Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Ack-Ack on January 08, 2009, 04:25:08 AM
-
Looks like AMD has a major stink bomb on it's hand with the Phenom II. Slower than both the Core 2 and Core i7 but at least it's faster than AMD's last stink bomb, the Phenom.
From [H]ardOCP's review
The Phenom II performance speaks for itself. It loses to its old nemesis, the Core 2, which I think some folks will be surprised by. The Phenom II loses to the Core i7, which I think was to be expected. The Phenom II is a loser.
Review (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==)
ack-ack
-
Bad news since it means Intel can continue overpricing their product freely with no competition.
-
Bad news since it means Intel can continue overpricing their product freely with no competition.
AMD is still competition. Not everyone is willing to pay 200-1300$ for a CPU. :D
-
AMD is still competition. Not everyone is willing to pay 200-1300$ for a CPU. :D
I'm afraid that AMD currently has no product that can compete with intel in anything above $90 price range.
This only leaves lowly low celerons to play with.
-
A monopoly in this situation is an extremely bad thing but it is going to end up happening since AMD can't seem to get its head out of its arse. AMD has always done very well selling cheap processors with good results technologically and been competitive with Intel who doesn't have the extremely low margins that AMD has always had. But they have to get something that can compete to get users like myself to move back to their product and away from Intel. Right now they will not get my business unless I can find something good and cheap to upgrade my backup system that is several years old now but I will be checking the Intel side first since they just work like advertised and I don't have to tweak here and there. I don't like tweaking like I used to; I just want something that works.
-
Intel also has the fact that if you want a dual-boot PC with Mac OSX and Windows you need an Intel chipset.
I've always enjoyed AMD since I'm never willing to buy the newest processor on the market but usually one thats been on the market for about a year. Gives time for quality issues to be sorted and prices to drop. AMD was winning out in that regards but like everyone is saying they at least need something to compete or Intel will run amok.
-
I'm afraid that AMD currently has no product that can compete with intel in anything above $90 price range.
This only leaves lowly low celerons to play with.
True, but the PC industry is not all gamers. The everyday users will likely still want cheap. I hope either AMD gets one great CPU, or Intel lowers prices, I hate 200$ CPUs.
My AMD X2 for 65$ is rather nice, although I have not used an Intel based game-rig...ever. Would be interesting to try.
If it plays all my games as well as it does, I'm happy. :D
-
Looks like AMD is going to have to be the old AMD of 2000 and prior. I'm not sure if Intel is getting too far ahead or what. AMD might just have to survive in the budget market like they used to with their K6 processors and older processors. Which is fine since most computers are in the $300-700 range these days anyways. On the cheapo machines, both desktop and laptops, AMD seems to be on every brand.
-
That review compares two $1K plus Intel processors against the $275 AMD. Yes Intel is still the king but not everyone has $2K (or more) to spend on a system. Anandtech has a bit different take:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492 (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492)
-
Bad news since it means Intel can continue overpricing their product freely with no competition.
Intel never worried about its pricing ever. Look at their QX processors, the high end is triple of anything else out there in the consumer markets. AMD has sold off its manufacturing of processors and will concentrate on design. This will free up cash flow for engineering and we will see if it actually will improve in their processor design and the final designs ability to compair and compete with an equal Intel processor.
-
I absolutely loved the K6 series of chips they built back then. Absolutely great price and performance compared to the P-200MMX chip and the flipping chips fit in the same sockets as well. That was the kicker for me.
