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.
83 Comments
- ProKid, on 12/03/2008, -0/+39The Core i7 is looking too good right now, but I'm still pulling for AMD
- sanosuke001, on 12/03/2008, -3/+40I stay loyal mainly to help them stay in business. If AMD dies, we're all *****.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -5/+31I shall always be loyal to AMD.
- lokee73, on 12/03/2008, -2/+26AMD earned my loyalty back when I didn't have any money and they didn't try to rape me for a decent chip.
I know they've almost always lagged in performance, but I'll never turn my back on them. - jeremy217, on 12/03/2008, -1/+12I have used AMD on my last 2 computers I have built.
1. I am not a fan boy.. I could care less
2. It's cheaper than Intel and when you look at speed test certain cpu's (the ones I buy) are as fast or almost as fast as intel.
3. AMD will continue to get my business because of their price and good product - darkfate, on 12/03/2008, -0/+10The overclocking isn't the greatest and the motherboard required is way too expensive now (i7). I know the prices will drop, but if the new Phenom's are the right price, then I think AMD might pull in some market share. The problem with AMD is that they always come out with awesome chips, but always seem to be a year behind, but the pricing doesn't reflect that.
- aimhelix, on 12/03/2008, -1/+10shut the ***** up
- IanG73, on 12/03/2008, -2/+11And yet, Intel still opens a can of whoopass on AMD. :(
Good thing AMD acquired ATi - their graphics cards are kickass. - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+9The Deneb cores are shown to be overclocking to 4GHz+ on air, and with more extreme cooling around 6GHz. Lots of headroom with the die shrink and if AMD keeps prices low they will have a winner on all levels regardless of how much multi-threading the i7 can handle.
- byronm, on 12/03/2008, -1/+9I've had a phenom 9600 for a year + now and have nothing to complain about - performance/quality wise. It runs fast, plays games, runs media center in the back ground, runs XNA fast, has no problems running multiple programs.. i mean, what *IS* cpu bound these days? i've upgraded my video card from an 8600gt to a 4850 and still not cpu bound by anything that i run.
i look forward to cpu innovations and possible future upgrades.. just hope i'm not burned on the AM2+ side as it looks like motherboard costs are now equaling or exceeding cpus themselves. - goffy59, on 12/03/2008, -2/+8How did you get *****? I got saved. Its the reason I switched from Intel to AMD. I was able to upgrade from a single core to a dual core without getting new memory/video card/motherboard. That is why I stick with them. I can run every game on the market right now, and my computer is 1-2 years old. AMD was mopping Intel up for 4 years when they had the Athlon. I'm almost certain they will turn it around. If not, we are all *****. Intel made the Pentium 4 which was the most horrible processor I ever used; and I'm sure Intel will make the same mistake. I got burned by that line thinking HT would be worth it; but it wasn't. My AMD Athlon 3500 (2.2ghz) out performed the Intel 2.8ghz with HT and 2mb L2 cache. Those damn Prescott cores were terrible.
- tonicboy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6they seriously need to get their ass in gear. they haven't had an edge in a very long time. the good news is that their most successful demographic - enthusiasts - care nothing about marketing and will turn on a dime if they find a new "king of the hill".
- Snotrocket, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6Clock speed is virtually meaningless when comparing two different chips. If one is doing 1 calculation per cycle and the other is doing 10 which is faster?
- theonlywizdum, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6They aren't. AMD chips are still cheaper than Intel if you compare them. The problem is, Intel has better chips that AMD can't compare to. If AMD goes down, how long do you think it will be before Intel starts raising their prices?
- Kronich, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5ahhhhhhhhh....!!!
- blackcloud333, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5Are you sure about nvidia cards not being touched? I can't find that information. Even if that's so, I go with the card with a good price/performance ratio:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics- ... - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4Software will catch up to hardware in time.
What is really missing right now is a good parallel programming API and framework. If Microsoft or, better yet, the Linux community could create a really good SDK and platform that takes a lot of the tedious, difficult work of taking advantage of 64-bit and multiple processing threads off the backs of programmers it would be a huge boon for whichever operating system that pulls it off first.
It's just a matter of time until that happens. - Infidelcastr0, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4I hope they don't ***** these up, I really want to stick with AMD but Intel's looking better and better everyday. Looks like they're not gonna force me to buy a new mobo, which is good.
- mr0nine2five, on 12/03/2008, -1/+5huhhhhhhhhhhhh?
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4The next day..
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3What he is saying is that at the price he is willing to pay, the system cost is cheaper with AMD for +- the same performance. Sure, at the highest end, intel may lead. However, if he wanted to spend $200 for the motherboard and CPU he could get a faster Foo than Bar.
- Ryanw430, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4Just in time for my b-day: Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz with 8MB total cache on the AM3 socket
I don't foresee a need for a better CPU than this within the next three years. AMD was right when they realized the GPU is becoming more and more critical in practical applications for the everyday mainstream user; of course, Intel is great at marketing and they would rather convince people (including gamers) that they should spend more money on their CPU instead. - lurrker, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3I run mostly Intel now (with 3 AMD systems still in the house). Yet I buried your comment, even though I currently like the Intel chips a little more than AMD's offerings. This is coming from someone who's had a 386 40mhz from AMD through numerous upgrades to a 4400+ X2 2mb. That is until ~1 year ago, when the Q6600 became affordable, and I wanted to run a stable Hacintosh.
Do you really want AMD to die? Ever think about how high Intel prices would go? How innovation would stagnate? And the last part of your comment doesn't make any sense, how the "most expensive AMD CPU is slower than Intel's cheapest".
