AMD Phenom X4 CPU Prices Emerge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who cares if it is true quad core or not ?

I think most people here want a processor that perform very well and overclocks very well.

What is the point of having true quad core that performs worse than two dual core ?

What if AMD quad core perform worse than Intel quad core (Note: I said if) ? Would you get AMD quad core just because it is a "true" quad core ?!

i just find it highly irrelavent for the Phenom "true" quad-core to performance worse then a quad-core that is just 2 dual-cores glued together.

i remember u arguing with Apokalipse about quad-cores n true quad-cores a while back n it was ugly :(, plz dont do it again.
 
Who cares if it is true quad core or not ?
AMD, because it will make their chips faster than if they used two dual core die's.

I think most people here want a processor that perform very well and overclocks very well.
and/or one that is cheap.

What is the point of having true quad core that performs worse than two dual core ?
It doesn't perform worse than two dual cores. It might perform worse than two dual cores that have a better core architecture, however.

What if AMD quad core perform worse than Intel quad core (Note: I said if) ? Would you get AMD quad core just because it is a "true" quad core ?!
Depends on price.
 
I'm not sure why everyone is so excited about this "true quad core" stuff...sure true quad core has nice optimizations but the AMD x2 destroyed the Pentium D, and we know the majority of the reason for that was because of the entire core architecture.

now to technical stuff...
All I really know is if the phenoms can out perform the Q6600 g0 or whatever the bloody 'ell it's called then I'll be buying me a phenom for my new gaming rig-

The jury is still out on that one....

I don't care what beats a phenom that WILL come out- I care what is out and price competitive.

The cheapest Penryn will be 266 dollars at launch clocked at 2.5ghz... The cheapest Phenom is only 19 dollars less and I can't see the Phenom at 2.2ghz beating it.

if it only gets 2.0 but unleashes the full potiential of every other part (RAM, Video etc) without bottle necks or hesistations- who cares!

What are you on about? At the end of the day if the computer isn't faster overall then bottlenecks are irrelevant (not entirely sure which bottlenecks you are talking about anyway. The onboard memory controller AMD has certainly helps latencies but the massive cache that Intels chips have makes up for the lack of an onbaord memory controller...which the nehalem will have anyway)

I got a feeling AMD IS hiding something with there quads- and in a good way- and once there out a lot of people are going to change there minds.

mm hmm...just like they were hiding their big bad R600


Hince why Intel jumped to doing that instead of developing true quad core in the first place- meanwhile let the competition do the hard work - then copy it later and add another spin off- but before they can release all that- there "fake quads" sell like hotcakes to the hungry consumers.

Supply, Demand, Corperate backstabbing, its just how things work.

riiigght. Because it's so obvious that Intel "stole AMD's hard work"....being that the designs are so similar and all. :rolleyes:
 
the cache of the intels is indeed impressive.
as far as worse performance, and still buying the phenom...i dont know. depends on how much worse and how much cheaper, ya know.
i would have to buy a new mobo and basically rebuild my rig to use intel, and that is something i dont really want to do. plus, i dont think the performance increase (if there is one) would justify that kind of expense or trouble.
if they perform better, then in new systems we would obviously suggest the intel chips.
 
This is starting to sound like a old thread where we argued over whether or not true dual cores would easily out beat intels version of dual core. I would like to see a real benchmark using one of the newer motherboards. That or lets just wait till they finally release there chips. Anyways, lets just wait, some people like me prefer AMD, some prefer Intel, that will never change. I just think lately that Intel has tried improving AMD's technology like the whole dual core thing, I haven't studied anything about processors since the early K8 days, but the way it appears to me is that Intel just improved Dual Core technology with the C2D after AMD made a true dual core, and the way it sounds, they may end up doing that again.
 
Heh. I dunno. The way it's looking right now, Intel may have the upper hand still. With their 45nm cores coming out in Q1 of 2008, AMD has VERY tough competition. I'm kind of an AMD fanboy, but I might just have to go the Intel route if it looks like this.
 
This is starting to sound like a old thread where we argued over whether or not true dual cores would easily out beat intels version of dual core. I would like to see a real benchmark using one of the newer motherboards. That or lets just wait till they finally release there chips. Anyways, lets just wait, some people like me prefer AMD, some prefer Intel, that will never change. I just think lately that Intel has tried improving AMD's technology like the whole dual core thing, I haven't studied anything about processors since the early K8 days, but the way it appears to me is that Intel just improved Dual Core technology with the C2D after AMD made a true dual core, and the way it sounds, they may end up doing that again.

Ehh? improved AMD's technology? What are you talking about, they are nothing alike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom