What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
56 Comments
- trevorh, on 02/24/2009, -0/+31I am not a fan of AMD chips but I do hope that they can survive this recession. It would be a shame to leave intel without any major competition on the desktop market.
- SeaSideClown, on 02/24/2009, -5/+36there's no doubt that intel's current line of quad-core cpus are more powerful than amd's. But when factoring in price, AMD is superior.
- inactive, on 02/23/2009, -1/+20Well they got ATI back on its feet by reducing prices so hopefully they'll get back on their feet by mass producign some very cost effective chips.
- Dabellah, on 02/24/2009, -1/+18Yes ever since the Core2Duo was released AMD has fallen behind the race in processor superiority. Intel's chipsets are faster and the new i7 line is incredible. Being an avid gamer I like performance and while I own older AMD machines (my laptop is an AMD as well) I wouldn't even consider an AMD chip at the moment with the way the current processors are looking. Intel has the edge and it looks like it will be that way for at least another year.
- TheThirdLevel, on 02/24/2009, -2/+17Phenom II is exactly what AMD needed to jump back into the market.
The X3 720 BE is one of the best values on the market. - TheThirdLevel, on 02/24/2009, -3/+17Idk what you're smoking but Phenom II is actually nearly comparable to high end C2Qs and i7 with good graphics cards. (Under 10%..which is quite good considering the price)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940, ...
20fps lower than a 2.4 intel duo? I call bs.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940, ... - Spuy767, on 02/24/2009, -3/+16Gloating fail.
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -1/+14Anything that shows AMD's progressing in performance gets a digg by me.
Hmm...a BabyMan submission... - SeaSideClown, on 02/24/2009, -1/+11his pc must be loaded with pron... a dual core intel is no match for amd's phenom.
- winmywii, on 02/24/2009, -1/+10Digg for non fanboyism and speaking the truth. AMD was kicking ass for awhile, but now they have some catching up to do with the i7.
- Arramol, on 02/24/2009, -1/+9Honestly, I think the Phenom II looks like a very solid choice for a gamer. It's fast enough not to bottleneck while being less expensive than i7, leaving room in your budget for a faster video card, which will give you a better return on investment in terms of overall FPS than getting a top-of-the-line CPU and a less powerful GPU.
- tombkilla, on 02/24/2009, -3/+10Please, ars is obviously in intels pocket. Come back when you have two matching systems that both use DDR3 (as in the hardware out right now doesn't match intel for benchmarks, thanks vendors) AMD have always been known for their integrated memory controllers and when you have DDR3 against DDR3 I'll let AMD take a beating then.
You have to see it from the perspective of AMD, they were betrayed by the mobo vendors by sidestepping the AM2 socket voltage requirements and all of a sudden the phenom didn't even work. From a company which is know for having sockets that have been the same, and for interoperability, intel changes specs to keep vendors at their mercy and have a huge pr machine to enable their crap at number one.
I don't use AMD because its faster anyways. I use AMD because I haven't had a single BSOD since I switched about ten years ago.
Buried for tilted results and for coming from mbm. - TheThirdLevel, on 02/24/2009, -0/+6Considering this-
Phenom II X3 720 BE
+Overclocks like a demon, and easy as hell to do it
+Cheaper than most Core 2 Quads, FAR away from i7.
+Supports AM2+ and AM3, and DDR2 and DDR3
For that price, it's hard to beat the deal, especially since the FPS difference is negligible. - TheThirdLevel, on 02/24/2009, -1/+7You're quite dumb then.
Phenom II blows the ***** out of Core 2 Quad and Core i7 in price/performance for most users (excluding hardcore DVD encoders who need the i7 and gamers who require the best FPS possible). - eviljolly, on 02/24/2009, -1/+7Let's get a few things straight....
Phenom 1 != Phenom 2
Amount of RAM does not affect framerate unless it is being used
A 4870 is a comparable card, and a GTX260 can actually be faster in many situations, especially the overclocked models.
Drivers and system configuration mean everything. Benchmarks are only worth anything if both systems are running clean OS installs, updated drivers, and no 3rd party apps. - netant, on 02/24/2009, -0/+5Some gamers aren't rich. And most gamers understand money has to be dropped on the video card as well as the other components. There will be those who will skimp out on the CPU (hardly the most important part of game performance), and not get a mid to low end i7. Guess what, Phenom II market target is pegged to the previous generation Intel quad chips, and for the same price, AMD is faster than those chips. The gamer saves a couple hundred by not buying the SOTA CPU, which will barely make a noticeable difference in games, and put that savings into the video card.
Frankly, I'm extremely skeptical about the new games even being able to take advantage of the multiple cores. A gamer could probably get by with a dual core at the top of the Mhz range, save money there, and even notice a slight increase in performance over the Quads. The Quads are really about video transcoding, virtualization, and the fringe consumer that likes their mp3s ripped while watching a movie with no noticable slowdown.