-
That review compares two $1K plus Intel processors against the $275 AMD. Yes Intel is still the king but not everyone has $2K (or more) to spend on a system. Anandtech has a bit different take:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492 (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492)
Didn't read the link but, >IMO< Intel does better math with less errors. Kind of the old saying, "Do you want it fast, or do you want it right?" . Intel has always been more stable, to beat the best you have to be better. Faster with more errors is not fast\better *to me*. That's kinda like overclocking to get more speed even though the errors actually stalls things. Which is why the turtle won the race. :)
That said,..last AMD chip I used was a K-6 350. It was good, decent speed compared to an $Intel$, and I was quiet amazed\happy with it. But since then they seemed to have issues either with the chip itself, or the MB used. They seem to be faster for the $, but not better....IMO. Point being if it works for you that's great, whatever gets you in the game. AMD presented an opportunity for those not willing\able to pay for Intel to get in the game. They made the difference between no computer, and blowing your face out having fun on one. :)
Personally, until AMD actually makes a chip better, not faster, better, then I will stay with Intel as much as I can afford to. And lets face it, affordability is the real issue, and that's ok too. But IMO Intel is better quality.
No offense intended to anyone who runs AMD, just my own personal opinion. <shrug>
-
Looks like AMD has a major stink bomb on it's hand with the Phenom II. Slower than both the Core 2 and Core i7 but at least it's faster than AMD's last stink bomb, the Phenom.
From [H]ardOCP's review
Review (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==)
ack-ack
ACK ACK think before you speak. Phenom was not rated as a STINK BOMB.
I have AMD 9850 quad core... Totally flawless. At the time it was less expensive than Intel and I have had good luck with AMD so I decided to stay. I understand Intel outperforms AMD so I won't try to argue a losing subject. All I can say is I am very happy with the performance and it has been flawless.I am overclocked to 3.0G, and run a decent box. We will see where AMD takes this.
When the intro of the Quad cores(Phenom) by AMD came about, there was a drastic price reduction from Intel. Especially on Q6660, E8400 and other Duo cores. So... Ack Ack.. thank AMD for the lower prices from Intel.
AMD's first venture in quad core actually had "decent" reviews. It was nice to see them take a small step in the right direction. The problem now is AMD is definitely in dissaray. Business is down 25% and they lost so much marketshare. I think they have been operating at a loss for at least 3 years. Lately they have been spinning some of the company off to raise cash flow for development. Is this the beggining to the end??? We will see.
Intel's stock dropped today as their business is down 23%. All the PC builders are buying lower cheaper CPU's and overstocked product and not big orders on newer tecnology. This is where the companies larger margins(profit) lies.
The 7i seems to be the bomb now but you better root for AMD. If they fail your new processors will be priced outrageously.
-
ACK ACK think before you speak. Phenom was not rated as a STINK BOMB.
AMD Phenom was everything but 'flawless' and yes, it was a bomb and not all that commercially successful as well.
Here are some snippets of reviews from when the Phenom was released.
AnandTech Review of AMD's Phenom CPU (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=11)
AnandTech: “Inevitably some of these Phenoms will sell, even though Intel is currently faster and offers better overall price-performance (does anyone else feel weird reading that?). Honestly the only reason we can see to purchase a Phenom is if you currently own a Socket-AM2 motherboard; you may not get the same performance as a Core 2 Quad, but it won’t cost as much since you should be able to just drop in a Phenom if you have BIOS support.”
If you were looking for a changing of the guard today it's just not going to happen. Phenom is, clock for clock, slower than Core 2 and the chips aren't yet yielding well enough to boost clock speeds above what Intel is capable of. While AMD just introduced its first 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz quad-core CPUs today, Intel previewed its first 3.2GHz quad-core chips. We were expecting Intel to retain the high end performance crown, but also expected AMD to chip away at the lower end of the quad-core market - today's launch confirms that Intel is still the king of the quad-core market.
Hexus.net's review (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=16)
HEXUS.net: “Irrespective of whether you think that Intel’s glue-dual-cores-together approach is architecturally inelegant, the fact remains that Core 2 Quad - in both its Kentsfield and new-and-improved Penryn flavours - is a fast and efficient processor in practically every way.”
Extremetech's review (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2218309,00.asp)
Extremetech: “The question used to be—will AMD’s new CPUs help them regain the performance crown they lost after Intel’s launch of the Core 2 Duo? The answer is clearly ‘no.’”
