AMD Phenom II = Loser

[Ack-Ack]

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


ack-ack

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Bad news since it means Intel can continue overpricing their product freely with no competition.

[1701E]

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.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

AMD is still competition.  Not everyone is willing to pay 200-1300$ for a CPU.

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.

[Reschke]

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.

[bongaroo]

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.

[1701E]

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.

[Fulmar]

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.

[RELIC]

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

[TilDeath]

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.

[Reschke]

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.

[Animl]

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

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>

[drdeathx]

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

[Fulmar]

Did I read that right?  drdeath is telling us to think before we speak?