I thought for sure my next machine was going to be Intel, but AMD sort of averted extinction with this chipline. But they aren't in good shape. Nor are you; you should have figured all of this out by merely reading the article. - SpacePoet, on 02/24/2009, -0/+4Yep, barely faster and double the price, a no-brainer if you ask me. Supporting AMD since the beginning, Intel needs this competition to keep their prices reasonable.
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -0/+3The only modern game i've played that pushed my cpu to the limit was GTA IV. And this is with a Athlon X2 2.6ghz. Most gamers don't even need quad cores much less Core i7s.
- SpacePoet, on 02/24/2009, -0/+3You have 600 bucks for a chip? The AMD 940 is $225 and is probably close to 90% as fast. You may want the i7 but most reasonable people will buy the better deal.
/not really sure what the i7 is running, but i know its high - Linh, on 02/24/2009, -0/+3hrm, almost makes me wish I went AMD... my only upgrade path is hopefully a cheap Q9xxx series down the line (Q6600 now).
- spritom, on 02/24/2009, -0/+3AMD had some good stuff going there for a while, then lagged while Intel had two big performance hits with the C2D and i7. The new Phenom II's are a great introductory chip to this family getting closer than AMD's been in a while, but there's still work to be done if they want to pull right in line with the i7 across the board or exceed it.
Thing is, Intel isn't one to sit around and do nothing.
ah...it's a good day to be a customer. - spritom, on 02/24/2009, -2/+5RTFA. On the gaming AMD was either within single percentage points or beat the i7. If the last dozen years or more play through, AMD made a very good introductory chip to this family and can easily scale up.
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -1/+4The Intels weren't overclocked. The AMD was running at absolute full tilt.
If the Intels had been overclocked they would have shat on the AMD.
That said, Phenom II is competitive, just not necessarily better. - netant, on 02/24/2009, -0/+2Because you're gettting snowed by the overclocking. The Phenom can only match the lower end i7 when its overclocked. Also, I don't recall, but I think they took significant measures to reach that overclock state. But the Phenom is targeted to the previous generation Intel Quads, and there, it performs better at the same price. Not such a bad thing in this day and age of depression economics.
So tell me, how many gamers custom cool their case in with flourinet or liquid nitro to OC both their CPU & GPU? - warriorscot, on 02/24/2009, -0/+2I'm in the same boat. But I think its going to be a while before its actually needed as performance wise I have no complaints about my Q6600 and its one of the last on the list of things I would upgrade in my rig.
- TheThirdLevel, on 02/24/2009, -1/+3Won't completely agree with that.
Phenom I had a few bugs, and let's face it - the high end Core 2 Duos were pretty godlike chips.
However, considering he's talking about a 2.4ghz "intel" which means nothing, he's a moron anyway. - onyxraven1979, on 02/24/2009, -0/+2From 2000 to 2006 I wouldn't touch anything from Intel. Thn came the Core 2 Duo, and the game changed for me. I would love to start using AMD stuff again, as it was always cheaper and better, but for the past 3 or so years, Intel has been beating up on them pretty good.
My last 6 Processors:
MOS Technology 6502 (Atari)
Intel 486 at 33 Mhz (The last off the shelf computer I ever bought, the rest I built)
Intel Pentium I
AMD Athlon 800
AMD Athlon 64 3000 (still in use as for email, internet, MS Office)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (system built in Dec 2006 and with only 1 graphics card update, still able to play anything I have thrown at it. I must say, the Core 2 Duo is the best chip I ever used so far). - BabyWookie, on 02/24/2009, -1/+3As a gamer, If you like to play your games at a decent res and high detail settings, your choice of CPU is not that important. If you're on a certain budget, you are much better off getting a Phenom II and a GTX285 GPU, than a Core i7 and a GTX260 GPU. My last rig had a DDR-1 based, Opteron 185 CPU (2.6 GHz dual-core). Still, in all the games I played, it was my 8800GTX GPU that was the bottleneck. I was able to play every thing but Crysis at 1920x1200. I didn't see a reason to upgrade from the Socket 939 platform, until my motherboard finally crocked.
- SpacePoet, on 02/24/2009, -0/+2I am so sick of ATI's underperformance. Besides, they were always pretty cheap to begin with. I tried for years to support them and probably have purchased over a dozen GPU's which only one every really impressed me. After getting my first Geforce (9800GTX+) i will never go back. Still love and will continue to support AMD, though. Got the 940 last month and my rig screams.
- Giga, on 02/24/2009, -2/+4"Thing is, Intel isn't one to sit around and do nothing."
Yes they are. Just not while AMD is actively poking them in the arse with a cattle prod. The Pentium 4 line was a good example of Intel getting lazy. - fwertz, on 02/24/2009, -4/+6Gaming is marginally more GPU intensive so please don't knock their CPU lineup for lower FPS in games.
