# AMD, doesn't suck. Right?



## Bartmasta

People are saying that AMD sucks and I should've got an Intel CPU. 

I have a 6000+ brisbane overclocked to 3.3 and my motherboard will also support phenoms. 

Sure Intel is better, but it's more expensive and I don't have much money.

I'm just thinking if it would be better if I were to get E7300 as well as a Intel mobo. The CPU would cost 30 bucks more but it's better than a 6000+ than gaming when overclocked (not to the max but decently), right? Couldn't find it on tomshardware benchmarks, and the 6000+ was actually doing better than some phenoms and maybe some intel quads I'm not sure though.

What do you guys think, does AMD suck? Did I make a bad choice getting AMD? Or is it just as good and will the denibs kick some ASS?


----------



## Kornowski

> AMD, doesn't suck. Right?



Left.


----------



## Kornowski

Nah, they aint too bad man! I wouldn't worry about it!


----------



## Bartmasta

Kornowski said:


> Nah, they aint too bad man! I wouldn't worry about it!



That's what I'm trying to do 

Well I think I'm pretty happy after looking at some benchmarks. I just hope that the Denibs will do good and be on par with Intel or maybe even better.


----------



## lovely?

don't get ahead of yourself, intel's i7 may not overclock and the benchmarks may not look great but clock for clock they are speedy little devils.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

AMD doesn't suck, but their processors aren't up to par for a lot of bleeding edge enthusiasts. They make good mid-high end processors at a good price. I think the big disappointment is the poor overclocking AMD's dual and quad cores have. An Intel E7200 is 2.53ghz stock and is already better than an AMD 6400+ 3.2ghz at stock, but the kicker is that on a good board most people can get the E7200 to 4ghz, yet the 6400+ would be hard pressed to get to 3.5ghz. 

I don't think AMD will be putting out anything impressive for a little while. They have a lot of catching up to do, and the Core i7 will be hard to compete with.


----------



## deankenny

i use to always use amd but started blue screening alot and lacking in games now i got a intel and omg!!! what a good move run so much cooler i got min to 3.3ghz lol on air,


----------



## Bartmasta

We'll see how AMD does when the denebs come out

when do they even come out? January right? I can't wait.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I'm running a socket 939 Athlon X2 3800+ and have it overclocked to 2.20 GHz. It runs games perfectly fine on high (HL2, Dead Space, Doom3). I only had issues when I first OC'd because I did it too high and my OS freaked and killed the registry.


----------



## Twist86

If you have a budget they rock....but if your into high-end gaming the Intel chips atm have a better cache/clock speed and can overclock better with less power usage.

E8400 can OC to 4.0ghz that's impressive from a 3.2ghz chip.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> If you have a budget they rock....but if your into high-end gaming the Intel chips atm have a better cache/clock speed and can overclock better with less power usage.


AMD CPUs have IMCs so the lack of cache ain't such a big bottleneck, if one at all...



> E8400 can OC to 4.0ghz to 5.0ghz that's impressive from a 3.3ghz chip.


5GHz can't really be used for anything except getting the screenshots, CPU-Z validation and SuperPi score... but you can't use that kinda score to game/bench. 4GHz is just fine, though.

The new Denebs are soming out Q1 of 2009, and more 45nm models are released thorough the year... the Denebs are first-ever AMD CPUs to actually beat Yorkfield clock-for-clock, but Nehalems still give them a thrashing...


----------



## Mecal

Assuming you don't want to overclock, is there any difference between the AMD and Intel chips?


----------



## Twist86

Mecal said:


> Assuming you don't want to overclock, is there any difference between the AMD and Intel chips?



Price. AMD will always strive to beat Intel prices to stay alive. IF they control the lower end market they can lay in wait till they make a superior chip.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Assuming you don't want to overclock, is there any difference between the AMD and Intel chips?


Price-to-performance ratio at stock speeds seems to in AMD's favor (at least over where I live), even though usually only by a slight bit.


----------



## Mecal

alright cool, thanks.

I plan on building a new comp soon, but no over clocking.

How are AMD's quad cores?

I guess in the end it depends on what motherboard I get.


----------



## Intel_man

Mecal said:


> alright cool, thanks.
> 
> I plan on building a new comp soon, but no over clocking.
> 
> *How are AMD's quad cores?*
> 
> I guess in the end it depends on what motherboard I get.



Terrible compared to Intel's Q6600.


----------



## Bartmasta

Mecal said:


> alright cool, thanks.
> 
> I plan on building a new comp soon, but no over clocking.
> 
> How are AMD's quad cores?
> 
> I guess in the end it depends on what motherboard I get.



If you're mostly gaming and you are thinking of getting one of the worse phenoms (9500, 9600, 9700) i recommend getting a dual core like the latest 6000+. Tests have shown that the 6000+ gives more fps than the phenoms I just listed in games.


----------



## Hugh9191

Personally I have always used AMDs in my desktops (except for a spare parts one which I had to do with a pentium 3!). I find them to be good value and can't complain about the speed.


----------



## MrBucket

Twist86 said:


> Price. AMD will always strive to beat Intel prices to stay alive. IF they control the lower end market they can lay in wait till they make a superior chip.