PC Perspective's review (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=483&type=expert&pid=12)
PC Perspective: “I have no doubts that many readers of this review fill find it disappointing that AMD’s Phenom processors were not competitive with Intel’s high-end quad-core processors. It’s hard to hide my own disappointment as I personally really wanted AMD to do well - competition makes the world go ’round and prices go down; always good things in my book. The Phenom launch isn’t a total loss though thanks to the aggressive pricing that AMD is pinning on these initial CPUs; that will appeal to many enthusiasts. ”
The product isn't successful if the only selling point is its low price and not quality. It seems like AMD is starting to use Cyrus' business model of releasing sub-par CPUs at a low price instead of making a quality product.
Okay, there is one CPU that the Phenom was slightly better than, and that was the Athlon X2 64 6400+ although the Phenom 9500 and 9600 were slower (8.4% and 4.3% respectively) than the Athlon X2 64 6400+.
ack-ack
-
Did I read that right? drdeath is telling us to think before we speak?
-
Did I read that right? drdeath is telling us to think before we speak?
Extreme gamers, what can you do? :lol
ack-ack
-
Did I read that right? drdeath is telling us to think before we speak?
Yep. Maybe he'll post another useless program with a hacked DLL file? :devil
-
I understand Intel outperforms AMD so I won't try to argue a losing subject.
Think this is a quote from my previous reply? Yup. I re-checked and it is. Guess we need to hope AMD goes out of business so future processors from Intel can be about double what they should be.
If you look at the comparisons to the Q9400, the New Phenoms did nicely in most tests i've seen but they do not compete with the i7 series. This is a "nice step" for AMD considering the status of the company and market conditions. Again, AMD is keeping the prices down from Intel. These tests and reviews are interpreted different ways. This can be a step in the right direction but Intel is still far ahead. Most gamers are huge Intel fans and they should be but I will say again, hope AMD levels the playing field next time. There are many reviews saying the same thing Ack.
Ack, still waiting on what the published test results you or your company did on that AGP 3650 ATI card. :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Intel's stock dropped today as their business is down 23%. All the PC builders are buying lower cheaper CPU's and overstocked product and not big orders on newer tecnology. This is where the companies larger margins(profit) lies.
Profits are down not because of a loss of market share... that actually went up. The profits are down because of end user sales. Simply put, not as many PC sales because of the economy.
With Intel coming out with the i7 doing what AMD has been doing for years and surpassing them at their own game out of the gate, putting the memory controller on the processor instead of the Northbridge and forgoing the FSB. There is a lot to be said on for that and I cant wait to see the next Intel release. Oh did I mention the fact of no problems and how much of speed demons the i7's are. AMD has never done that.
IMHO buying an AMD processor over an Intel is like purchasing a car, you can get a Chevy (AMD) or a Caddy (Intel) they are both GM (processors) but there is still no compairing the two other then they are autos
-
Think this is a quote from my previous reply? Yup. I re-checked and it is. Guess we need to hope AMD goes out of business so future processors from Intel can be about double what they should be.
If you look at the comparisons to the Q9400, the New Phenoms did nicely in most tests i've seen but they do not compete with the i7 series. This is a "nice step" for AMD considering the status of the company and market conditions. Again, AMD is keeping the prices down from Intel. These tests and reviews are interpreted different ways. This can be a step in the right direction but Intel is still far ahead. Most gamers are huge Intel fans and they should be but I will say again, hope AMD levels the playing field next time. There are many reviews saying the same thing Ack.
The Phenom II caught everyone by surprise when it was shown to be slower than the Core 2 line and obviously gets soundly trounced by the i7 series. If the Phenom II is so good, why does it lag behind the Core 2 series?
