|
Finally it’s here .... AMD - PHENOM (QUAD CORE) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by djbruuen
looks to be more expensive than the intel q6600 chip...
the whole reason why i switched to AMD 6 years back, was because they offered equivalent quality to intel for a far cheaper price. Sadly that seems to be over and i've gone back to intel. |
Ditto. Always been an AMD guy whenever I've bough a PC for this very reason, but likley with my latest to come purchase, I'll be switching over to Intel now.
Alas.
| quote: | Originally posted by ÖZmözis
I have an AMD XP +2200, still works like a champ!! I've had it for 4 years... |
Aww. *Jealous*
The new compy I want is replacing my current AMD XP 3000+
It just isnt cutting it. Its about 3-4 years old. I last reformatted it 6-8 months ago, I defrag it at least once a month, usually ever week or 2 depending.
But shes just TOO ing slow. My frustration point has reach a level ive decided its time to re-invest in a new, better, faster compy! |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
The new compy I want is replacing my current AMD XP 3000+
It just isnt cutting it. Its about 3-4 years old. I last reformatted it 6-8 months ago, I defrag it at least once a month, usually ever week or 2 depending.
But shes just TOO ing slow. My frustration point has reach a level ive decided its time to re-invest in a new, better, faster compy! |
What are you doing that its so slow? How much memory do you have, and what OS are you using?
I am running an Athlon XP 2800, and I find its just fine for almost any use. Really the only thing I do not do with it now, is play games. |
|
|
| MikeyN |
yeah, wtf?
i'm on a Athlon XP 2700+ @2.16Ghz 1GB of ram, and mine runs beautifully. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
But shes just TOO ing slow. |
Must be all the pr0n. :toothless |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
AMD Procs are better for audio production |
No.
| quote: | Originally posted by SgtFoo
AMD processors have been quoted to be better for floating point logic while Intels are not as good with floating point numbers. |
No.
Well, yes - they have been "quoted to be" better, but those assertions were always completely unsubstantiated.
I was an AMD fanboy for many years, but there's just no denying that the Athlon is an inferior design to the Intel Core in almost every respect. Sometimes the Athlons can keep up, but they never see more than a marginal gain over the Cores. Plus, they're much higher power, ty if you're trying to ditch the fans. |
|
|
| Engine9 |
omg fap fap fap
memory > processor speed |
|
|
| Surreal JRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by E2EK1EL
oh no ... seems like AMD didn't top Intel this time. (So far)
|
"Jochen Polster emphasised that the Phenom quad-core processor does not represent a high-end model for now. AMD plans to price the Phenom models markedly lower than Intel's quad-core models."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11...weaves_its_web/ |
|
|
| AustralianGQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Playa24_7
Apparently it doesn't out perform Intel's chips at all, so Intel has nothing to worry about I'm sure |
ive already seen comparison charts and reviews between amd and intel. and intel still easily beats amd.
pretty sad that its a year or 2 later and amd comes out with new cpus that still fall short of intels lineup. if amd keeps this up, they will be bankrupt. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
What are you doing that its so slow? How much memory do you have, and what OS are you using?
I am running an Athlon XP 2800, and I find its just fine for almost any use. Really the only thing I do not do with it now, is play games. |
1GB of ram
XP is the op system. |
|
|
| Surreal JRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by AustralianGQ
ive already seen comparison charts and reviews between amd and intel. and intel still easily beats amd.
pretty sad that its a year or 2 later and amd comes out with new cpus that still fall short of intels lineup. if amd keeps this up, they will be bankrupt. |
Dude, read the comment above you! :p
AMD never intended nor stipulated that this chip is to compete with Intel's high end offering, and have priced it accordingly. Value wise, AMD is a good choice for a mid-range system.
Also it's worth mentioning that AMD's current offering, as well as future CPUs planned for 2009 will work on your existing AM2 or AM2+ based motherboards. Intel seems to be releasing a zillion non-forwards compatible chipsets, and even their x38 platform will be incompatible with their next gen CPUs (codename Nehalem) to be released 2nd half of next year.
Take from this what you will... If you want the most performance and have money to spend on future component upgrades, then you currently will want to go with Intel. If you are building a low to midrange system and want the most value for your money and the ability the simply pop in future CPUs into your existing AM2/AM2+ based motherboard, then go with AMD. |
|
|
| E2EK1EL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Surreal JRS
"Jochen Polster emphasised that the Phenom quad-core processor does not represent a high-end model for now. AMD plans to price the Phenom models markedly lower than Intel's quad-core models."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11...weaves_its_web/ |
that is true ... the top of the line ver is not out. Very good point. |
|
|
|
|