AMD isn't just "surviving" they carved they're niche in the low priced cpu's. Like instead of the "higher end" ipod i got a Toshiba gigabeat 40GB for a 100 bucks. Does everything the ipod does just cheaper. AMD is just the one who got caught in the budget consumer end, theres always a company like that in anything you buy.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Terrible compared to Intel's Q6600.


Performance-wise, quite true (except for the highest-end of the Phenoms series), but price/performance ratio still seems quite decent.



> AMD isn't just "surviving" they carved *they're* niche in the low priced cpu's.


_Their_. Otherwise, quite true.



> If you're mostly gaming and you are thinking of getting one of the worse phenoms (9500, 9600, 9700) i recommend getting a dual core like the latest 6000+. Tests have shown that the 6000+ gives more fps than the phenoms I just listed in games


True. If you want a quad (or a tri-core), make sure you get one of the 9x50 (or 8x50) series CPUs. the 9x00 CPUs had this nasty bug that would occasionally  cause system lockups, and the fix for it brought the clock-for-clock performance close to Athlons... but Athlons clock way higher, so for gaming you want a xx50 Phenom or a higher-end Athlon.


----------



## 63083

I would say you made a decent choice. And no, AMD doesn't suck. They not meant to gaming porcessors, except Phenoms. They are a good cheap alterative for gaming if you can't afford intel. Bet yes, if you could, get an 7300 Core 2 Duo and you will be much more satisfied. The E7300 hundred uses 45nm tech instead of 90nm, which mean less power usage and cooler temps even when OCed. It also has 3mb of shared L2 chache where as the 6000+ has only 1MB per core of the CPU which means multitasking heavily loads the CPU even with the faster clock speed. Basically, even if you don't OC the E7300, it will still be faster and more effeciant than your current AMD 6000+.


----------



## Bartmasta

thanks for the reply

well theres no going back to intel for now, my motherboard will support am2+ so I will get a phenom, maybe one of the denebs if i can find a nice deal, they look promising


----------



## zomgjerry

ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]


----------



## 63083

zomgjerry said:


> ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
> amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]



If you're giving these kinds of comments, you should not be taken seriously. I used to use 5800+ 90nm which is JUST a step down from from the 6000+ and my upgrade to the E7300 was phenominal. Not so much in multitasking but in boot up time and gaming performance. If you are not a gamer but use your desktop from basic office apps. and the internet, AMD is by far the better choice cost wise. But I play advanced games and do video encoding and the E7300 was such an upgrade for the things I do.


----------



## lovely?

zomgjerry said:


> ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
> amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]



i don't think i'll ever be able to take you seriously again. EVER.


----------



## Intel_man

zomgjerry said:


> ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
> amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]



It's easy to tell that you've never gone blue yet.


----------



## Dystopia

Kornowski said:


> Left.



Good one 

AMD does not SUCK. They over clock awesome (at least the one I have) and are a lot cheaper then Intel. With the prices here, any AMD for 60 bucks smokes an Intel for 60 bucks. However, Intel is still overall better, they just cost more. I say, if you can afford it, go intel. Obviously I can't afford it.


----------



## StrangleHold

http://www.crn.com/hardware/212101254


----------



## ducis

amd is still kicking if you want a Q6600 priced proc a 9950 is a worthy competator


----------



## Intel_man

StrangleHold said:


> http://www.crn.com/hardware/212101254



Well they used Liquid Nitrogen... People have been OC'ing P4's to like 5.6GHz with Liquid Nitrogen so I don't see that as a really big step in OC'ing.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> The E7300 hundred uses 45nm tech instead of 90nm, which mean less power usage and cooler temps even when OCed.


Except most AMD CPUs on the market are 65nm and (AFAIK) they've already stopped manufacturing of 90nm CPUs some time ago, and AMD is now transitioning to 45nm process node. However, 45nm is still better than 65nm as far as power consumption is concerned, so what you said is correct, though not in such a large scale as you made it out to be...


----------



## StrangleHold

Intel_man said:


> Well they used Liquid Nitrogen... People have been OC'ing P4's to like 5.6GHz with Liquid Nitrogen so I don't see that as a really big step in OC'ing.


 
Was that suppost to inform (me) of something. Or a spout of general knowledge. Who cares what a P4 did on N. Are you wanting to compare clock speed of a P4 to a Phenom II.

 So your saying 4.5 for a Phenom on air is not a improvement.


----------



## MrBucket

zomgjerry said:


> ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
> amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]


there's alot of things wrong with this statement. Intel is way way more efficeint at the moment, but i mean i guess you could still throw out your opinion, but your facts are. . . wrong. Intel and AMD used to be battle buddies but who woulda guessed that the company with way more funds behind them would end up making better more powerful processors? They used to be up to preference when they were very close but now its all about how much money ya got and what you'll be doing with it


----------



## laznz1

AMD don't suck it all depends on what you use it for over the last couple of years Intel seem to be better in most ways but that dont mean AMD sucks


----------



## Twist86

Sadly dual-core and quad-core era AMD has gotten its ass whooooooped. Whats worse is even on overclock have they lost.

I use to be a AMD fan my first X2 4400+ I loved but after failing to overclock it (due to being locked I imagine) went to Q6600 since I got a good deal on one. HUGE difference. Even though games only use 2 cores I still saw a HUGE differnce from a 2.3ghz to a 2.4ghz even more @ 3.2ghz and 3.0ghz but wanted a 1:1 with ram so went 2.8ghz due to 400x8 being to hot.


