD has to be king of the hill in pure performance to compete effectively, but then again this is an enthusiast board whose opinions not only don't reflect the reality of what's happening out there but whose suggestions would drive AMD into early bankruptcy.

It's been proven over and over again that this scorched earth, no prisoners spared competition for bragging rights only increases the bloodletting at AMD's expense and its shareholders, so tell what the hell sense it makes in a world dominated by cost conscious Joe Sixpacks to make a high end chip that very few would buy as Viper suggested?

All AMD needs is to stay pretty close, keep the value label, and offer a good bang for the buck and they'll do just fine.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. AMD is pretty close as far as value goes. They just don't have a fast enough product to compete at the higher price points. AMD is still bleeding money. They simply can't sell their chips at high enough margins at this point to make a profit. They need a chip that can perform as well as Intel's high end chips to make the nice margin that exists there. This is AMD's dilemma.

They aren't losing money because of R&D and an all out attempt to compete in the high end segment, they are losing money because they can only compete in the value segment where they simply don't get high enough margins to make a profit. Keeping a value label won't save them unless they drastically reduce costs.
 
Choppyferrari said:
Okay, back on topic... who's actually going to buy a Phenom X4 this year? At 2.6 Ghz, how much are some of you willing to fork out?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking about an RD790 AM2+ board, a 5000+ brisbane, and an RV670 until at least a 3.0 GHz X4 is available, then I'll swoop one up!
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
yea everyone who buys a $70 cpu for a value machine is going to spend $200 on a motherboard :p

no one said the low end core 2s suck, but for price / performance the low end amds are hard to ignore, $70mobo with built in DVI, $70 CPU (4000+) $140 you have a very decent combo.

Not sure on USD prices but the Pentium E series here costs ~$100 which is comparable to an AMD X2 4400+
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=012808&cid=CPU.907
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=014197&cid=CPU.84

you can look HERE
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3112&p=8

the 2160 trades blows with a 4200/4000+ so I would say its slightly better then a 4000+ and almost a 4200+

so now you have a 4400+ which would be between a 4200 and a 4800 probably a bit close to a 4200
the E2160 in this midrange cpu comparison loses to the E4000 series in pretty much every "Test" not "benchmark"
or you can grab a 3600 for almost $30 less or a 3800 for $20 less, keep in mind $20 out of 100 is 20% this isn't a $300 CPU

So before quoting 1 article with a $200 mobo comparing overclocks, do some reading, and maybe some thinking, because the second most important point is that when I build 5-10 machines for an office or a pc for a parent / grandparent / general use, they will not be overclocked. and every $10 and $20 counts to some people, specially the people who are trying to make $ and order a few machines at a time.
Click to expand...

this is not [W]eak-ass Forum, it's Hard forum. No one gives a rats ass about what you build for grandma. People on THIS forum don't buy a 2160 to run it at stock, so don't be a dumbass and quote articles with it running stock. It's unrealistic for the argument at hand.
 
Ethug said:
this is not [W]eak-ass Forum, it's Hard forum. No one gives a rats ass about what you build for grandma. People on THIS forum don't buy a 2160 to run it at stock, so don't be a dumbass and quote articles with it running stock. It's unrealistic for the argument at hand.
Click to expand...

rofl you wanna talk about [H]forums? then don't discuss value chips period. if you want to open a discussion about low end chips then don't be a retard and pull out a comment like your last one. ALOT of people DO NOT have $$ to spend on over clocking hardware, so they need something that is cheap and fast and won't require a hole in the pocket.

just because you got your ass handed to you with your own argument doesn't mean you should pull out a stupid comment like this is [h] forums we don't discuss cheap hardware here, let me tell you how this community started. It didn't start with $1000 cpus, it started with the cheap Celeron A chip. thats when Ocing turned [H].
 
Ethug said:
this is not [W]eak-ass Forum, it's Hard forum. No one gives a rats ass about what you build for grandma. People on THIS forum don't buy a 2160 to run it at stock, so don't be a dumbass and quote articles with it running stock. It's unrealistic for the argument at hand.
Click to expand...

And AMD won't die like some Intel fans said just because people on this forum don't buy a cpu and run it at stock. As long as AMD can be a good choice in the OEM market, AMD will be around.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
rofl you wanna talk about [H]forums? then don't discuss value chips period. if you want to open a discussion about low end chips then don't be a retard and pull out a comment like your last one. ALOT of people DO NOT have $$ to spend on over clocking hardware, so they need something that is cheap and fast and won't require a hole in the pocket.

just because you got your ass handed to you with your own argument doesn't mean you should pull out a stupid comment like this is [h] forums we don't discuss cheap hardware here, let me tell you how this community started. It didn't start with $1000 cpus, it started with the cheap Celeron A chip. thats when Ocing turned [H].
Click to expand...

How did I "get my ass handed to me" when I said EXACTLY what you just stated?? *Extreme overclocking* How is AMD a better value when you can overclock the living hell out of a 2160 OR run it stock and still have similar performance to the low end X2's that people are championing? (since you seem to care so much for stock parts for grandma)

I suggest you go back, read up, and get a clue.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
rofl you wanna talk about [H]forums? then don't discuss value chips period.

let me tell you how this community started. It didn't start with $1000 cpus, it started with the cheap Celeron A chip. thats when Ocing turned [H].
Click to expand...

LOL. way to work both sides of the argument there chump. I can't believe you even posted that crap and didn't realize how stupid it sounds once the middle is chopped out.

That's "the sound of you getting your ass handed to you", as you like to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top