Ack, still waiting on what the published test results you or your company did on that AGP 3650 ATI card. :rofl :rofl :rofl
Our test results were published internally. Unless you work for Square Enix, you're not going to see them. But if you like, you can check our website and see the list of cards we recommend and support. In that list, you'll see the ATI 3xxx line as one of our recommended cards to use with any of our PC titles and MMO games.
ack-ack
-
The Phenom II caught everyone by surprise when it was shown to be slower than the Core 2 line and obviously gets soundly trounced by the i7 series. If the Phenom II is so good, why does it lag behind the Core 2 series?
Looking at the pricing, the Phenom II appears to be an ok, not the best, but an ok deal now. Intel is probably going to do another price drop towards the end of the month. If they do, it's not so competitive. And comparing it to the i7, especially when you look at cost is like comparing a Mustang to a Lambo. They both may be cars but performance and pricing are completely different.
-
Looking at the pricing, the Phenom II appears to be an ok, not the best, but an ok deal now. Intel is probably going to do another price drop towards the end of the month. If they do, it's not so competitive. And comparing it to the i7, especially when you look at cost is like comparing a Mustang to a Lambo. They both may be cars but performance and pricing are completely different.
There should be a drop this month, there are a few slated releases which should effect some prices. Glad you decided to get on the car comparison wagon WELCOME
-
There should be a drop this month, there are a few slated releases which should effect some prices. Glad you decided to get on the car comparison wagon WELCOME
First thing that popped into my head.
-
ACK ACK think before you speak. Phenom was not rated as a STINK BOMB.
I found this at the Official Internet Hardware Review site:
The Bomb... Intel Core I7
................ Intel Core2Duo
.
.
Average
.
.
.
.
Stink Bomb... AMD Phenom
It's official.
-
Our test results were published internally. Unless you work for Square Enix, you're not going to see them. But if you like, you can check our website and see the list of cards we recommend and support. In that list, you'll see the ATI 3xxx line as one of our recommended cards to use with any of our PC titles and MMO games
So, I guess you tested it with only your PC titles an MMO games thus not seeing any vista issues. There are still vista issues out there although seems they have rectified some of them. The 3650 really did not outperform the 2600.
-
So, I guess you tested it with only your PC titles an MMO games thus not seeing any vista issues. There are still vista issues out there although seems they have rectified some of them. The 3650 really did not outperform the 2600.
You assume an awful lot don't you?
-
You think ATI has Vista issues? NVidia is the King of issues with Vista at the moment. It has taken NVidia 5 driver releases to fix problems with DirectShow. One of thier drivers would crash Internet Explorer if IE had to fork off a Windows Media Player to play something.
Right now, neither of them are perfect, but ATI is actually ahead of NVidia in the Vista driver department.
Granted, I do not hang around with *extreme* gamers. I prefer talking to engineers as they usually have more on the ball than any end user does.
NVidia is still playing catch up with ATI in the area of stable Vista drivers.
As far as AMD goes, they are still a long way behind Intel in the performance market. And the original Phenom was a disaster. A nasty bug in the first gen parts caused all types of performance issues. It hurt AMD badly. AMD's best bet is to find a niche market and try to dominate it. They are too far behind in the performance market now to catch Intel.
If Intel wants to own a market, they usually will, if not through product, they can do it through the sheer amount of cash they can throw at something. And thier stock went down due to them completely missing the guess as to what thier revenues would be. Even with the slump they managed to pick up more marketshare.
If you think that slump in sales hurt Intel, wait until you see AMD's numbers. I hope AMD can hang in there, but they are fooling themselves if they think they can go toe-to-toe with Intel.
-
no kiddin' skuzzy. Hopin for an AMD win. Just built my bro a system with an AMD proc.
I friggin' HATE intel.
-
AMD Phenom was everything but 'flawless' and yes, it was a bomb and not all that commercially successful as well.
Here are some snippets of reviews from when the Phenom was released.
AnandTech Review of AMD's Phenom CPU (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=11)
Hexus.net's review (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=16)
Extremetech's review (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2218309,00.asp)
PC Perspective's review (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=483&type=expert&pid=12)
The product isn't successful if the only selling point is its low price and not quality. It seems like AMD is starting to use Cyrus' business model of releasing sub-par CPUs at a low price instead of making a quality product.