I have high hopes for the Deneb though.....I think AMD is bringing back the fight for top dawg.


----------



## maroon1

hackapelite said:


> the Denebs are first-ever AMD CPUs to actually beat Yorkfield clock-for-clock, but Nehalems still give them a thrashing...


 
This questionable

It is *not* a fact that Deneb are faster than Yorkfield clock-for-clock. Did you see any review that compares Deneb to Yorkfield ?

I know many people who said that Agena was supposed to be better than Kentsfield but that didn't happen


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Did you see any review that compares Deneb to Yorkfield ?


No, I haven't. I have, however, seen Agena-Yorkfield as well as Agena-Deneb Sample benchies, and while I've only seen a few of them, general trend seems to be that Agenas are outperformed by these samples by as big margin as they are outperformed by Yorkfields. However, these benchies are for _early engineering samples_ and the final product certainly _will_ be better... I'm not claiming this is a 100% true fact, but I'm betting that Phenom IIs will outperform Yorkfields.


----------



## 63083

hackapelite said:


> Except most AMD CPUs on the market are 65nm and (AFAIK) they've already stopped manufacturing of 90nm CPUs some time ago, and AMD is now transitioning to 45nm process node. However, 45nm is still better than 65nm as far as power consumption is concerned, so what you said is correct, though not in such a large scale as you made it out to be...



Yes, I do understand that the VAST majority of AMD cpu's are 65nm but I was comparing that guys older Athlon 64x2 6000+ 90nm CPU to the E7200 Core 2 Duo. In that case, the difference between 90nm and 45nm would be (and for me, it was) a phenominal difference in both speed and power consuption, especially when overclocked and even when not overclocked. That difference would, however be greatly lessened with the use of an AMD 65nm based chip even though there still would be a difference when compared to the new 45nm Core 2 Duo's.


----------



## StrangleHold

63083 said:


> That difference would, however be greatly lessened with the use of an AMD 65nm based chip even though there still would be a difference when compared to the new 45nm Core 2 Duo's.


 
No, because the 90nm. F3 stepping Windsors core are faster clock for clock than the 65nm. Brisbane core. Dropping to a lower nm. does not mean a faster core by itself.


----------



## 63083

StrangleHold said:


> No, because the 90nm. F3 stepping Windsors core are faster clock for clock than the 65nm. Brisbane core. Dropping to a lower nm. does not mean a faster core by itself.



I didn't say faster, I said cooler and less power consumption.


----------



## Vizy

I love my 6000 x2, but it runs really hot


----------



## 63083

Vizy93 said:


> I love my 6000 x2, but it runs really hot



Exactly why I said that the newer duo's use less power and run cooler. The 5800+ and 6000+ are great cheap processors but they use a lot of energy and they run hot. In part to their 90nm cores.


----------



## Bartmasta

Vizy93 said:


> I love my 6000 x2, but it runs really hot



Brisbane or Windsor core?

I have brisbane, O/C to 3.3 from 3.1 and my idle temps are 30~ and while playing cod4 50~

max temp is 62'c


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

AMD sucks. and melts. There are a "few" lucky people who have never experienced this, but when you use an AMD it's kind of like gambling only difference is the odds are not 50/50 but against you instead.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> AMD sucks. and melts. There are a "few" lucky people who have never experienced this, but when you use an AMD it's kind of like gambling only difference is the odds are not 50/50 but against you instead.


What...? That most certainly ain't true.


----------



## Vizy

Bartmasta said:


> Brisbane or Windsor core?
> 
> I have brisbane, O/C to 3.3 from 3.1 and my idle temps are 30~ and while playing cod4 50~
> 
> max temp is 62'c



Windsor. I'm on stock, too afraid to OC with my temps. I get 48 idle 56 load. It stays around 54-55 usually though.


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

hackapelite said:


> What...? That most certainly ain't true.



In me and my colleagues experiences it is.


----------



## Twist86

AUTOBOOT2000 said:


> In me and my colleagues experiences it is.



Well sadly AMD wasn't made to with stand a blowtorch test.

If it was a common occurrence it would be a big and widely known issue by now. They couldn't hush hush a issue like that.


So I am gonna have to say you and your colleagues are the issue not the chip.


----------



## StrangleHold

AUTOBOOT2000 said:


> AMD sucks. and melts. There are a "few" lucky people who have never experienced this, but when you use an AMD it's kind of like gambling only difference is the odds are not 50/50 but against you instead.


 


AUTOBOOT2000 said:


> In me and my colleagues experiences it is.


 

I'm just going to close my eyes and imagine that I didnt even read that.. I've been doing this since the K-5 and Pentium I but I am not going to get into how untrue that is.


----------



## MrBucket

Intel made about 6 times more than AMD last year and only since about 1987 were they nearly close in revenue. It's not even fair to put down AMD anymore for not making up to Intel par with 6 times less money to manufacture and develope with. Thats like making fun of a kid who got his ass beat in a 6 vs 1 fight, because he couldn't take all 6 kids on. There shouldn't even be a comparison anymore, seriously. AMD is doing a good f***king job for what they have to deal with. The last comparison to be made should simply be, AMD = Budget, Intel=Highend/Enthusiasts and there's nothing at all wrong with a being on a budget.


