Phenom vs. Conroe .

[Munky]

Price is always the equalizing factor in comparison. Did you ever read an article in a car magazine where they put a $20K car against a $100K car? I havent, and it would be stupid to even consider reading such an article. One company's best against other's best means nothing to me unless they're in a similar price range. Same thing goes for AMD vs. Intel.

 

[j0j081]

I smell an Intel fanboy in disguise.

 

[Viditor]

To compare to the high end, how about a QX9650 with an 8800 Ultra and 768MB vs a spider platform Phenom 9600 with 4 x 3870s in crossfirex...
Obviously, the AMD system will still be ~20% cheaper, but at least it's a closer dollar figure and definately in the high end.

I still don't know how well that crossfirex platform is going to be, so it may just be a giant fizzle...then again, I guess we'll see next week.

Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses...
AMD still doesn't have any strength in the high end desktop yet, and Intel doesn't have any strength in the >2P server platform yet. But, we haven't seen Phenom and we haven't seen Nehalem, so everything remains fluid...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Viditor
To compare to the high end, how about a QX9650 with an 8800 Ultra and 768MB vs a spider platform Phenom 9600 with 4 x 3870s in crossfirex...
Obviously, the AMD system will still be ~20% cheaper, but at least it's a closer dollar figure and definately in the high end.

Are you sure the AMD system would still be cheaper? If so, that would be an interesting comparison. I think I'll PM that idea to Gary Keys, right now.

But, we haven't seen Phenom and we haven't seen Nehalem, so everything remains fluid...

You meant "everything remains conjecture" (at this point), didn't you? I know you're from Oz land, just trying to clarify it for us Americans.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Viditor
To compare to the high end, how about a QX9650 with an 8800 Ultra and 768MB vs a spider platform Phenom 9600 with 4 x 3870s in crossfirex...
Obviously, the AMD system will still be ~20% cheaper, but at least it's a closer dollar figure and definately in the high end.

Are you sure the AMD system would still be cheaper? If so, that would be an interesting comparison. I think I'll PM that idea to Gary Keys, right now.

Pretty sure...the QX9650 is ~$1300, and the 8800 Ultra is generaly in the $6-800 range. So call it ~$2,000 for the chip and vid card.
The 3870s will go for ~$220 each, or $880 for 4 of them...and the Phenom 9600 is to be ~$270.
I guess my math was off...the AMD chip and 4 cards comes to ~$1150...wow, that's $150 cheaper than the QX9650 alone!

But, we haven't seen Phenom and we haven't seen Nehalem, so everything remains fluid...

You meant "everything remains conjecture" (at this point), didn't you? I know you're from Oz land, just trying to clarify it for us Americans.

Conjecture it is...good on ya, mate!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Pretty sure...the QX9650 is ~$1300, and the 8800 Ultra is generaly in the $6-800 range. So call it ~$2,000 for the chip and vid card.
The 3870s will go for ~$220 each, or $880 for 4 of them...and the Phenom 9600 is to be ~$270.
I guess my math was off...the AMD chip and 4 cards comes to ~$1150...wow, that's $150 cheaper than the QX9650 alone!

Actually, the cheapest 8800 Ultra is also the fastest, so you'd have to say $600 for the video card, and newgouge (I meant egg) is the only site I've seen so far that's charging that much for the retail QX9650. I believe that TigerDirect is selling it for ~$1200. Also, $270 for a Phenom 9600 is the wholesale per 1,000 units price, not the actual retail price. Retail for the 9600 (and what's up with AMD "naming" all of their parts after old ATI parts?) will be well over $300, I'm sure.

Oh yeah, have you heard anything in your investor phone calls about when there will be driver support for four video cards? I'm hoping it isn't true that it will be Q1, before the drivers support more than two, like has been rumored.

