Official Phenom 2 Review Thread

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I doubt there's much overclocking headroom for the i7 extreme 465 anyway.

Also keep in mind that the Phenom 2 is running DDR2 ram vs. DDR3 on the i7 and many of the C2Qs.

4.0-4.5ghz on i7 965 on water not much overclocking headroom?

*sigh*

@ 4 ghz do you know how rediculously fast an i7 is? *BEEP BEEP to the MAX*

Do you even have an i7 or a PHII? because you seem to be talking like you do have one.

There is no phsysical way besides BUDGET a PHII will ever chase after an i7.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...d.php?t=211726&page=15

I dunno... 4ghz on water or 6.8ghz on LHe...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: hooflung
I found the review at HardOCP really, really jaded.

It is as if Kyle Bennett went down a checklist named, "How can I possibly show the PII in the worst of light," before his review.

1) Use a motherboard that I ( Kyle Bennett ) personally reviewed and would not recommend to ANYONE.

2) Use SLI instead of Crossfire so I would not show how the chip works with ACC and the SB750.

3) Use Tripple SLI and gimp the Phenom II with 2 gigs of ram, which thanks to the shoddy motherboard, cannot run at 1066.

4) Use the flagship Intel Core 2 chip which cost a 1000 dollars instead of a Core 2 in the price range and mhz range of the Phenom II.

5) Use Far Cry 2, and go so far as to personally validate this pile of crap game noone but me likes, to give the "shot heard across the AMD world" conclusion that this ship is despictable.

6) Minimize the AM2+ motherboard install base to come to further conclusion that the "add in value" of having a socket that will live as long as DDR2 is cheap is grossly exagerated.




Seriously that was the worse review I've seen from Kyle. And he's done some doozies before. I plan on buying a Quad Core 2 for my P35 and I plan on getting a Phenom II for my 790GX. I don't care that the i7 exists as long as the motherboards are so BIOS sensative, priced high and 1600mhz DDR3 at stock volt spec is outrageously expensive.

Also, the fact that the Phenom II is hitting 6.8ghz on Liquid Helium and delivering crushing benches to me puts the '< is for enthusiests and we say the PII is not for that breed' into the Mencia folder.

Far Cry 2 got good reviews on almost every website and it a very popular game. Just because you don't like it means zero.

It doesn't matter how he reviewed it, every conclusion is the same. The .45nm C2Q CPUs still beat the new AMD chip.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: hooflung

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I doubt there's much overclocking headroom for the i7 extreme 465 anyway.

Also keep in mind that the Phenom 2 is running DDR2 ram vs. DDR3 on the i7 and many of the C2Qs.

4.0-4.5ghz on i7 965 on water not much overclocking headroom?

*sigh*

@ 4 ghz do you know how rediculously fast an i7 is? *BEEP BEEP to the MAX*

Do you even have an i7 or a PHII? because you seem to be talking like you do have one.

There is no phsysical way besides BUDGET a PHII will ever chase after an i7.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...d.php?t=211726&page=15

I dunno... 4ghz on water or 6.8ghz on LHe...

So you think this means anything? Having a chip that is dead after a benchmark or can do 217861286128361826381267812678ghz at -200deg means absolutely nothing. You can't fold on that 24/7, you can't game on it daily, and if it's not a 24/7 reliable chip at the given speed that means it doesn't matter.

It would seem that the AMD crew is really reaching for any shred of hope that their chip isn't slower than something from Intel. Sorry, but that's not how it really is.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: BubbaBooBoo

Originally posted by: Idontcare

It seems unnecessary to label AMD's marketing strategy as a scam. Is it misleading? Yes. Does it appear to be intentionally misleading? Yes. Is it a scam? Depends on whether the buyer gets what they pay for. Price/performance is important, so too is not having buyer's remorse.

And if buying an AMD box containing a "940" processor costs $500 less than buying an Intel box with a "940 processor in it gives you that feeling of having snagged the deal of the decade then you have been enriched (psychologically) by AMD's marketing strategy and are also likely to not be the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU anyways.

Apple is not a scam, their buyers get what they pay for, a product and a sense of well-being (for reasons I can't explain) that can't come from buying a Zune or other. Good for Apple to recognize that demographic and provide a product that adds value to the lives of their customers. Same with AMD.

Same with Intel and their extreme processors. No one is scammed into buying an i7 965...but for those who find their lives enriched by owning one you are probably thankful Intel went to the trouble of addressing your market demographic.

I agree but weather you are "the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU" or not there realy was no reason to name these cpus 920 and 940. Its like going into a Ford delership and checking out a 350 V8 and then going to a Cheyv one and looking at a 350 V8, but the chevy is really a 170 V6. Sure its called a 350 V8 but how many people are gonna actualy rip the motor apart and check the displecement? The affect is that you were expecting one thing and got anothir.