----------



## Kornowski

> AMD, doesn't suck. Right?



No.

/Thread.


----------



## 63083

Kornowski said:


> No.
> 
> /Thread.



No, they are budget and that's what their meant to be and they do a good job for what they do and how much performance you get per dollar. If I had 700 dollars to spend on a gaming PC, I'm not going to spend $165 for an E8400, I'm going to spend $90 on a 6000+ or $100 on a 8450X3 Phenom.


----------



## Diamondsleeper

*AMD is good*

Just a year or so ago AMD was the one to beat.  Intel has now leap frogged over them in a sense.  Meaning Intel owns the benchmark trophy right now. For every day use and gaming AMD is still what I use.  I see no reason to spend the extra money for what Intel has when the software out right and what I use my computer for (gaming and basic apps) does not need those extra bells and whistles. Its not worth the extra expense. AMDs are really easy to overclock too.


----------



## Bartmasta

Diamondsleeper said:


> AMDs are really easy to overclock too.



They don't overclock that well.


----------



## Calibretto

They're great CPUs if you just want something that runs and is cheap.


----------



## Diamondsleeper

Bartmasta said:


> They don't overclock that well.



I have to disagree.  These things are easy and stable.  You have to support it obvioulsy.   Cooling, Ram . PSU. MB chipset.  How would you know only using 500W PSU? Get a  clue..


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

AMD SUCKS end of discussion lock the thread!


----------



## Bob Jeffery

Um @autoboot, keep your opinion to yourself if you don't have anything nice to say, and @Diamondsleeper, they don't overclock that well if you compare them to intel, and the psu power ratting has nothing to do with how well they overclock unless you are using a 200watt psu.


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

Bob Jeffery said:


> Um @autoboot, keep your opinion to yourself if you don't have anything nice to say, and @Diamondsleeper, they don't overclock that well if you compare them to intel, and the psu power ratting has nothing to do with how well they overclock unless you are using a 200watt psu.



I am answering the question to the thread, I am also answering with the truth. The truth is rarely ever nice.


----------



## Bob Jeffery

Well they don't always SUCK they just have there faults, just like intel did.


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

Bob Jeffery said:


> Well they don't always SUCK they just have there faults, just like intel did.



I suppose, but intel vs amd it's not even a challenge...


----------



## Bob Jeffery

Okay lets settle at this: Intel is blowing AMD away if you want the best performance you can buy for now.


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

Bob Jeffery said:


> Okay lets settle at this: Intel is blowing AMD away if you want the best performance you can buy for now.



*orgasm of the ear*


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> AMD SUCKS end of discussion lock the thread!


Dude, you suck. Come back with some hard proof for your *ahem* claims.



> I suppose, but intel vs amd it's not even a challenge...


And WTH is that supposed to mean? AMD still offers great competition at low- and mid-high-range of CPUs, Intel currently owns the enthusiast market but that's the situation just now. AMD has totally pwn3d Intel in the server market for last 5 years, and even the period since the introduction of Athlons to the introduction of Core2 line AMD has pretty much dominated the gaming/high-end market.

Shees, dude!


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

hackapelite said:


> Dude, you suck. Come back with some hard proof for your *ahem* claims.
> 
> And WTH is that supposed to mean? AMD still offers great competition at low- and mid-high-range of CPUs, Intel currently owns the enthusiast market but that's the situation just now. AMD has totally pwn3d Intel in the server market for last 5 years, and even the period since the introduction of Athlons to the introduction of Core2 line AMD has pretty much dominated the gaming/high-end market.
> 
> Shees, dude!



Total total denial...


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Total total denial...


That reflects your actions quite perfectly. You come around spewing fanboy bullshit with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back it up, no evidence, no proof, not one single link to some concrete evidence that AMD sucks. And when your statements have been crushed like your testicles in a car compactor, you totally totally deny it...


----------



## Bob Jeffery

lol um which is best is a opinion at this time in computer history. There will be fanboys on both sides, so lets try to resist to make threads like this.


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

hackapelite said:


> That reflects your actions quite perfectly. You come around spewing fanboy bullshit with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back it up, no evidence, no proof, not one single link to some concrete evidence that AMD sucks. And when your statements have been crushed like your testicles in a car compactor, you totally totally deny it...



I own amd and intel processors that's my proof, the intels are in my computers and the amds I use to cook my food and the pieces that exploded off of them I use as paper weights.


----------



## StrangleHold

AUTOBOOT2000 reminds my of PC eye without google/wikipeda.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> AUTOBOOT2000 reminds my of PC eye without google/wikipeda.


Haha  



> I own amd and intel processors that's my proof, the intels are in my computers and the amds I use to cook my food and the pieces that exploded off of them I use as paper weights.