 

[taltamir]

How about a phenom with an nvidia ultra instead? Or a QX9650 with two GT in SLI? I mean once you start comparing unrelated things like that just because "they were made by the same company" there is simply no end... I mean, why not compare intel with an intel onboard video chip?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: taltamir
How about a phenom with an nvidia ultra instead? Or a QX9650 with two GT in SLI? I mean once you start comparing unrelated things like that just because "they were made by the same company" there is simply no end... I mean, why not compare intel with an intel onboard video chip?

Originally posted by: taltamir
apples to apples is 200$ vs 200$.... apples to gold plated apples with spinning rims and diamond studs is "my best vs your best".

Nobody but you thinks comparing a 1000$ cpu to a 250$ cpu is a good benchmark, because everyone assumes that the 1000$ cpu is gonna perform better. They compare the 200$ to 200$ from each company because that is what people are gonna buy, they set a price and get the most for that price.

You really shouldn't contradict yourself in the same thread.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Viditor
Pretty sure...the QX9650 is ~$1300, and the 8800 Ultra is generaly in the $6-800 range. So call it ~$2,000 for the chip and vid card.
The 3870s will go for ~$220 each, or $880 for 4 of them...and the Phenom 9600 is to be ~$270.
I guess my math was off...the AMD chip and 4 cards comes to ~$1150...wow, that's $150 cheaper than the QX9650 alone!

Actually, the cheapest 8800 Ultra is also the fastest, so you'd have to say $600 for the video card, and newgouge (I meant egg) is the only site I've seen so far that's charging that much for the retail QX9650. I believe that TigerDirect is selling it for ~$1200. Also, $270 for a Phenom 9600 is the wholesale per 1,000 units price, not the actual retail price. Retail for the 9600 (and what's up with AMD "naming" all of their parts after old ATI parts?) will be well over $300, I'm sure.

NewEgg is selling the 3870 for $219, and Tankguys and most of the other etailers are allowing you to pre-order the 9600 for $275 or less.

Oh yeah, have you heard anything in your investor phone calls about when there will be driver support for four video cards? I'm hoping it isn't true that it will be Q1, before the drivers support more than two, like has been rumored.

Haven't heard either way (though they are demoing them with 4 cards, it could be limited games that work). I always ignore rumours, but if it's wait until Jan, then so be it...the first set of drivers are usually garbage anyway.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Viditor
NewEgg is selling the 3870 for $219, and Tankguys and most of the other etailers are allowing you to pre-order the 9600 for $275 or less.

Haha, I never questioned your quoted price for the 3870. Besides, they aren't selling them for that price, they're just teasing us with that price. I want one!

Haven't heard either way (though they are demoing them with 4 cards, it could be limited games that work). I always ignore rumours, but if it's wait until Jan, then so be it...the first set of drivers are usually garbage anyway.

Yeah, I think they have to "tweak" the drivers for each game, when it comes to Xfire and SLI, since all of the benefit actually occurs at the driver (software) level. And yeah, both companies have gotten good lately at releasing new cards with horrible drivers, then we find out some time later about how they actually perform, once the drivers mature. I'm actually mad at AMD, because ATI never used to be that way, only their competition did that, but now both companies do it.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Viditor
NewEgg is selling the 3870 for $219, and Tankguys and most of the other etailers are allowing you to pre-order the 9600 for $275 or less.

Haha, I never questioned your quoted price for the 3870. Besides, they aren't selling them for that price, they're just teasing us with that price. I want one!

Haven't heard either way (though they are demoing them with 4 cards, it could be limited games that work). I always ignore rumours, but if it's wait until Jan, then so be it...the first set of drivers are usually garbage anyway.

Yeah, I think they have to "tweak" the drivers for each game, when it comes to Xfire and SLI, since all of the benefit actually occurs at the driver (software) level. And yeah, both companies have gotten good lately at releasing new cards with horrible drivers, then we find out some time later about how they actually perform, once the drivers mature. I'm actually mad at AMD, because ATI never used to be that way, only their competition did that, but now both companies do it.

ATI has been up and down over the years...I used to swear my head off at them when the first few years of AIW cards came out (those drivers were a nightmare!). Then they came good with their drivers for quite some time...