That's not really a good comparrison at all. 350 and V8 are used to describe the engine, the number of cubic inches it displaces as well as the number of cylinders and their configuration. Labeling a 170 ci V6 as a 350 V8 would be an outright lie.

What AMD did would be the equivilent of Ford labeling their smaller and lower-power-producing 4.6 V8 engine with the name "LS1"... the same name as the Chevy 350 that was availble for example. But, as IDC pointed out, so long as they charge less and the information is widely available then I don't see this as a scam in anyway. Somewhat misleading to an unimformed buyer at best.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: BubbaBooBoo

Originally posted by: Idontcare

It seems unnecessary to label AMD's marketing strategy as a scam. Is it misleading? Yes. Does it appear to be intentionally misleading? Yes. Is it a scam? Depends on whether the buyer gets what they pay for. Price/performance is important, so too is not having buyer's remorse.

And if buying an AMD box containing a "940" processor costs $500 less than buying an Intel box with a "940 processor in it gives you that feeling of having snagged the deal of the decade then you have been enriched (psychologically) by AMD's marketing strategy and are also likely to not be the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU anyways.

Apple is not a scam, their buyers get what they pay for, a product and a sense of well-being (for reasons I can't explain) that can't come from buying a Zune or other. Good for Apple to recognize that demographic and provide a product that adds value to the lives of their customers. Same with AMD.

Same with Intel and their extreme processors. No one is scammed into buying an i7 965...but for those who find their lives enriched by owning one you are probably thankful Intel went to the trouble of addressing your market demographic.

I agree but weather you are "the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU" or not there realy was no reason to name these cpus 920 and 940. Its like going into a Ford delership and checking out a 350 V8 and then going to a Cheyv one and looking at a 350 V8, but the chevy is really a 170 V6. Sure its called a 350 V8 but how many people are gonna actualy rip the motor apart and check the displecement? The affect is that you were expecting one thing and got anothir.

That's not really a good comparrison at all. 350 and V8 are used to describe the engine, the number of cubic inches it displaces as well as the number of cylinders and their configuration. Labeling a 170 ci V6 as a 350 V8 would be an outright lie.

What AMD did would be the equivilent of Ford labeling their smaller and lower-power-producing 4.6 V8 engine with the name "LS1"... the same name as the Chevy 350 that was availble for example. But, as IDC pointed out, so long as they charge less and the information is widely available then I don't see this as a scam in anyway. Somewhat misleading to an unimformed buyer at best.

It seems to me that AMD wanted to be associated with something faster than what they are. So they did it to mislead people and that's it. They could have called it anything, but labeling it 940 was done on purpose I guarantee.

 

[Goty]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: hooflung
I found the review at HardOCP really, really jaded.

It is as if Kyle Bennett went down a checklist named, "How can I possibly show the PII in the worst of light," before his review.

1) Use a motherboard that I ( Kyle Bennett ) personally reviewed and would not recommend to ANYONE.

2) Use SLI instead of Crossfire so I would not show how the chip works with ACC and the SB750.

3) Use Tripple SLI and gimp the Phenom II with 2 gigs of ram, which thanks to the shoddy motherboard, cannot run at 1066.

4) Use the flagship Intel Core 2 chip which cost a 1000 dollars instead of a Core 2 in the price range and mhz range of the Phenom II.

5) Use Far Cry 2, and go so far as to personally validate this pile of crap game noone but me likes, to give the "shot heard across the AMD world" conclusion that this ship is despictable.

6) Minimize the AM2+ motherboard install base to come to further conclusion that the "add in value" of having a socket that will live as long as DDR2 is cheap is grossly exagerated.




Seriously that was the worse review I've seen from Kyle. And he's done some doozies before. I plan on buying a Quad Core 2 for my P35 and I plan on getting a Phenom II for my 790GX. I don't care that the i7 exists as long as the motherboards are so BIOS sensative, priced high and 1600mhz DDR3 at stock volt spec is outrageously expensive.

Also, the fact that the Phenom II is hitting 6.8ghz on Liquid Helium and delivering crushing benches to me puts the '<< is for enthusiests and we say the PII is not for that breed' into the Mencia folder.

Far Cry 2 got good reviews on almost every website and it a very popular game. Just because you don't like it means zero.

It doesn't matter how he reviewed it, every conclusion is the same. The .45nm C2Q CPUs still beat the new AMD chip.

I'm sure it's just coincidence that FarCry 2 shows almost NO gain, clock for clock, over the original Phenom.