Maybe if you had the brains to handle them properly... IDK, why on earth have I never had problems with my AMD CPUs? If their CPUs really were that bad, AMD would've gone down under aeons ago. Just because you had bad luck (or bad brains), doesn't mean AMD sucks. There are quite a few people like you who use their Intels to cook food (NetBurst CPUs being especially well-suited for the purpose, your P4 would do a good job there) and the pieces that exploded off them as paperweights, and have AMDs in their computers. There are people who have only had trouble with Intel CPUs. Preference is not the same as fact. I've owned a few WD hard drives (Caviars) and all of them have failed on me - I dislike WDs and prefer Seagate/Samsung, but that doesn't mean I go around spewing bullshit like "0MG N00BS WD SUX END THREED LOL GO CEEGAYT MY WD DIDINT WORK PROPERLY THEY MUST SUX0RZ ROFL!!ONE!!", does it now?


----------



## MrBucket

I still have my computer with a 3600+ for like the last 4-5 years, the stock HSF stopped working for what im guessin like 6 months to a year! And its been fine, i think you have no clue what your doing with your AMD's to be honest


----------



## lovely?

hackapelite said:


> "0MG N00BS WD SUX END THREED LOL GO CEEGAYT MY WD DIDINT WORK PROPERLY THEY MUST SUX0RZ ROFL!!ONE!!", does it now?



LMAO! 


MrBucket said:


> I still have my computer with a 3600+ for like the last 4-5 years, the stock HSF stopped working for what im guessin like 6 months to a year! And its been fine, i think you have no clue what your doing with your AMD's to be honest



back in the time of the AMD 3600 (which was a LONG time ago now,) AMD's were the top dog, in a few respects. i had an AMD 3400 at 2.7ghz and it was neither hot nor slow compared to processors made by intel that were up to 1ghz faster! nobody is saying (besides a retard here or there,) that AMD's break, we are saying that their current processor line is not competitive with Intel. hell even their $70 dual cores cant even begin to match intel's...


----------



## 63083

lovely? said:


> LMAO!
> 
> 
> back in the time of the AMD 3600 (which was a LONG time ago now,) AMD's were the top dog, in a few respects. i had an AMD 3400 at 2.7ghz and it was neither hot nor slow compared to processors made by intel that were up to 1ghz faster! nobody is saying (besides a retard here or there,) that AMD's break, we are saying that their current processor line is not competitive with Intel. hell even their $70 dual cores cant even begin to match intel's...



Very good. I like AMD OK but to be perfectly honest unless I am doing a budget build for someone, I'm sure as hell going to use Intel. But that situation may be different in a few years and when Intel's time of glory is over, I will be very sad to have to use AMD for the majority of my high end builds and Intel for the budget builds.


----------



## nist7

Bartmasta said:


> Or is it just as good and will the denibs kick some ASS?



Rumor has it that they've taken the new 45nm Phenom II aka Deneb up to 6.3GHZ on liquid nitrogen cooling.  

http://www.crn.com/hardware/212101254


----------



## robina_80

all i can say is the new phenom is going to wee all over the intel i7


----------



## 63083

robina_80 said:


> all i can say is the new phenom is going to wee all over the intel i7



They may. But concidering how incredibly overpriced Phenoms are, at what cost are they going to be better than the i7. 
Reports are that the i7 920 is running circles around the older 9550 Core 2 Quad, and that 9550 is a pretty good processor.... And the phenom 9950 doesn't even come close to the 9550 C2Q. 

I really find it hard to believe that the Phenom 2's are going to be better than the Core i7's when the current Phenoms don't even come close to the older generation 9550 or even the Q6600. 

Just my opinion but I do not believe the Phenom 2 is going to be what it's cracked up to be.


----------



## Twist86

nist7 said:


> Rumor has it that they've taken the new 45nm Phenom II aka Deneb up to 6.3GHZ on liquid nitrogen cooling.
> 
> http://www.crn.com/hardware/212101254



Reviews but normal people are getting 4.2ghz out of the Deneb....Intel grab your weapons....AMD is bringing the war back and its gonna get ugly 



63083 said:


> Just my opinion but I do not believe the Phenom 2 is going to be what it's cracked up to be.




Well the Phenom 2 is what the original SHOULD have been but they had a lot of issues/problems. I think 09  will belong to AMD if the Deneb is as promising as its so far been claimed to be.

I want AMD to scare Intel again....because when 2 titans go to war we get the benefits of prices/faster processors because they are trying to de-throne/stay on top of the current #1.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> They may. But concidering how incredibly overpriced Phenoms are, at what cost are they going to be better than the i7.


Overpriced? Where? At least here in Australia I can get a Phenom Quad for around $200 (the ecenomy currently being the way it is that's a steal), whereas the cheapest Intel quad (Q6600) costs anywhere from $300 up to $400 in more expensive shops, Q9xxx series CPUs usually start from around $400. In general, all the Phenoms I've seen are more reasonably priced than their Intel equivalents. I haven't kept up with the US/newegg prices but last time I checked, AMD CPUs very were reasonably priced, especially in the budget sector.



> I really find it hard to believe that the Phenom 2's are going to be better than the Core i7's when the current Phenoms don't even come close to the older generation 9550 or even the Q6600.


Performance-wise Phenom II won't beat Core i7, that's for sure, performance/price is the name of the game here. However, Denebs do outperform Yorkfields, so that's some great progress they're making there regardless.


----------



## Caminokid

I have always built AMD systems. Lately P4's have been falling in my lap. I do really like that you can OC a AMD to the max.


----------



## kesharn81

*hi*

thanks for sharing the info..