Okay, there is one CPU that the Phenom was slightly better than, and that was the Athlon X2 64 6400+ although the Phenom 9500 and 9600 were slower (8.4% and 4.3% respectively) than the Athlon X2 64 6400+.
ack-ack
Not wasting time posting other reviews that basically said what I replied earlier. Some reviews were negative some we upbeat. None of the reviews said AMD beat Intel but some said AMD was going in the right direction.
Again, if you saw my reply earlier in this post and researched the Intel prices prior to the original Phenom release, Intel's prices were to say the least, rediculouly high. When the Phenoms released, the prices dropped. With the Phenom III release, the prices of Intel will drop more. I think Tildeath said price drops will happen end of this month.
Again, I am not arguing AMD outperforms Intel. They don't. The testing in almost every category except programs like photoshop pretty much met the Q9400. Most testing was not done against the Q9650 because its a $600 processor. Looks like AMD performed nicely against same priced Intel processors. Now the i7 series is a different story. They smoke AMD no question about it. At least AMD has gotten this far. Hopefully the Fusion brand will step up to the i7.
The product isn't successful if the only selling point is its low price and not quality.
None of these reviews either negative or positive used the verbage "quality". They pretty much reviewed performance. AMD needs to stress price point seeing they trail Intel. Until they catch up, the price needs to be lower. It is simple(Value pricing concept).
Okay, there is one CPU that the Phenom was slightly better than, and that was the Athlon X2 64 6400+ although the Phenom 9500 and 9600 were slower (8.4% and 4.3% respectively) than the Athlon X2 64 6400+.
Looks like the New Phenom III tested very close to the Q9400 and beat the Q6600 in the reviews I saw.
-
You think ATI has Vista issues? NVidia is the King of issues with Vista at the moment. It has taken NVidia 5 driver releases to fix problems with DirectShow. One of thier drivers would crash Internet Explorer if IE had to fork off a Windows Media Player to play something.
Right now, neither of them are perfect, but ATI is actually ahead of NVidia in the Vista driver department.
Granted, I do not hang around with *extreme* gamers. I prefer talking to engineers as they usually have more on the ball than any end user does.
NVidia is still playing catch up with ATI in the area of stable Vista drivers.
As far as AMD goes, they are still a long way behind Intel in the performance market. And the original Phenom was a disaster. A nasty bug in the first gen parts caused all types of performance issues. It hurt AMD badly. AMD's best bet is to find a niche market and try to dominate it. They are too far behind in the performance market now to catch Intel.
If Intel wants to own a market, they usually will, if not through product, they can do it through the sheer amount of cash they can throw at something. And thier stock went down due to them completely missing the guess as to what thier revenues would be. Even with the slump they managed to pick up more marketshare.
If you think that slump in sales hurt Intel, wait until you see AMD's numbers. I hope AMD can hang in there, but they are fooling themselves if they think they can go toe-to-toe with Intel.
yesterday Intel was in the $14 range per share AMD $2.22... EEEEK
-
yesterday Intel was in the $14 range per share AMD $2.22... EEEEK
Apples to Oranges. Like Google trades at $3xx a share and Exxon the world's largest company by revenue trades at $75.
-
I found this at the Official Internet Hardware Review site:
The Bomb... Intel Core I7
................ Intel Core2Duo
.
.
Average
.
.
.
.
Stink Bomb... AMD Phenom
It's official.
The official?? Are you officially declaring them the official??? Who is the official? Do we have an official review? Officially speaking, who is the officiial of the official reviewer? Let's review this again.... OOOPs its an official review again!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Apples to Oranges. Like Google trades at $3xx a share and Exxon the world's largest company by revenue trades at $75.