As for the comments about whether or not running Phenom-II at 6.8 GHz with liquid helium is important or not, who cares? People did the same sort of overclocking trials with i7 and said, "Hey, look how fast we can get this thing!" Nobody really cares if you can do it for long periods of time, it's just cool to see.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: BubbaBooBoo

Originally posted by: Idontcare

It seems unnecessary to label AMD's marketing strategy as a scam. Is it misleading? Yes. Does it appear to be intentionally misleading? Yes. Is it a scam? Depends on whether the buyer gets what they pay for. Price/performance is important, so too is not having buyer's remorse.

And if buying an AMD box containing a "940" processor costs $500 less than buying an Intel box with a "940 processor in it gives you that feeling of having snagged the deal of the decade then you have been enriched (psychologically) by AMD's marketing strategy and are also likely to not be the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU anyways.

Apple is not a scam, their buyers get what they pay for, a product and a sense of well-being (for reasons I can't explain) that can't come from buying a Zune or other. Good for Apple to recognize that demographic and provide a product that adds value to the lives of their customers. Same with AMD.

Same with Intel and their extreme processors. No one is scammed into buying an i7 965...but for those who find their lives enriched by owning one you are probably thankful Intel went to the trouble of addressing your market demographic.

I agree but weather you are "the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU" or not there realy was no reason to name these cpus 920 and 940. Its like going into a Ford delership and checking out a 350 V8 and then going to a Cheyv one and looking at a 350 V8, but the chevy is really a 170 V6. Sure its called a 350 V8 but how many people are gonna actualy rip the motor apart and check the displecement? The affect is that you were expecting one thing and got anothir.

That's not really a good comparrison at all. 350 and V8 are used to describe the engine, the number of cubic inches it displaces as well as the number of cylinders and their configuration. Labeling a 170 ci V6 as a 350 V8 would be an outright lie.

What AMD did would be the equivilent of Ford labeling their smaller and lower-power-producing 4.6 V8 engine with the name "LS1"... the same name as the Chevy 350 that was availble for example. But, as IDC pointed out, so long as they charge less and the information is widely available then I don't see this as a scam in anyway. Somewhat misleading to an unimformed buyer at best.

It seems to me that AMD wanted to be associated with something faster than what they are. So they did it to mislead people and that's it. They could have called it anything, but labeling it 940 was done on purpose I guarantee.

Don't get me wrong, there were a ton of names they could have picked and I'm sure it's not just a coincidence that 920 and 940 were chosen. I agree, that the names can certainly be seen as misleading. My point above was that the comparrison was not a good one at all.

But I don't think it's any more misleading then Nvidia renaming the 8800GT as a 9800GT and selling it as something new. Or Intel pushing the MHz myth back in the P4 days. I really wish these companies didn't do these things. But, really, the bottom line is so long as AMD prices the processors lower (in line with their compeitition) I don't consider it a 'scam' at all. Misleading at worst, but a scam? No way.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
That's not really a good comparrison at all. 350 and V8 are used to describe the engine, the number of cubic inches it displaces as well as the number of cylinders and their configuration. Labeling a 170 ci V6 as a 350 V8 would be an outright lie.

What AMD did would be the equivilent of Ford labeling their smaller and lower-power-producing 4.6 V8 engine with the name "LS1"... the same name as the Chevy 350 that was availble for example. But, as IDC pointed out, so long as they charge less and the information is widely available then I don't see this as a scam in anyway. Somewhat misleading to an unimformed buyer at best.

It seems to me that AMD wanted to be associated with something faster than what they are. So they did it to mislead people and that's it. They could have called it anything, but labeling it 940 was done on purpose I guarantee.

Slowspyder is hitting the mark.

And yes it can be misleading to folks who are in a position in life where being misled is an acceptable outcome of their purchasing experience.

When it comes to CPU's and the volume of data available on them, to be an ignorant consumer is to be a willfully ignorant consumer, one of choice and a matter of priorities...no different than buying a car, TV, shopping for mortgage rates, etc.

A scam is when you buy one thing (this is a PhII X4 940 system) but you actually end up with something of lesser value (ah damn, the chip in this computer I just bought is a measly PhII X4 920). Or buying a used CPU on ebay which the seller claims was never OC'ed but the seller actually juiced it to 2.0V under LN2. That is a scam.

But when I buy "regular" unleaded gasoline in one state and it has an octane rating of 89 and then I drive to another state and buy the same "regular" unleaded gasoline only it has an octane rating of 87 I do not immediately burst into the cashier's face yelling "scam bitches, shens, shens, scam". Labels are labels, consumer ignorance in this day and age is one of choice and the law agrees with many facets of this philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: hooflung
I found the review at HardOCP really, really jaded.

It is as if Kyle Bennett went down a checklist named, "How can I possibly show the PII in the worst of light," before his review.

1) Use a motherboard that I ( Kyle Bennett ) personally reviewed and would not recommend to ANYONE.

2) Use SLI instead of Crossfire so I would not show how the chip works with ACC and the SB750.