----------



## 63083

hackapelite said:


> Overpriced? Where? At least here in Australia I can get a Phenom Quad for around $200 (the ecenomy currently being the way it is that's a steal), whereas the cheapest Intel quad (Q6600) costs anywhere from $300 up to $400 in more expensive shops, Q9xxx series CPUs usually start from around $400. In general, all the Phenoms I've seen are more reasonably priced than their Intel equivalents. I haven't kept up with the US/newegg prices but last time I checked, AMD CPUs very were reasonably priced, especially in the budget sector.
> 
> Performance-wise Phenom II won't beat Core i7, that's for sure, performance/price is the name of the game here. However, Denebs do outperform Yorkfields, so that's some great progress they're making there regardless.



On newegg.com the Q6600 is about $20 bucks more than the Phenom 9950. And from what I have read, the Q6600 is far better than any AMD Phenom so far released and it doesn't cost that much more here in the good old US of A. However the budget Athlons are quite a steal.

Even the Core i7 920 (not overclocked) is reportedly ourperforming the Yorkfield Quads that are overclocked. So if the Phenoms IIs  are as good as people say, they should be about as good as the Core i7's. Oh, by the way. I find it interesting that the new Core i7 920 is currently $25 cheaper than the Q9550 Yorkfield and It is said to be sooooooo muxh faster. I guess it's just the way tech flows.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> On newegg.com the Q6600 is about $20 bucks more than the Phenom 9950. And from what I have read, the Q6600 is far better than any AMD Phenom so far released and it doesn't cost that much more here in the good old US of A. However the budget Athlons are quite a steal.


Q6600 and 9950 are pretty much equal in terms of performance, and the newer Q6600s OC about as good as the 9950s (with good cooling) so the only advantage of the Q6600 is the lower TDP (90 versus 125/140)... yea and of course lower TDP=better OC unless you want to shell out the money for a better cooler. $20 less for equal performance while being more power-hungry sounds about right to me...



> Even the Core i7 920 (not overclocked) is reportedly ourperforming the Yorkfield Quads that are overclocked. So if the Phenoms IIs are as good as people say, they should be about as good as the Core i7's.


In some apps, i7 has been reported to beat Core2 by up to 30% clock-for-clock, and when multithreading it gets even better... however, I don't know what you've heard but (according to my sources) Phenom II has been rumored to perform around 15%-20% better than Phenom I clock-for-clock, which does put them slightly ahead of Core2 (Yorkfield) but nowhere near i7 in terms of raw power.


----------



## Irishwhistle

Simple answer to the "question" is no... I've had very good experience with an AMD Sempron... only thing good about the eMachine it was in.


----------



## zer0_c00l

AMD still my guys even after my e8400 rig! Once you go Green and black you never go back   heh


----------



## Twist86

I love AMD....but I think they screwed up on the Phenom line and so I use Intel currently.

But I want both AMD and Intel to be neck and neck...they fight and we win on prices/performance.


----------



## zer0_c00l

i like the way you put that twist!  good for us all


----------



## El DJ

God, please let AMD kick Intel's butt after Phenom II comes out.


----------



## Bob Jeffery

zer0_c00l said:


> AMD still my guys even after my e8400 rig! Once you go Green and black you never go back   heh


What made you come back to the dark side?


----------



## zer0_c00l

Bob Jeffery said:


> What made you come back to the dark side?



well they are cheaper ofcourse and i really couldnt tell the differnce in my gaming and normal use... Intel did have the plus in overclocking but those damn thermal sensors are so screwed on the e8400 didnt like messing with it


----------



## nvysel24

it all depends wat ur doin w/ the processor the amd is better for data processing b/c they took out some of the old commands like the 8 bit crap seriously who uses 2 4 and 8 bit applications ? and if u have that in there it slows it down. so they took that out which amd is better for data processing and mathmatical functinos and the phenoms are actually true quad core because they are 4 actual cores compared to intel 2 dual core stuck on top of each other intel has those old 4 and 8 bit command which slow it down so if they would actually take those out they would be a much better processor. im not saying that intel is not good because they are i have 4 quad cores with lots of amds also


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> amd is better for data processing


Data processing as in what? All CPUs do is basically process data, so that's a rather absurd statement.



> b/c they took out some of the old commands like the 8 bit crap seriously who uses 2 4 and 8 bit applications ? and if u have that in there it slows it down.


While these instructions are not present in 64-bit mode, AMD CPUs still support the very old 8-and-so-on-bit instructions in legacy mode. I don't know how Intel CPUs do this, but ATM they outperform AMD offerings and that's a fact...



> so they took that out which amd is better for data processing and mathmatical functinos


The removal of legacy functions has nothing to do with this, it's a known fact that AMD destroys Core2 in FPU-intensive applications but that's due to other architectural differences (can't remember the exact details but I read an article a while back on this).



> are actually true quad core because they are 4 actual cores compared to intel 2 dual core stuck on top of each other


The native quad-core design helps in data sharing between the cores and makes power management more efficient, but Core2 CPUs have shared L2 anyways so in general they are able of sharing data between cores much faster unless the data resides on the L2 of the other CPU in which case it has to travel through the FSB, but in benchmarks Intel still wins AMDs as far as data sharing is concerned (Athlons are bad at this because all the data has go through the HT link, while Phenoms are a lot better at sharing data between the cores it's shared through the L3 cache which has higher latency when compared to L2 so it's still generally slower than Intel's solution with Core2). Also, Core2 CPUs in general have lower wattages when compared to similarly-powered AMD offerings, so power saving ain't one of their stronger sides ATM (the 45nm Phenom II is supposed to change this).