Now I am real confused
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Bongaroo, when the Phenom 9650 and 9850 came out the price was lower than Intel. Memory serves me correct 9850 was $235 then 3 months later was $175. Q6660 was $275 then went to $199. So at the time it was a same situation as the new Phenoms. Intel outperformed AMD lower priced. These guys look at raw statistics which they should. If I were to do it all over again, I would have gone Intel although I am very happy with my AMD 9850. Seems AMD bashers just like drama but AMD needs to get it goin or they may not be around and to keep Intel's pricing where it needs to be . If AMD goes away you will see pricing at a premium.
-
So, I guess you tested it with only your PC titles an MMO games thus not seeing any vista issues. There are still vista issues out there although seems they have rectified some of them. The 3650 really did not outperform the 2600.
And like most things, your guess would be incorrect. Our hardware testing methods go beyond game compatibility and our TQA department works closely with both ATI and Nvidia engineers during the testing period.
ack-ack
-
See Rule #2
-
AMD is still competition. Not everyone is willing to pay 200-1300$ for a CPU. :D
If you're a gamer $200 is a drop in the bucket. I never buy the newest fastest anything. I always buy 1-2 steps behind and get it dirt cheap. Heck, you can go out an buy an "old used" tower with a Pent 2-3g with 1g mem for about $200, that will pull this game easy as long as the graphics card is decent. Just switch your hardware over.
AH does NOT require a monster computer, it just has to be setup\streamlined for gaming, I ran AH on a PIII 450 not great but it ran just good enough to fly. I think Grim or Jordie did that too, just for giggles and to make a point.
I have never once bought a packaged computer, they always seem to have 2nd-last self items in them. Some over stock they bought of something that didn't sell on the shelves.
I'm not *buying* another AMD until they get their ducks in a row. They are starting to remind me of 3dfx cards, who btw don't exist anymore. <shrug>
That said, if we're talking package new, affordability is a justifiable issue to consider.
-
If you're a gamer $200 is a drop in the bucket. I never buy the newest fastest anything. I always buy 1-2 steps behind and get it dirt cheap. Heck, you can go out an buy an "old used" tower with a Pent 2-3g with 1g mem for about $200, that will pull this game easy as long as the graphics card is decent. Just switch your hardware over.
AH does NOT require a monster computer, it just has to be setup\streamlined for gaming, I ran AH on a PIII 450 not great but it ran just good enough to fly. I think Grim or Jordie did that too, just for giggles and to make a point.
I have never once bought a packaged computer, they always seem to have 2nd-last self items in them. Some over stock they bought of something that didn't sell on the shelves.
I'm not *buying* another AMD until they get their ducks in a row. They are starting to remind me of 3dfx cards, who btw don't exist anymore. <shrug>
That said, if we're talking package new, affordability is a justifiable issue to consider.
There is a handful of us who use Phenom processors and we have absolutlely no problems. I haven't seen anyone complain about them. Aces High is not like "Crysis" or games that are highly CPU and Graphic intensive. Any Phenom will work perfectly with AH. If I were a benchmarker or played these CPU intensive games I would definitely spend more and go with the i7 series. All these guys are all over how badly Intel outperforms AMD and like AMD makes a CPU that is slow. There's no truth to this but with these processor speeds(Duo and Quad) Intel is just faster than AMD plain and simple. AMD is slower by the comparisons only. These Phenoms perform nicely and are MORE THAN ADEQUATE for the average user. Some reviews act like the Phenoms are slow as a 10 year old processor which is far from the truth. The readers buy into this. With the future technology, faster systems can be a better choice in the long run. The Phenom and Phenom II series will handle just about anything out there. Is it as fast as Intel? NO. In most applications, the average end user probably wouldn't see a difference.The performance on AMD's compared processor to Intels is basically the same. The 940 really has the same numbers as the Q9400 and in some cases better numbers. It does lack a tad compared to the Q9400 in programs like photoshop but it will run these programs nicely. Make no mistake, AMD makes a nice product and is priced right.