3) Use Tripple SLI and gimp the Phenom II with 2 gigs of ram, which thanks to the shoddy motherboard, cannot run at 1066.

4) Use the flagship Intel Core 2 chip which cost a 1000 dollars instead of a Core 2 in the price range and mhz range of the Phenom II.

5) Use Far Cry 2, and go so far as to personally validate this pile of crap game noone but me likes, to give the "shot heard across the AMD world" conclusion that this ship is despictable.

6) Minimize the AM2+ motherboard install base to come to further conclusion that the "add in value" of having a socket that will live as long as DDR2 is cheap is grossly exagerated.




Seriously that was the worse review I've seen from Kyle. And he's done some doozies before. I plan on buying a Quad Core 2 for my P35 and I plan on getting a Phenom II for my 790GX. I don't care that the i7 exists as long as the motherboards are so BIOS sensative, priced high and 1600mhz DDR3 at stock volt spec is outrageously expensive.

Also, the fact that the Phenom II is hitting 6.8ghz on Liquid Helium and delivering crushing benches to me puts the '<< is for enthusiests and we say the PII is not for that breed' into the Mencia folder.

Far Cry 2 got good reviews on almost every website and it a very popular game. Just because you don't like it means zero.

It doesn't matter how he reviewed it, every conclusion is the same. The .45nm C2Q CPUs still beat the new AMD chip.

If one game built for consoles that scales well on essentially an 8 thread chip ( sounds to me kind of like a cell ) is how you want to 'prove' that a chip is a loser then fine.

A game that favors SLI over CF. On a motherboard Kyle Bennett himself hated. X58 can do SLI and CF. Why not apples to apples? Because he simple doesn't agree with AMD. Even Anand, who has been a bit anti-AMD, did a more fair test and the numbers showed it.

Why didn't they do a better test? Because they wanted to take the 'it is what it is and isn't what it isn't' approach and spin it into flame bait. Kyle goes so far as to basically call people on their forum thread of the review idiots and take a holier than thow tone when asked about their testing methodology. A methodology that used a horrible motherboard from their own words, a Core 2 Quad with 6mb more cache to pair it againt and a game that shows the i7 in the best of light in games. Yes... I'll really bite on that review and toss away my P35 and 790GX machines on their word.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: hooflung

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I doubt there's much overclocking headroom for the i7 extreme 465 anyway.

Also keep in mind that the Phenom 2 is running DDR2 ram vs. DDR3 on the i7 and many of the C2Qs.

4.0-4.5ghz on i7 965 on water not much overclocking headroom?

*sigh*

@ 4 ghz do you know how rediculously fast an i7 is? *BEEP BEEP to the MAX*

Do you even have an i7 or a PHII? because you seem to be talking like you do have one.

There is no phsysical way besides BUDGET a PHII will ever chase after an i7.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...d.php?t=211726&page=15

I dunno... 4ghz on water or 6.8ghz on LHe...

So you think this means anything? Having a chip that is dead after a benchmark or can do 217861286128361826381267812678ghz at -200deg means absolutely nothing. You can't fold on that 24/7, you can't game on it daily, and if it's not a 24/7 reliable chip at the given speed that means it doesn't matter.

It would seem that the AMD crew is really reaching for any shred of hope that their chip isn't slower than something from Intel. Sorry, but that's not how it really is.

It means that their is a very, very loose interpretation on what Enthusiast means. Obviously it itsn't as bad as the NetBurst which could also crank up the mhz on LN2 and LHe.

Given time AMD could make electrical engineering adjustments to recreate ( albeit ) on a smaller scale what a subzero cooling solution does today. You could not afford that on the P4 it was a lame duck in regards to scaling despite its awesome mhz.

There are so many 'ifs' in regards to the Phenom II's future and the i7 that its really moot bandwagoneers toot any horn other than 'it is what it is' and leave it at that. Hey, I own a Core 2 Duo and plan on upgrading it. Thanks to AMD I won't have to pay 260 bucks to do so after Intel cuts prices.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: hooflung
Given time AMD could make electrical engineering adjustments to recreate ( albeit ) on a smaller scale what a subzero cooling solution does today. You could not afford that on the P4 it was a lame duck in regards to scaling despite its awesome mhz.

Can you you expand your thoughts regarding these sentences? Adjustments that impart sub-cooling attributes sounds pretty neat.

Also elaborate where, if any, the things that AMD could do in your view cannot be done by Intel as well.

I'm a tad baffled by the P4 comment. What wasn't scaling despite its awesome mhz? I thought everything did scale, and that was the problem because power consumption scaled right along with everything else.