> intel has those old 4 and 8 bit command which slow it down so if they would actually take those out they would be a much better processor.


ATM Intel already is better performance-wise (Core2 beats Athlons up to 25%-35% clock-for-clock and Phenoms around 5%-10% clock-for-clock), also refer to my statement regarding legacy instructions - those are still present in AMD CPUs unless you have the CPU in 64-bit mode (=run a 64-bit OS).


----------



## 63083

I will have to keep those facts in mind. Thanks.


----------



## Intel_man

hackapelite said:


> Q6600 and 9950 are pretty much equal in terms of performance, and the newer Q6600s OC about as good as the 9950s (with good cooling) so the only advantage of the Q6600 is the lower TDP (90 versus 125/140)... yea and of course lower TDP=better OC unless you want to shell out the money for a better cooler. $20 less for equal performance while being more power-hungry sounds about right to me...
> 
> *In some apps, i7 has been reported to beat Core2 by up to 30% clock-for-clock, and when multithreading it gets even better... however, I don't know what you've heard but (according to my sources) Phenom II has been rumored to perform around 15%-20% better than Phenom I clock-for-clock, which does put them slightly ahead of Core2 (Yorkfield) but nowhere near i7 in terms of raw *power.


Sounds like AMD's targeting the cheaper field of play again...


----------



## N3crosis

Intel_man said:


> Sounds like AMD's targeting the cheaper field of play again...



It's just a rumour, but it is probably true. But who knows with AMD anymore. The HD 4870 X2 is the best video card on the market, and ATi/AMD dished that out. Maybe AMD is planning the same thing


----------



## Dystopia

oh my GOD! I can't freakin beleive this thread is still goin. I'll bet that the starter aint even readin this anymore!!!!!! We ALL (or so I thought till I read AUTOBOOT2000's posts) know that Intel is better then AMD but AMD still does not SUCK! now please end the freakin thread! sheesh!


----------



## Kornowski

Elimin8or said:


> oh my GOD! I can't freakin beleive this thread is still goin. I'll bet that the starter aint even readin this anymore!!!!!! We ALL (or so I thought till I read AUTOBOOT2000's posts) know that Intel is better then AMD but AMD still does not SUCK! now please end the freakin thread! sheesh!



What he said.


----------



## Bartmasta

actually i am still reading it lol


----------



## Twist86

Elimin8or said:


> oh my GOD! I can't freakin beleive this thread is still goin. I'll bet that the starter aint even readin this anymore!!!!!! We ALL (or so I thought till I read AUTOBOOT2000's posts) know that Intel is better then AMD but AMD still does not SUCK! now please end the freakin thread! sheesh!



pfft we can't let that happen...I mean the Deneb is coming out and then we can argue even more.


----------



## Geoff

The Core i7 pretty much fixes anything that AMD was better at.  Intel now has a true quad core, integrated memory controller, HT, etc.


----------



## StrangleHold

Allways thought it was pretty strange the way the two companies CPU development went from the Athlon 64 all the way to the Phenom. By there budgets (which Intel completely destorys AMD) you would think that Intel would have beat AMD to the Onboard Memory Controller/ Hypertransport/Monolith Quad by a long shot. Especially the Memory Controller that AMD has had for years. Seems the small guy gets there first everytime, which never happens in any other hardware.


----------



## smoothjk

StrangleHold said:


> Allways thought it was pretty strange the way the two companies CPU development went from the Athlon 64 all the way to the Phenom. By there budgets (which Intel completely destorys AMD) you would think that Intel would have beat AMD to the Onboard Memory Controller/ Hypertransport/Monolith Quad by a long shot. Especially the Memory Controller that AMD has had for years. Seems the small guy gets there first everytime, which never happens in any other hardware.



That's called "Intel resting on their laurels." 

Either way, I don't think anyone realistically expects Deneb to overtake i7, but it is going to be a much more attractive option to Intel's Yorkfields. And obviously, it's going to be a lot better than Phenom 1. For the price, that's enough for me and most others. It's not like today's software really NEEDs absolutely bleeding edge. All of the apps and games I have run well with my x2 6000+, and the Deneb is probably going to fix what little slowness I feel. Why drop hundreds of dollars more?


----------



## Twist86

I gotta agree I picked up my Q6600 vs waiting for I7 for that exact reason.

3.2ghz Q6600 = I can play any game I want atm and enjoy it...later I can up to 3.4ghz or 3.6ghz and have a chip last me till at the very least end of 09.


----------



## darth yoda

i have used amd's all my life and they have caused me no trouble. i currently have a 6000+ windsor (bit like u on the first post) at 3ghz running everything fine. amd are cheaper than intel and intel are not any better let me tell u that.


----------



## Dystopia

Twist86 said:


> pfft we can't let that happen...I mean the Deneb is coming out and then we can argue even more.



