2 Phenom reviews

[maroon1]

That's debatable.

No it is not debatable

Please check the reviews, Q6600 is clearly better than 9900 on average

AnandTech: AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8

the 9700 is only slightly behind the Q6600.

For me it doesn't seem slightly behind. It is about %10-15 behind, thats just like the difference between E6750 and E6550 (or 6000+)

 

[maroon1]

what's your point?

My point that many people held off buying a Q6600 so that they could get one of these slower AMD processors (phenom) because they were fooled by the fake rumors...............

Many people were fooled into thinking Pentium 4's were better, because they had higher clock speeds.

Did I deny that ?

 

[Apokalipse]

No it is not debatable

No really now, it is.

Please check the reviews, Q6600 is clearly better than 9900 on average

AnandTech: AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8

Firstly, that's one page of one review.
Secondly, it's with buggy chips.
Thirdly, there are reviews that place the 9700 only slightly behind the Q6600.

For me it doesn't seem slightly behind. It is about %10-15 behind, thats just like the difference between E6750 and E6550 (or 6000+)

Oh, right. Because clearly, that one page is a clear indication of average.

You know, let's just completely forget the situations such as games, where Q6600 was usually a fraction of a frame per second in front.

My point that many people held off buying a Q6600 so that they could get one of these slower AMD processors (phenom) because they were fooled by the fake rumors...............

And there are so many people that bought Pentium 4's, simply because of the name Pentium 4. And/or because of the clock speeds.

Did I deny that ?

Did you point it out at all?

Yes, there were rumours which turned out to be false. That doesn't mean the Phenom is a bad chip.

Let me ask you, maroon:
What are you trying to achieve by slandering Phenom's?

 

[maroon1]

Well, a lot of ppl were making fun on intel fans that the phenoms would be better, so that kind of stuff always happens.

I totally agree with you

AMD fanboys such as Apokalipse were fooling people all time here by claiming that Phenom are superior and much better than Core 2 quad.

Firstly, that's one page of one review.

So, I should post the links for each page ??!!

How much time it would take you if you look at the other pages ?

 

[Nick]

this sounds like the reviews which were released for vista before a vast number of the public have used it...vista was slated and although vista isnt that good its not as bad as it was portrayed in many articles

the samething happened when intel released their quad core range, it was regarded as pointless and a waste of money which is not true as games and applications will be quad core threaded eventually

blah blah blah....

 

[Apokalipse]

I totally agree with you

AMD fanboys such as Apokalipse were fooling people all time here by claiming that Phenom are superior and much better than Core 2 quad.

Based on the data that was available, it seemed likely.
Furthermore, you never heard me saying things like "conroe sucks"
However, you see that kind of thing so often with Intel fanboys (except, replacing conroe with an AMD product, or the AMD brand name)

As it turns out, Phenom's still aren't bad chips. Really.

 

[maroon1]

Did you point it out at all?

First: this thread is about phenom and intel quad core, not about 5 years old processor like Pentium 4

Second: I think most people here know that because this is an old story

Third: Many people in older threads talked about that millions of times, why should I point it again ?

 

[ShaolinDreams]

It dont look good for AMD...

If Q6600 out performs the AMD new one... ok... but the point is... Q6600 costs £150... AMD costs £200. and also bearing in mind that Q6600 is core2quad.. and AMD is meant to be native.. a direct comparison would be a penryn yorkfield CPU... so if it cant be a Q6600.. oppsy someone done a boo boo

so if you want bang for buck youd be stupid to get AMD.

IMO

 

[maroon1]

the samething happened when intel released their quad core range, it was regarded as pointless and a waste of money which is not true as games and applications will be quad core threaded eventually

LOL

What is your point here ?

Intel quad core was $900 when it came out, thats why it was a waste of money

 

[Apokalipse]

It dont look good for AMD...

If Q6600 out performs the AMD new one... ok... but the point is... Q6600 costs £150... AMD costs £200.

so if you want bang for buck youd be stupid to get AMD.

IMO

keep in mind, a few things:
1. Not all stores follow RRP's
2. Most of the stores which have Phenom's listed, have marked up the prices right now. Stores do this on pre-order.
3. These are only launch prices
and last but not least:
4. people still have AM2 motherboards