(BTW you'll note these 125W TDP chips from both companies are approximately as power hungry as those unacceptably power-hungry preschotts of 2005)

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
...Or Intel pushing the MHz myth back in the P4 days. I really wish these companies didn't do these things. But, really, the bottom line is so long as AMD prices the processors lower (in line with their compeitition) I don't consider it a 'scam' at all. Misleading at worst, but a scam? No way.

Still not the same thing. All Intel did with their nomenclature was state the speed of the CPU. A P4 3.0 is a genuine 3 Ghz part. One could argue that AMD's naming convention was less honest; an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ implies to many uninformed consumers that the CPU operates at 3000 mhz (3 Ghz). Just because the lower-clocked Athlon outperformed the P4 doesn't mean that Intel pushed a "MHZ myth".

Back in the Pentium II/K6-2 days, AMD put forth 400 mhz CPU's that were significantly less powerful than their Intel "equivalents".

IMO, what it all boils down to is that the average consumer is constantly on the lookout for a "bottom line" name or number indicative of performance. Until consumers are willing to look deeper than that, marketing will continue to take advantage of their willful ignorance.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
When it comes to CPU's and the volume of data available on them, to be an ignorant consumer is to be a willfully ignorant consumer, one of choice and a matter of priorities...no different than buying a car, TV, shopping for mortgage rates, etc.

I couldn't agree more. In this "Internet Age", there is no excuse for not researching and becoming at least somewhat informed.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Idontcare
When it comes to CPU's and the volume of data available on them, to be an ignorant consumer is to be a willfully ignorant consumer, one of choice and a matter of priorities...no different than buying a car, TV, shopping for mortgage rates, etc.

I couldn't agree more. In this "Internet Age", there is no excuse for not researching and becoming at least somewhat informed.

And some things we prefer to be intentionally ignorant of.

Movie theatre popcorn for example.

I know it destroys my cardiovascular system like no other edible material but I simply do not want to know how many calories, how many grams of saturated fat, or how much cholesterol my "refillable" tub of popcorn contains.

Likewise I have never ever (not even once) worried whether my "large popcorn" at carmike cinemas is the exact same size in cubic-ft as my "large popcorn" at AMC theatres.

In either case I always (without exception) fail to consume the entirety of the tub of popcorn, although I have no doubt one theatre is "scamming" me by giving me less popcorn than the other.

Is this a dead horse yet? Cuz I could go on and on, I'm feeling ranty today. Must be the gin.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: hooflung
Given time AMD could make electrical engineering adjustments to recreate ( albeit ) on a smaller scale what a subzero cooling solution does today. You could not afford that on the P4 it was a lame duck in regards to scaling despite its awesome mhz.

Can you you expand your thoughts regarding these sentences? Adjustments that impart sub-cooling attributes sounds pretty neat.

Also elaborate where, if any, the things that AMD could do in your view cannot be done by Intel as well.

I'm a tad baffled by the P4 comment. What wasn't scaling despite its awesome mhz? I thought everything did scale, and that was the problem because power consumption scaled right along with everything else.

(BTW you'll note these 125W TDP chips from both companies are approximately as power hungry as those unacceptably power-hungry preschotts of 2005)

We have seen over the course of a year AMD doing subtle tweaks to the Phenom platform to get where we are. There are still plenty of areas AMD can go into to sqeeze more oomph out of the Phenom line.

More efficient metal gate technology, they were going to do what Intel does in the i7 but it was too early and probably cost too much at .65nm and money tight AMD of 2008 couldn't do it for the .45 PII. Phenom can be transitioned to this at .45 if they can be that elastic of a company in late 2009/early 2010.

Cache latency is still pretty high compared to i7. This can be addressed on a new core revision.

Now I am not saying its going to hit 5ghz on air as it would on LHe, with ease I might add, but it can probably churn 4.2ghz on air and low voltage with some more tweaks to the platform. Surely those tweaks would make it more than comparable to the high end 1400 dollar Core 2 HardOCP pitted it against but we 'might' see it start being comparable to i7's.

And no, the P4's performance didn't truely scale as well as as every other part of it, like heat, did. The numbers of the PII at 6.1ghz screenshotted in the link are more than double the numbers of the PII at 3.0ghz.

Can Intel do the improvements AMD can do with the Phenom line? Isn't that exactly what the i7 is to the Core 2 I would ask. Intel will most likely do enhancements to the chip that are more on line with what they will have to do with the .32 process when they go .32nm. Nehalem is pretty optimized from the get go, classic Intel post Core 2. AMD haven't had that luxury being on the ropes for over a year. Will the AM3 sans DDRII IMT have more evolutionary changes to it? Time will tell.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
That's not really a good comparrison at all. 350 and V8 are used to describe the engine, the number of cubic inches it displaces as well as the number of cylinders and their configuration. Labeling a 170 ci V6 as a 350 V8 would be an outright lie.