Yeah, but this friggin thread has its answer: no. How bout when the denebs(WTF ARE THEY??)you make a new thread; Deneb vs. i7:flame wars 1.0!


----------



## Kornowski

Can we close this thread yet?


----------



## smoothjk

Kornowski said:


> Can we close this thread yet?



For real. Every time I see this thread title, I wanna smack my forehead in shame. It just sounds so...insecure.


----------



## GSAV55

Wowwww, I just spent at least 30 minutes reading this thread, and theres been about 3 posts which really some up my thoughts exactly, and which I think accurately answer the question.  Basically, AMD is a good budget choice, and intel is a good high end choice.  I am very interestd to see what AMD has up their sleeve though.  The first GPU released since the merger of AMD and ATI toppled the long standing GPU king, nvidia.  Thats why I am going to get a 4870.  When this happened, nvidia was forced to significantly drop all of their prices to compete.  

Hopefully this is soon to come in the CPU market as well.  As soon as AMD shells out some de-throning CPUs the market prices will drop, and the consumer will ultimately win in the end.


----------



## Irishwhistle

Kornowski said:


> Can we close this thread yet?



Yes, please... the OP has been banned anyway. Or is it just a temp ban?


----------



## StrangleHold

This is a weird thread. NO AMD doesnt suck. I could go on here for paragraphs about how wrong that is. 

Its like the Mouse and Elephant. Most of the time when the Elephant sees a Mouse it screams like a girl and runs into the wilderness. But every now and then it smashes it. Believe me the Elephant before long will scream like a girl and run off again.

AMD had Intel beat clock for clock for 6 years with (1/10th the money). Intel finally releases the Core 2 and beats them. And now AMD sucks (get real) because they instantly didnt release a processor to beat it. Were was Intel in those (6) years AMD had them beat? History always repeats itself.


----------



## GSAV55

wow, I didn't realize that core 2 duo was only released about 2 years ago.  I thought that they had been around much longer than that, and that AMD has been behind for quite some time, but clearly not.  Look at how long it took ATI to bounce back?  Nearly 10 years right?  When do you think that AMDs bounce back will be?


----------



## Mattu

Yeah I can remember about 2 years ago when I first joined this forum everyone was so gung ho about building a AMD K8 based machine...

Now the tables have turned... I think there are a lot of traders here


----------



## GSAV55

I'm actually making a thread for that question right now, since its a pretty good question, and off topic of this thread, so if you're going to answer my question, wait till I post that.


----------



## scooter

StrangleHold said:


> AMD had Intel beat clock for clock for 6 years with (1/10th the money). Intel finally releases the Core 2 and beats them. And now AMD sucks (get real) because they instantly didnt release a processor to beat it. Were was Intel in those (6) years AMD had them beat? History always repeats itself.



Good points!



GSAV55 said:


> When do you think that AMDs bounce back will be?



January 2009!


----------



## GSAV55

Mattu said:


> Yeah I can remember about 2 years ago when I first joined this forum everyone was so gung ho about building a AMD K8 based machine...
> 
> Now the tables have turned... I think there are a lot of traders here



Yeah, I joined about a year into Intel's "reign" lol, and thats when I really started getting serious about computers, so I was under the impression that Intel had been on top for a long long time, even though I ended up building with an AMD, but I was on a budget, and AMDs are good budget computers


----------



## scooter

GSAV55 said:


> so if you're going to answer my question, wait till I post that.



doh


----------



## GSAV55

scooter said:


> doh



Its all good, ha.  Its up now btw


----------



## Mattu

GSAV55 said:


> Yeah, I joined about a year into Intel's "reign" lol, and thats when I really started getting serious about computers, so I was under the impression that Intel had been on top for a long long time, even though I ended up building with an AMD, but I was on a budget, and AMDs are good budget computers



hehe I found the original thread with poll "Which CPU brand do you choose"   and it looks like AMD wins: http://www.computerforum.com/4346-cpu-brand-do-you-choose.html


----------



## GSAV55

wowww, thats pretty crazy.  especially all the mac lovers on that post, everyone hates them now. lol.


----------



## Irishwhistle

scooter said:


> January 2009!



And unless Intel does something crazy they're be way on top by 2011 when Fusion comes out...


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Look at how long it took ATI to bounce back? Nearly 10 years right?


Not really... ATi completely dominated NVIDIA during the GeForce FX era; GeForce FX (which was an EPIC FAIL on NVIDIA's part) came out in 2003 and ATi teabagged them until late 2004 which I believe was when GeForce 6 came out... that would be about, what, 4 years ago?


----------



## darth yoda

StrangleHold said:


> This is a weird thread. NO AMD doesnt suck. I could go on here for paragraphs about how wrong that is.
> 
> Its like the Mouse and Elephant. Most of the time when the Elephant sees a Mouse it screams like a girl and runs into the wilderness. But every now and then it smashes it. Believe me the Elephant before long will scream like a girl and run off again.
> 
> AMD had Intel beat clock for clock for 6 years with (1/10th the money). Intel finally releases the Core 2 and beats them. And now AMD sucks (get real) because they instantly didnt release a processor to beat it. Were was Intel in those (6) years AMD had them beat? History always repeats itself.



well said, and i totally agree amd are just as good as intel (if thats what u were saying if not well i think so)!


----------