I think (if the reviews are good) that I've decided on getting my first OC system since my old Celeron 300A...
Phenom 9600 @ 3GHz w/4 x 3870s. This is gonna be fun!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor
To compare to the high end, how about a QX9650 with an 8800 Ultra and 768MB vs a spider platform Phenom 9600 with 4 x 3870s in crossfirex...
Obviously, the AMD system will still be ~20% cheaper, but at least it's a closer dollar figure and definately in the high end.

I still don't know how well that crossfirex platform is going to be, so it may just be a giant fizzle...then again, I guess we'll see next week.

Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses...
AMD still doesn't have any strength in the high end desktop yet, and Intel doesn't have any strength in the >2P server platform yet. But, we haven't seen Phenom and we haven't seen Nehalem, so everything remains fluid...

Ya I would like to see the performance of Skulltrail using xfire or quad sli.

Viditor do you have a link to were AMD is winning in the 2P server arena? I would like to read that article . I have read a few and Intel seems to be winnning in the 2P arena.

Ya I realize that Intels only Penryn out right now is the extreme . But as 45 ramps . We are going to see penryn 2.5 - 3.4 ghz in the next couple months. These won't be $1000. CPU's. Much cheaper and since a 3.0 GHz offers about 50% more performance than the highest clocked K10 . There should be a price primiem for non O/C cpu's.

K10 looks to be a nice chip. But lets keep it in perspective. Pure performance wise it can't touch peryn. K10 is a great lowend chip and on the desktop thats all it will ever be .

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Ya I would like to see the performance of Skulltrail using xfire or quad sli.

Isn't Skulltrail gonna be Xfire only?

Viditor do you have a link to were AMD is winning in the 2P server arena? I would like to read that article . I have read a few and Intel seems to be winnning in the 2P arena.

Actually, he usually says >2P (more than 2P). I'm not sure about which thread you're talking about, but that's what he usually says, and it's correct. In 1P, Xeon kills Opteron, in 2P, the Opteron closes the gap a little, but not enough. It's 4P+ where the Opterons shine.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Viditor
To compare to the high end, how about a QX9650 with an 8800 Ultra and 768MB vs a spider platform Phenom 9600 with 4 x 3870s in crossfirex...
Obviously, the AMD system will still be ~20% cheaper, but at least it's a closer dollar figure and definately in the high end.

I still don't know how well that crossfirex platform is going to be, so it may just be a giant fizzle...then again, I guess we'll see next week.

Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses...
AMD still doesn't have any strength in the high end desktop yet, and Intel doesn't have any strength in the >2P server platform yet. But, we haven't seen Phenom and we haven't seen Nehalem, so everything remains fluid...

Ya I would like to see the performance of Skulltrail using xfire or quad sli.

Well, right now Penryns don't work with NVidia chipsets very well...so it's going to be awhile on SLI. As to Crossfire, I honestly don't know what the status is with Penryn...but you have to admit that it would be funny as hell if the only chipset possible for high-end Intel gaming systems came from AMD.

Viditor do you have a link to were AMD is winning in the 2P server arena? I would like to read that article . I have read a few and Intel seems to be winnning in the 2P arena.

There was a ">" sign there I think you missed, mate. Greater than 2P is how it should read...and of course Intel doesn't really even compete in that territory.

Ya I realize that Intels only Penryn out right now is the extreme . But as 45 ramps . We are going to see penryn 2.5 - 3.4 ghz in the next couple months. These won't be $1000. CPU's. Much cheaper and since a 3.0 GHz offers about 50% more performance than the highest clocked K10 . There should be a price primiem for non O/C cpu's.

You can't say that yet...we haven't even seen the K10 desktop part benched properly. BTW, 50% is (IMHO) at least 5 times more than is possible, but we shall see...

K10 looks to be a nice chip. But lets keep it in perspective. Pure performance wise it can't touch peryn. K10 is a great lowend chip and on the desktop thats all it will ever be .