What AMD did would be the equivilent of Ford labeling their smaller and lower-power-producing 4.6 V8 engine with the name "LS1"... the same name as the Chevy 350 that was availble for example. But, as IDC pointed out, so long as they charge less and the information is widely available then I don't see this as a scam in anyway. Somewhat misleading to an unimformed buyer at best.

It seems to me that AMD wanted to be associated with something faster than what they are. So they did it to mislead people and that's it. They could have called it anything, but labeling it 940 was done on purpose I guarantee.

Slowspyder is hitting the mark.

And yes it can be misleading to folks who are in a position in life where being misled is an acceptable outcome of their purchasing experience.

When it comes to CPU's and the volume of data available on them, to be an ignorant consumer is to be a willfully ignorant consumer, one of choice and a matter of priorities...no different than buying a car, TV, shopping for mortgage rates, etc.

A scam is when you buy one thing (this is a PhII X4 940 system) but you actually end up with something of lesser value (ah damn, the chip in this computer I just bought is a measly PhII X4 920). Or buying a used CPU on ebay which the seller claims was never OC'ed but the seller actually juiced it to 2.0V under LN2. That is a scam.

But when I buy "regular" unleaded gasoline in one state and it has an octane rating of 89 and then I drive to another state and buy the same "regular" unleaded gasoline only it has an octane rating of 87 I do not immediately burst into the cashier's face yelling "scam bitches, shens, shens, scam". Labels are labels, consumer ignorance in this day and age is one of choice and the law agrees with many facets of this philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Very nice explained.

You made my day.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: hooflung

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: hooflung
Given time AMD could make electrical engineering adjustments to recreate ( albeit ) on a smaller scale what a subzero cooling solution does today. You could not afford that on the P4 it was a lame duck in regards to scaling despite its awesome mhz.

Can you you expand your thoughts regarding these sentences? Adjustments that impart sub-cooling attributes sounds pretty neat.

Also elaborate where, if any, the things that AMD could do in your view cannot be done by Intel as well.

I'm a tad baffled by the P4 comment. What wasn't scaling despite its awesome mhz? I thought everything did scale, and that was the problem because power consumption scaled right along with everything else.

(BTW you'll note these 125W TDP chips from both companies are approximately as power hungry as those unacceptably power-hungry preschotts of 2005)

We have seen over the course of a year AMD doing subtle tweaks to the Phenom platform to get where we are. There are still plenty of areas AMD can go into to sqeeze more oomph out of the Phenom line.

More efficient metal gate technology, they were going to do what Intel does in the i7 but it was too early and probably cost too much at .65nm and money tight AMD of 2008 couldn't do it for the .45 PII. Phenom can be transitioned to this at .45 if they can be that elastic of a company in late 2009/early 2010.

Cache latency is still pretty high compared to i7. This can be addressed on a new core revision.

Now I am not saying its going to hit 5ghz on air as it would on LHe, with ease I might add, but it can probably churn 4.2ghz on air and low voltage with some more tweaks to the platform. Surely those tweaks would make it more than comparable to the high end 1400 dollar Core 2 HardOCP pitted it against but we 'might' see it start being comparable to i7's.

And no, the P4's performance didn't truely scale as well as as every other part of it, like heat, did. The numbers of the PII at 6.1ghz screenshotted in the link are more than double the numbers of the PII at 3.0ghz.

Can Intel do the improvements AMD can do with the Phenom line? Isn't that exactly what the i7 is to the Core 2 I would ask. Intel will most likely do enhancements to the chip that are more on line with what they will have to do with the .32 process when they go .32nm. Nehalem is pretty optimized from the get go, classic Intel post Core 2. AMD haven't had that luxury being on the ropes for over a year. Will the AM3 sans DDRII IMT have more evolutionary changes to it? Time will tell.

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts.

I am waiting for the AM3 performance/watt numbers to come out but I will say (somewhat prematurely) that I am just downright impressed at the power consumption numbers PhII manages to do without the advantages of HK/MG at 45nm.

I am a process technologist, it is my area of expertise, and if you asked me 2 months ago if AMD would be hitting these kinds of GHz at these kinds of xtor budgets and die-sizes and these kinds of power-consumptions without HK/MG at 45nm I would have said it was extremely unlikely because of the $$ necessary to do the research to make it happen.

AMD impressed me here. But the future is not AMD, HK/MG timeline and roadmap is not AMD's decision. The future is now TFC (the foundry company).

And unfortunately we must know shift our mindset from one of "if AMD can bring HK/MG in 12 months" or "if AMD can be flexible enough" to the mindset of "can AMD convince TFC to do it, at the gross margins the foundry company wants to make profits with?". Whole different ballgame when a middle-man controls your access to leading edge silicon process technology.