I like having a choice, it's not advantageous to always think "oooh, this is so much better than that". I run Ubuntu mostly, XP, Vista, Vista 64 (media center pc's only), and have a powerbook. My main work system is a 3.0ghz oc, 8gb ram hackintosh running final cut pro. I also have ATI and Nvidia cards in various systems. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4ATi is about the only good thing they have going right now.
- tonicboy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Athlon 64 X2 wasn't a long time ago? Are you nuts? That was about 100 years ago in CPU years. The only reason that AMD has some better price/performance points is because they were forced to cut prices drastically to remain competitive, and it has had a very noticeable effect on their bottom line.
- k3rfuffl3, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4I hope AMD will actually perform better clock for clock this time, but I'm not holding my breath.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Buying a top of the line NVidia card is a waste of money and has been for a while now.
They don't offer significant enough performance gains to justify their price, and are consistently made obsolete within months resulting in their prices being slashed.
When a 4850 will run just about anything want at Maximum settings and a dual 4850 or single/dual 4870 will simply chew through anything you can throw at, it simply doesn't make sense to spend more money.
This is a matter of practicality. I'm no fan boy. I ran NVidia cards exclusively for years until my current system which now sports a 4850. I'll buy what makes the most sense for my needs and the price point. It's your prerogative to waste your own money if you want, but I just don't recommend it. - Snap65, on 12/03/2008, -2/+5I recently upgraded from an Athlon XP 2800+ (Barton Core) to and Intel Core Duo. Sometimes when I approach my computer, I run away crying like RED in the Movie "Cars". I feel like a traitor by leaving AMD.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Because their processors don't judge me. :(
- dogson, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3price/performance wise, intel loses almost every time
- numberneal, on 12/02/2008, -3/+6exposed
- arijit57, on 12/02/2008, -3/+5hmmm......!!!
- eryximachus, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3I do hope your mommy isn't impacted by the current economic troubles. A little bitch like you will undoubtedly whine endlessly when you have to concern yourself with far more important things in life than your mindless entertainment.
Enjoy your pathetic life while you can, sucker. - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4Good thing I only buy German cars and Japanese gaming systems!
- applebutter, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2AMD This was your chance to jump to 6 and 8 core systems. AMD change the game and make intel play catch up. Offload the io in a new way. We need better io and simple upgrades. What happened to the daughter board. Battery backup ddr2 for the Hard disks. I have a need for speed.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/03/2008, -1/+38Ghz would be awesome, but unfortunately liquid nitrogen is rather expensive not to mention hazardous.
- eryximachus, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4Ja vol, mein commandant!
- lateralus, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2DESTROYED?
Really. Maybe you should google Opteron. - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Unless he makes porn for a living the need to edit Multimedia or 3D is not going to be a real issue. I know AMD run Crysis..
- InfernoX, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Agreed. The best part about this new lineup is that the chips are compatible with AM2+ sockets while i7 requires an entirely new socket and only supports DDR3 memory. For budget builds, an AMD setup is looking to be the better deal.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3More than just the "Ghz?" Are you kidding? The frequency has practically nothing to do with raw performance. The instructions per clock matter more; much more, as well as latency, cache coherency and look aside buffers. The ability to communicate with memory and other CPUs without having to move off of a high speed, high bandwidth low latency bus matters too. For the longest time, intel used to use the FSB to communicate with a 2nd or higher core on the same CPU. Sure, for some desktop tools this was not a huge deal, however intensive operations were costly in terms of performance.
IBM went to >5Ghz, but they had to do piddly things like remove out of order execution. This to me is a big issue. The Power 5+ was great, in that it still had the OOE unit. Now, things demand highly efficient compilers, as they should, however the hardware should also have the ability to structure the commands in the most effective operative order since the compiler does not know what units are free at the moment.
To expound, think about how NCQ and associated technology can help a hard drive. On the way to getting to your pr0n file, you make a request to open a saved email. Does it spin around several times or get your email first on the way to the pr0n file and do it in fewer spins and faster overall completion? That's what you lose without OOE. - KibibyteBrain, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I think the Core i7 will require 2nd generation chipsets and mobos better designed to let you tweak the new architecture parameters to appeal to overclockers and enthusiasts at this point who'd prefer to still mess around with the easy and fun to mess with last gen Intel stuff with the current offerings. This strangely might give AMD a chance to appeal to this market in the short term if they can come out with offerings that perform better and OC better than the final Core 2 offerings.
- sweetwater88, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Man, so many options these days! It's going to be hard planning for future hardware upgrades.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1People don't know that. They just want "moar megabits or something here"
Explaining to them that some of the most efficient CPUs can do it in 600Mhz would be futile as they would say "But if it was 9Ghz it would be faster" but it would also probably melt. Forget the damn "number" and look at what work it can do.
Would you care if the car you were about to buy had new tech and could run 400 HP, 240Mph with 390FP of torque on a 0.7L engine? I would not - inactive, on 12/10/2008, -0/+1I hate my 10 pc DURON. I close my business because of no spare parts available.
The PC get hot just less than 20min of running. - Spuy767, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Even if it does can they surpass intel? Methinks this is too little too late.
- cannarymburns, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1As much as I love amd, your statement isn't quite true. Amd was pretty happy charging 300+ for 3800x2 when the pentium d was gargling dog nuts. Also, give team green some credit, outside of the northwood p4s, the athlons held their own until core 2. The k8 is still a viable cpu, that says alot.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1"you are telling me that it is imposable to have faster clock speeds without a lot of extra heat"
Yeah, pretty much. It's just not efficient or practical. Otherwise they would be doing it, you know? - Jektal, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3The last gaming system I built for a friend, probably about 2 months ago, used a Phenom. At the time it was by far a better performance/$ value than anything from Intel.
- goffy59, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1@DeepFreezed
I bought a heatsink for 12 dollars, and the temperature was always within the range of 32-45C.
So thats more of a user problem, then it is a CPU problem. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is