@RhymeTime: Cute. - Eezyville, on 02/24/2009, -2/+3Researchers
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -1/+2Current games need a fast cpu just as much. GTA4 or crysis both benefit huge if given a faster cpu to work with.
GTA4 in fact is cpu reliant, gpu wise it's not demanding at all. Crysis taxes both at maximum settings. With an ati 4850 on maximum settings in crysis I was getting 28fps on average with a core2 e7200 duo running at 2.5hgz.
With a core 2 e7400 overclocked to 3.3ghz, I was getting 33fps average with same gpu. - Giga, on 02/24/2009, -2/+3"I'm not gloating. I have a MUCH WORSE machine than my buddies Phenom 1."
Where the hell did you get that idea? Apart from the ridiculous amount of RAM in his system, I'd prefer your specs any day. You claim to be "showing up that your system is worse on average" but list a superior chip and graphics card with higher benchmark results. Gloating fail fits well here. - inactive, on 02/24/2009, -0/+1Just get a cpu and gpu to match the current console's power and you're ok.
- Dgen_X, on 02/24/2009, -0/+1Not needing the absolute top of the line parts (I had originally planned to use, and purchased an Athlon x2 4850e) I scooped up a Phenom X3 8650 and HD4850 bundle from AMD's training site for $150, added 4gb of memory and a 780g motherboard and I have been more than happy with it. In total it cost me less than $400 (re-used case, dvd drive, and 450w psu)
But to put it in perspective...it was replacing a machine using the Athlon 64 2800+, NV 6600 and 1gb of memory - Nickolassc, on 02/24/2009, -0/+1Why freon and not liquid nitrogen, and holy ***** Richard Simmons is on night line
- offycakes, on 02/24/2009, -0/+0Ahh, well I was also wondering why they didn't overclock the Intel's (if only for comparitive purposes), although I guess the price difference is also worth noting.
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -5/+5On another note, 91 diggs to the front page? I thought digg fixed the power user problem.
- Dputiger, on 02/25/2009, -0/+0I have to admit, the idea that I'm in Intel's pocket (as the author of the review) is hilarious :P
- IIECONII, on 02/24/2009, -3/+2I'm not gloating. I have a MUCH WORSE machine than my buddies Phenom 1. It's true that Phenom I and Phenom II are NOT the same thing, but extrapolating out the current framerate comparision between his current Phenom and my older dual core 2.4 Intel, you could see how I would think that the Phenom II is going to perform underwhelmingly.
It's NOT a "gloating fail" as you so horribly put it, I was giving my specs to compare and SHOW YOU that my machine is worse than his, and on average, I'm getting 15-20 fps more than his. We both have the LATEST DRIVERS and he has a fresh install as of 3 weeks ago. The only reason I was telling the size of my resolution is to show you that I'm at a HIGHER RESOLUTION than he is.
Don't be such a smug ***** and think that I want to wave my epenis around Digg, because I can assure you I have much better things to do than to sit online and tell everyone how big my TV or my computer is. I was using it for comparative analysis at the most. - abrasion, on 02/24/2009, -5/+4I don't want AMD to die, I loved my X2 and my T-Bird and my Duron and my Opteron.
I also like my ATI 4870.
Still, I wouldn't touch any of AMD's stuff at the moment. - Spuy767, on 02/24/2009, -2/+1Wow, are you a computer engineer by trade? Of course the faster clock speed chip runs a SINGLE THREADED game faster. But being slower on multi threaded apps and by extension multi tasking makes the Phenom an inferior architecture.
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -11/+9Meh. I'd rather have the i7,
- offycakes, on 02/24/2009, -4/+2I'm confused, the tests in the review seem to show that AMD's 240$ processor is on par or slightly better than Intel's 1000$ processor in a multitude of tests (although during some application tests there was some definite latency). However, in the conclusion they seem to spell out that AMD's processor is still in a poor state and AMD's future is questionable.
In summary, why does the conclusion seem to differ from the test results? - schrutefan, on 02/24/2009, -8/+5Don't overclock the Intel chips - that would be unfair.
- gimpy04, on 02/24/2009, -5/+2Those tests don't add up. I can think of 4 other websites that reviewed the same chips and came to very different conclusions on those same tests. Especially gaming.
To put it simply, even the C2Q's are better than the new phenoms on a clock-for-clock basis.
I've seen some BS reviews in my day, but this one comes out towards the top of the list. - abrasion, on 02/24/2009, -6/+1I overclock my machines and I'm not on some dopey poor uni student budget.
I'm not gonna blow my cash on an i7 but I don't need to buy dirt cheap either.
My condolences for your thin wallet. - TSCheredar, on 02/23/2009, -11/+6AMD seems to be nailing it with the gamer market, which is exactly who they should be targeting. Who else but a gamer is going to custom build a god box at peak performance (even if that peak is minuscule)?
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -8/+2Flaming is marginally more CPU retentive so please don't ***** their GPU mockup for tower TPS in dames.
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is