 

[Pelu]

I guess I will get a Phenom II when my Phenom I get wasted by use...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Goty

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: hooflung
I found the review at HardOCP really, really jaded.

It is as if Kyle Bennett went down a checklist named, "How can I possibly show the PII in the worst of light," before his review.

1) Use a motherboard that I ( Kyle Bennett ) personally reviewed and would not recommend to ANYONE.

2) Use SLI instead of Crossfire so I would not show how the chip works with ACC and the SB750.

3) Use Tripple SLI and gimp the Phenom II with 2 gigs of ram, which thanks to the shoddy motherboard, cannot run at 1066.

4) Use the flagship Intel Core 2 chip which cost a 1000 dollars instead of a Core 2 in the price range and mhz range of the Phenom II.

5) Use Far Cry 2, and go so far as to personally validate this pile of crap game noone but me likes, to give the "shot heard across the AMD world" conclusion that this ship is despictable.

6) Minimize the AM2+ motherboard install base to come to further conclusion that the "add in value" of having a socket that will live as long as DDR2 is cheap is grossly exagerated.




Seriously that was the worse review I've seen from Kyle. And he's done some doozies before. I plan on buying a Quad Core 2 for my P35 and I plan on getting a Phenom II for my 790GX. I don't care that the i7 exists as long as the motherboards are so BIOS sensative, priced high and 1600mhz DDR3 at stock volt spec is outrageously expensive.

Also, the fact that the Phenom II is hitting 6.8ghz on Liquid Helium and delivering crushing benches to me puts the '<<< is for enthusiests and we say the PII is not for that breed' into the Mencia folder.

Far Cry 2 got good reviews on almost every website and it a very popular game. Just because you don't like it means zero.

It doesn't matter how he reviewed it, every conclusion is the same. The .45nm C2Q CPUs still beat the new AMD chip.

I'm sure it's just coincidence that FarCry 2 shows almost NO gain, clock for clock, over the original Phenom.

As for the comments about whether or not running Phenom-II at 6.8 GHz with liquid helium is important or not, who cares? People did the same sort of overclocking trials with i7 and said, "Hey, look how fast we can get this thing!" Nobody really cares if you can do it for long periods of time, it's just cool to see.

The difference is, in this case that link is used to show the PII as being something unique or really worth looking at. It's not special, I also never said doing it on an i7 was special. Getting these clocks for a single benchmark run or screenshot doesn't mean anything to 99.9% of the readers here. What happens over at XS doen't translate to real world.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: BubbaBooBoo

Originally posted by: Idontcare

It seems unnecessary to label AMD's marketing strategy as a scam. Is it misleading? Yes. Does it appear to be intentionally misleading? Yes. Is it a scam? Depends on whether the buyer gets what they pay for. Price/performance is important, so too is not having buyer's remorse.

And if buying an AMD box containing a "940" processor costs $500 less than buying an Intel box with a "940 processor in it gives you that feeling of having snagged the deal of the decade then you have been enriched (psychologically) by AMD's marketing strategy and are also likely to not be the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU anyways.

Apple is not a scam, their buyers get what they pay for, a product and a sense of well-being (for reasons I can't explain) that can't come from buying a Zune or other. Good for Apple to recognize that demographic and provide a product that adds value to the lives of their customers. Same with AMD.

Same with Intel and their extreme processors. No one is scammed into buying an i7 965...but for those who find their lives enriched by owning one you are probably thankful Intel went to the trouble of addressing your market demographic.

I agree but weather you are "the kind of user that will challenge the processing capability of either an X4 940 or i7 940 CPU" or not there realy was no reason to name these cpus 920 and 940. Its like going into a Ford delership and checking out a 350 V8 and then going to a Cheyv one and looking at a 350 V8, but the chevy is really a 170 V6. Sure its called a 350 V8 but how many people are gonna actualy rip the motor apart and check the displecement? The affect is that you were expecting one thing and got anothir.

That's not really a good comparrison at all. 350 and V8 are used to describe the engine, the number of cubic inches it displaces as well as the number of cylinders and their configuration. Labeling a 170 ci V6 as a 350 V8 would be an outright lie.

What AMD did would be the equivilent of Ford labeling their smaller and lower-power-producing 4.6 V8 engine with the name "LS1"... the same name as the Chevy 350 that was availble for example. But, as IDC pointed out, so long as they charge less and the information is widely available then I don't see this as a scam in anyway. Somewhat misleading to an unimformed buyer at best.

It seems to me that AMD wanted to be associated with something faster than what they are. So they did it to mislead people and that's it. They could have called it anything, but labeling it 940 was done on purpose I guarantee.

Don't get me wrong, there were a ton of names they could have picked and I'm sure it's not just a coincidence that 920 and 940 were chosen. I agree, that the names can certainly be seen as misleading. My point above was that the comparrison was not a good one at all.