Again, we don't know that at all...it's all (as Myo says) conjecture at this point.
And don't forget, K10 will be clocking higher and changing as well...

But the whole point here is to compare similarly priced systems this year.
So for this Xmas (when most of the year's sales are made), we should probably compare:
(High End)
Q6700 with an 8800 Ultra = ~$1135.00
Phenom 9600 with 4 x 3870s = ~$1151.00

That's about as close as you're going to get...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: AlabamaCajun
I say put the two best rigs money can by just to see how much damage can be done also. I want to see AMD take the crown, that ensures that we keep getting better chips. Intel is already dragging its feet on the process for 45nm by eliminating an extra set of steps that improve the chip infusion process. This cost saving measure was reported a while. If true, this means we could be seeing some really fast but more expensive stuff out there. From evaluating systems over the last few years, if appears that what you spend on intel, you could spend about the same on AMD and get the same performance. Overclocking throws in a different set of numbers and that is where most of the web stories come from that influence sales. While the cost of the current 6950 is only slightly more than a 6700 to produce, they are charging the same premiums that both companies charged for their extremes. You pay for the privilege to overclock and get the premium chip that is only slightly faster at stock then one half it's price but overclocked near the point of smoking it.

Could you tell me about . The bolded part above.

Or are you referring to the part were intel. In the annealing proccess . Were intel doesnt add the gate material until after the the annealing process. Because the metal gates cann't withstand the heat generated in that process. Its called gate last. It seems intel had to use this measure for this process. That doesn't mean 32 nm won't be gate first. But still right now intels 45nm process is looking good right now. Gates Last!


Yes I agree IBMs High K Fin FET gate first metal gates will be better than Intels 45nm.
. The real question here is when will we see IBM's version . ON 45nm????. Or will this process go up against Intels 32nm 3D gate first process???

 

[Keysplayr]

It looks like Phenom will do better than expected. Overclocking aside, which is pretty much reserved to probably less than 1% of all PC users out there, Phenom looks to be a viable alternative to Intel. Now AMD just has to price it right. Should do very well in the general consumer segment. Performance is certainly not poor. Nemesis, don't worry, Intel will not lose the speed crown at this point, but that doesn't mean much in the Mainstream computer segment and sales. We also need to wait for AT's review. Your mention of canned benches in the OP displays a predetermined disposition that AMD will cheat somehow. I need you to stop this kind of commentary as it displays "bad form" on your part. If you wish to be taken seriously in the future, refrain from these types of comments. Otherwise, it just has the appearance of a devout Intel fan and Intel can do no wrong.

Phenom will offer decent performance (judging from that quick review), and I said I would buy a Phenom platform if it offered equivalent performance for the money against a similarly priced intel rig. I'll stand by that, as AMD needs all the help it can get financially. I'd ask most of you ready to buy a new rig to do the same, but that is completely your call of course.

AMD is trying. The HD3800 series is proof that they are still working hard. Phenom will improve as refinement improves.

If you want to see AMD stick around a lot longer, buy their products. This is coming from a 95% Intel user. I doubt many of you will see things my way, but AMD needs help. So lets help them.

EDIT: I'm also considering an HD3870. This coming from a 95% Nvidia user.

 

[Mana]

I agree with everything keys said. Remember, without competition Intel likes to stagnate the pace of technology and charge exhorbant amounts of money for the smallest of upgrades. We're already seeing that stagnation now with the QX9650, it's 3 GHz, but as reviews have pointed out, it could probably have been 3.5-3.6 GHz. The computer I will be buying in the next few days will be based off of a Phenom 9700, unless it completely tanks against comparable Intel parts, which is highly unlikely at this point. (small plug, help finetuning my new computer build would be appreciated).

I honestly recommend anyone who has the option to go with AMD, they're not a bad company at all.

