AMD Phenom & Spider vs Intel QX9770 (What a joke AMD is)

[BennyV04988]

Have you owned an amd cpu? I had a 4400x2 @ 3.03ghz and for mostly everything including games I couldn't notice a darned bit of difference between that and my e6300 @ 2.8ghz.

Of course when the e6300 was clocked to 3.2+ghz that's a different story....

I have owned both, and it's well known that the X2's perform at rought 77% that of a C2D.

I'm just saying, why shoot yourself in the foot when you can go with a cheap, faster, and more future proof chip/socket.

The Phenom was supposed to be the best thing that ever happened to the AM2/+ boards, and that hasn't gone far.

But me and my 775 board, I've still got a 3.0GHz cpu to move up to. Thats 60% faster than my current chip was at stock.

The question is, why would you ever buy an AMD?

 

[westy159]

The question is, why would you ever buy an AMD?

Blind loyalty.

 

[Apokalipse]

I have owned both, and it's well known that the X2's perform at rought 77% that of a C2D.

And the Phenom's close the gap to a close margin.

I don't like Intel. And I do like AMD. That's why I buy AMD processors.

AMD Phenom & Spider vs Intel QX9770 (What a joke AMD is)

You do realise that you're comparing intel's highest-end processor to AMD's first ever,and early stepping quad cores, which aren't even running as fast as they were supposed to, and will, very shortly, don't you?

I'll be getting an MSI K9A2 Platinum, and a Phenom.

It will be slightly edged out by a Q6600, but it's still very fast. Irrespective of what Intel fanboys might say.

Blind loyalty.

Or you dislike of Intel. Or the fact that you don't have to upgrade your motherboard if you have AM2.
Or, simply because they're cheap and fast quad core processors with a solid platform and upgrade path.
Or a combination of the above.

 

[BennyV04988]

what's to dislike though? it's a chip. if it performs better, then buy it. It's not like it's "alive" and has a personality.

 

[Apokalipse]

what's to dislike though?

It's not the chip I dislike. It's the company that makes it. The company that it represents.

 

[gurusan]

 

[Apokalipse]

I actually have reason to dislike Intel. For starters, their ethics in competition.

 

[NosBoost300]

meh.. its business business ain't fair...

 

[SirCyber]

I'm going to agree with a few posts earlier. I just go with what's currently best, and if something comes out that's better after a while, I go crazy cuz I'm outdated again. it's not amd vs intel, or nVidia vs ati... it's performance. right now, performance belongs to intel and nVidia. give amd a year or so to catch up, and it will be better. intel will mearely try to stay ahead, probably, and thus amd will be top again. that's just an opinion, and yes, right now, I like intel over amd.

 

[maroon1]

It will be slightly edged out by a Q6600, but it's still very fast. Irrespective of what Intel fanboys might say.

Q6600 performs 10% faster per clock, produce less heat and consume less power even less power than the slowest phenom

I'm sure that if AMD processors were 10% faster than Intel, you would not use the word "slightly"

A fact: Yorkfield is going to have better performance per watt than the current Kentsfield, and even slightly better performance per clock.

You do realise that you're comparing intel's highest-end processor to AMD's first ever,and early stepping quad cores, which aren't even running as fast as they were supposed to, and will, very shortly, don't you?

LOL ^

No one here is asking you to compare them to QX9770

Just compare them to the 1 year old, Intel's first quad cores (Kentsfield). Intel 1 years old Quad core is still better

Don't forget the fact that Yorkfield that was tested is still on the early steppings. Intel can produce better stepping in the future just like what they did for Kentsfield.