But I don't think it's any more misleading then Nvidia renaming the 8800GT as a 9800GT and selling it as something new. Or Intel pushing the MHz myth back in the P4 days. I really wish these companies didn't do these things. But, really, the bottom line is so long as AMD prices the processors lower (in line with their compeitition) I don't consider it a 'scam' at all. Misleading at worst, but a scam? No way.

I didn't say it was a scam only misleading and purposefully done.

Here's a fact check for everyone here in case it doesn't click.

1) the PII isn't a magic chip that brings AMD to Intel's level.
2) The PII is and always will be slower than i7, and hopefully you understand that the i7 isn't their competition with this chip.
3) the PII is actually slower overall than a C2Q which has been available for months, sometimes not by a large margin but slower is still slower any way you slice it.
4) The names chosen for the PII were deliberately done so to mislead people into buying them thinking they were getting i7 performance for hundreds less. Nothing more and nothing less in my view.

That's how it is. You can argue that competition is good and blah blah but the simple fact still remains, AMD is behind Intel. Months behind, perhaps years...i'm not an engineer so I cannot say.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I didn't say it was a scam only misleading and purposefully done.

Here's a fact check for everyone here in case it doesn't click.

1) the PII isn't a magic chip that brings AMD to Intel's level.
2) The PII is and always will be slower than i7, and hopefully you understand that the i7 isn't their competition with this chip.
3) the PII is actually slower overall than a C2Q which has been available for months, sometimes not by a large margin but slower is still slower any way you slice it.
4) The names chosen for the PII were deliberately done so to mislead people into buying them thinking they were getting i7 performance for hundreds less. Nothing more and nothing less in my view.

That's how it is. You can argue that competition is good and blah blah but the simple fact still remains, AMD is behind Intel. Months behind, perhaps years...i'm not an engineer so I cannot say.

I agree with you, but you should point out that the Phenom 2 is a slightly better value than a C2Q when you take everything into account. The Phenom 2 920 in particular is a very good value and would be hard to beat with a C2Q at the same pricepoint.

 

[qurious63ss]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
There's nothing wrong with people saying that the Phenom 2 can compete with the i7 chips at a higher clockspeed. If the P2 can run at a higher clock, then great. It's not AMD's fault if the i7 can't hit 3.8ghz, and loses to a highly clocked P2 as a result.

Are you saying that you would complain if your $200 Phenom 2 could beat a $450 i7 after a simple overclock? I wouldn't.

Really man where do you get your misinformation from? Did you see the reviews for Deneb? Everyone was struggling to get over 3.5ghz stable. On the other hand go back and read the Nehalem reviews. Google is your friend, here I just found this a minute ago. It has max overclock for the low end Nehalem vs top end Deneb.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...ck-phenom-ii,2119.html

 

[qurious63ss]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I didn't say it was a scam only misleading and purposefully done.

Here's a fact check for everyone here in case it doesn't click.

1) the PII isn't a magic chip that brings AMD to Intel's level.
2) The PII is and always will be slower than i7, and hopefully you understand that the i7 isn't their competition with this chip.
3) the PII is actually slower overall than a C2Q which has been available for months, sometimes not by a large margin but slower is still slower any way you slice it.
4) The names chosen for the PII were deliberately done so to mislead people into buying them thinking they were getting i7 performance for hundreds less. Nothing more and nothing less in my view.

That's how it is. You can argue that competition is good and blah blah but the simple fact still remains, AMD is behind Intel. Months behind, perhaps years...i'm not an engineer so I cannot say.

I agree with you, but you should point out that the Phenom 2 is a slightly better value than a C2Q when you take everything into account. The Phenom 2 920 in particular is a very good value and would be hard to beat with a C2Q at the same pricepoint.

Wrong. The Phenom 2 is not a better value. The only people that should consider upgrading to P2 is someone who already owns an AM2+ system. If you own an Intel 775 system then switching to P2 is stupid. If you are in the market for a new systems then you have a whole bunch of variables that can sway you back and forth but there is no definitive answer that makes P2 a better value then C2Q.

 

[eternalone]

That all depends on price if they drop the prices on those PH2's drastically then I think it would be worth it sub 190 range 170 or even at 160 dollars. I mean if the sold the PH2 at 170 they would fly off the shelves.

 

[qurious63ss]

Originally posted by: eternalone




That all depends on price if they drop the prices on those PH2's drastically then I think it would be worth it sub 190 range 170 or even at 160 dollars. I mean if the sold the PH2 at 170 they would fly off the shelves.

True, but Intel would follow. It has historically been the case that Intel has always had higher margins, so in essence they can always match or beat Amd's prices for any given SKU. So the value segment will always be a moving target controlled by Intel.