(also note, while this came off as fanboyish, I really try not to be)

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Mana
I agree with everything keys said. Remember, without competition Intel likes to stagnate the pace of technology and charge exhorbant amounts of money for the smallest of upgrades. We're already seeing that stagnation now with the QX9650, it's rated at 3 GHz, but as reviews have pointed out, it could probably have debuted at 3.5-3.6 GHz. The computer I will be buying in the next few days will be based off of a Phenom 9700, unless it completely tanks against comparable Intel parts, which is highly unlikely at this point. (small plug, help finetuning my new computer build would be appreciated).

I honestly recommend anyone who has the option to go with AMD, they're not a bad company at all.

(also note, while this came off as fanboyish, I really try not to be)

Well said, but this isn't about being a fan of Intel or AMD. This is about being a fan of technology in general and the continuation of said technology. If we have anything to say about it, it's done using our dollars. This has nothing to do with any sort of fanboyism.
It's about putting money where it is needed while getting systems that are perfectly acceptable for our uses.

 

[Zstream]

I may be forced to purchase the Phenom whatever flavor it may be. The reason is that the 790series motherboards only require 8-15watts of power on the northbridge. This combined with a next generation GPU which should be cooler then the mini nuke that is the 8series or 2900xt.

I need this PC before the summer time, it is way to damn hot in my room with this stuff stock or overclocked.

 

[Alto101]

Originally posted by: Mana
I agree with everything keys said. Remember, without competition Intel likes to stagnate the pace of technology and charge exhorbant amounts of money for the smallest of upgrades. We're already seeing that stagnation now with the QX9650, it's 3 GHz, but as reviews have pointed out, it could probably have been 3.5-3.6 GHz. The computer I will be buying in the next few days will be based off of a Phenom 9700, unless it completely tanks against comparable Intel parts, which is highly unlikely at this point. (small plug, help finetuning my new computer build would be appreciated).

I honestly recommend anyone who has the option to go with AMD, they're not a bad company at all.

(also note, while this came off as fanboyish, I really try not to be)

Well you should be commended for your loyalty to a company, who is currently producing subpar products, your logic is wrong. By purchasing AMD's current processors and recommending others to do the same, you are telling AMD with your wallet that the products that they are currently producing are good enough. Where is AMD's incentive to take a hard look at themselves and make the changes that are necessary to compete with Intel?

If you are so loyal to AMD to spend your hard earned money to support them, why not simply give them a call and tell them that you will donate cash to them but you want to make it clear that they need to use that cash to improve their product offerings. Not only would you be supporting them, you would be making it known that they need to use that money to improve.

I am building a new system this winter and I will go with whichever company gives me the best performance for the money. My current system is AMD based and my wife's is Intel based. At this point it appears that I will be switching back to Intel but if Phenom is better than expected or so far behind Intel that they have to drop the price significantly, then maybe I will end up with another AMD processor.

Rational people, obviously this excludes Fanboys, will make their decisions based on the best performance at a given price. By supporting AMD just because you think they could use your money to keep pace with Intel you are either revealing yourself as a Fanboy or a person with good intentions but with mistaken logic.

And yes I am a new poster to these forums however I have read them for years. If you are going to argue about what I post, please do based on the logic presented not my post count.

Thanks

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Alto101

Originally posted by: Mana
I agree with everything keys said. Remember, without competition Intel likes to stagnate the pace of technology and charge exhorbant amounts of money for the smallest of upgrades. We're already seeing that stagnation now with the QX9650, it's 3 GHz, but as reviews have pointed out, it could probably have been 3.5-3.6 GHz. The computer I will be buying in the next few days will be based off of a Phenom 9700, unless it completely tanks against comparable Intel parts, which is highly unlikely at this point. (small plug, help finetuning my new computer build would be appreciated).

I honestly recommend anyone who has the option to go with AMD, they're not a bad company at all.

(also note, while this came off as fanboyish, I really try not to be)

Well you should be commended for your loyalty to a company, who is currently producing subpar products, your logic is wrong. By purchasing AMD's current processors and recommending others to do the same, you are telling AMD with your wallet that the products that they are currently producing are good enough. Where is AMD's incentive to take a hard look at themselves and make the changes that are necessary to compete with Intel?

If you are so loyal to AMD to spend your hard earned money to support them, why not simply give them a call and tell them that you will donate cash to them but you want to make it clear that they need to use that cash to improve their product offerings. Not only would you be supporting them, you would be making it known that they need to use that money to improve.

I am building a new system this winter and I will go with whichever company gives me the best performance for the money. My current system is AMD based and my wife's is Intel based. At this point it appears that I will be switching back to Intel but if Phenom is better than expected or so far behind Intel that they have to drop the price significantly, then maybe I will end up with another AMD processor.

Rational people, obviously this excludes Fanboys, will make their decisions based on the best performance at a given price. By supporting AMD just because you think they could use your money to keep pace with Intel you are either revealing yourself as a Fanboy or a person with good intentions but with mistaken logic.

And yes I am a new poster to these forums however I have read them for years. If you are going to argue about what I post, please do based on the logic presented not my post count.

Thanks

For someone claiming to have read forums for years, you most certainly missed the entire point. It's not about loyalty. I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

But like I said, not everyone is willing to make a small sacrifice for a greater benefit later. And I can totally understand that.

quote: "you are telling AMD with your wallet that the products that they are currently producing are good enough."

They are "good enough" for now. Phenom is no slouch, and they are improving their graphics cores. I can recognize their efforts even if you can't/won't.

 

[harpoon84]

So keysplayr2003, you are asking people to spend MORE money, for LESS performance, just to 'help out AMD'. What kind of message does that send out to AMD, really? Close enough is good enough? Get within 90% performance for 110% the price and we'll feel sorry enough for you to buy your stuff?!

I would prefer AMD earn their sales on pure merit rather than sympathy buys.

Intel got smacked hard with their Netburst failure and recovered stronger than ever. AMD needs a slap in the face and get their act together, none of this delaying and recall business. Their execution has been SHOCKING lately. Getting rid of Ruiz would be a great start!

 

[Keysplayr]

MORE money? I was under the impression that AMD was to be very competitive with pricing because they couldn't compete directly against Intel performance wise. Am I wrong? And I need some of you folks to see the bigger picture here. Helping AMD out WILL help us in the end. They need the money, all they can get, to battle against Intel. Do you want to see Intels prices climb higher and higher? Like the days of K5/6? I sure don't. Bigger picture Harpoon. Bigger picture.

And by the way, I'm only asking people to consider buying AMD. If they do they do. If not, such is life.

 

[Phynaz]

There's nothing we can do to help AMD. They need to help themselves.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
MORE money? I was under the impression that AMD was to be very competitive with pricing because they couldn't compete directly against Intel performance wise. Am I wrong? And I need some of you folks to see the bigger picture here. Helping AMD out WILL help us in the end. They need the money, all they can get, to battle against Intel. Do you want to see Intels prices climb higher and higher? Like the days of K5/6? I sure don't. Bigger picture Harpoon. Bigger picture.

And by the way, I'm only asking people to consider buying AMD. If they do they do. If not, such is life.

I suggest you check the prices of the Phenoms. $270 for the 2.2GHz model, $320 for the 2.3GHz model.

Now, seeing as how a $270 Q6600 is already faster than the GP-9600 (going by these benchmarks) are you still suggesting people to buy AMD out of sympathy? Then there is the fact that you need DDR2-1066 to get the most out of Phenom, which makes it even worse price/performance wise, when a Q6600 does just fine and dandy with much cheaper DDR2-800 or even DDR2-667. Then there is the high prices of 790FX AM2+ boards... so no, I'm sorry, I do see the bigger picture, and it's that AMD needs to overhaul management and start EXECUTING, because their current lineup is not up to it.

They are in a much better financial position after the $700M stake bought by Abu Dhabi, so no excuses there either, if they can't deliver with this financial windfall, there is no saving them.

As for Intel returning to 90's style pricing, I seriously doubt it. CPUs are becoming a commodity nowadays, but if you are that paranoid over it then so be it.