# AMD Plans Massive 45 nm Transition, New CPUs Announced



## malware (May 23, 2009)

Industry observer DigiTimes, citing anonymous sources, today reported that AMD is planning to move production of its desktop processors to 45 nm node process by the third quarter of this year.





> AMD plans to move production of its desktop CPUs to its 45nm node process in the third quarter, helping to reduce costs, according to sources at motherboard makers.
> Currently, only AMD's quad-core Phenom II X4 800 and 900 series (Deneb) and triple-core Phenom II X3 700 series (Heka) CPUs are manufactured under a 45nm process. The company plans to move its dual-core Phenom II X2 500 series (Callisto) and Athlon II X2 200 series to 45nm in June, and quad-core Athlon II X4 600 series and triple-core Athlon II X3 400 series (Rana) in September, the sources noted.
> The chipmaker also plans to launch several CPUs during the period between the end of the second quarter and the third quarter. The dual-core Phenom II X2 550 and 545 will launch at the end of the second quarter, and the quad-core Phenom II X4 945 (95W) and 8xx (95W), triple-core Phenom II X3 7xx (95W), quad-core Athlon II X4 630 and 620, triple-core Athlon II X3 435 and 425, and dual-core Athlon II X2 250, 245 and 240 will launch in the third.
> AMD also plans to launch 10 low-power consumption CPUs including the Phenom II X4 905e, Phenom II X3 705e and Athlon II X4 605e.



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 23, 2009)

All good news here, will be keeping the eye open for maybe a HTPC proc.


----------



## Valdez (May 23, 2009)

Any news on new stepping or something?


----------



## Weer (May 23, 2009)

*sigh* I am never going to have an AMD CPU, am I?


----------



## MRCL (May 23, 2009)

Ten years of Intel loyality begin to shiver.


----------



## Weer (May 23, 2009)

MRCL said:


> Ten years of Intel loyality begin to shiver.



Are you talking about me? That's almost creepy. I bought my first Intel PIII ten years ago. But the problem is that it's not beginning to shiver. I really wish AMD would finally come up with something worthwhile.


----------



## Studabaker (May 23, 2009)

Weer said:


> Are you talking about me? That's almost creepy. I bought my first Intel PIII ten years ago. But the problem is that it's not beginning to shiver. I really wish AMD would finally come up with something worthwhile.



How is the Phenom II 900 series not enough for ya?  It's not like you're running a Q9000 series or i7.


----------



## Weer (May 23, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> How is the Phenom II 900 series not enough for ya?  It's not like you're running a Q9000 series or i7.



It's enough compared to what I currently have. But, obviously, if I were going to upgrade, I'd go i7. Which means AMD is still dead to me.


----------



## MRCL (May 23, 2009)

Weer said:


> Are you talking about me? That's almost creepy. I bought my first Intel PIII ten years ago. But the problem is that it's not beginning to shiver. I really wish AMD would finally come up with something worthwhile.



Lol no about me I had one AMD cpu in my eleven years of pc-life, and that was a short period of time. Otherwise Intel all teh way.

My next big CPU upgrade will definately be AMD.


----------



## PlanetCyborg (May 23, 2009)

weer if you dont have nothing smart do say then dont post!!!:shadedshu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 23, 2009)

PlanetCyborg said:


> weer if you dont have nothing smart do say then dont post!!! ignorant fanboy:shadedshu



Welcome to the forums PlanetCyborg. Name calling and flaming here are not tolerated unless its meant as a joke. Anyway weer didn't say anything "ignorant" just his opinion.


----------



## PlanetCyborg (May 23, 2009)

yea sorry !!! but i just hate fanboysm


----------



## MRCL (May 23, 2009)

PlanetCyborg said:


> yea sorry !!! but i just hate fanboysm



Don't hate the fanboy, hate the product


----------



## hat (May 23, 2009)

Yet some people don't realise that Phenom has caught up to the Core 2 arcitecture. Yes, i7 is ahead, but not nearly enough to justify the price. When I bought my Sempron single core, I had enough money to buy a damned E8400 + slammin' mobo, but I went the (very) cheap way and got a chip that pleases me just fine. Hell, sometimes when me and my Uncle are playing BF2 I get in first, and he's got 2 raptors in raid 0 and a 6000+.

I think that even this sempron, once overclocked to 3GHz (which it does with ease) is enough for any single application. Dual cores come in handy when you have virus scans, pr0n downloads, music playing and a hardcore game going all at once. Any dual core cpu is enough for the average gamin' man. Quad comes in handy when you've got a shitstorm of activity going on all at once, such as video encoding and games at the same time.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 23, 2009)

I'm looking real hard at the Phenom II 810 to replace my Athlon X2.  

Saddly, I have to kind of agree with Weer though, AMD's products are still lagging behind.  They have caught up to the older, lower end Core 2, but not the high end.  The Q6600 released in Jan2007 is still outperforming their top offering today, they still have a lot of ground to make up.



hat said:


> Yet some people don't realise that Phenom has caught up to the Core 2 arcitecture. Yes, i7 is ahead, but not nearly enough to justify the price. When I bought my Sempron single core, I had enough money to buy a damned E8400 + slammin' mobo, but I went the (very) cheap way and got a chip that pleases me just fine. Hell, sometimes when me and my Uncle are playing BF2 I get in first, and he's got 2 raptors in raid 0 and a 6000+.
> 
> I think that even this sempron, once overclocked to 3GHz (which it does with ease) is enough for any single application. Dual cores come in handy when you have virus scans, pr0n downloads, music playing and a hardcore game going all at once. Any dual core cpu is enough for the average gamin' man. Quad comes in handy when you've got a shitstorm of activity going on all at once, such as video encoding and games at the same time.



A single core processor is not enough for todays modern games.  Saddly, even dual-cores are being bogged down.  The days of a highly clocked dual-core being better than a lower clocked quad are coming to an end.  With the increased amounts of physic game developers are cramming into games, and increased realizm, dual-core processor are starting to show they can't keep up.


----------



## Melvis (May 23, 2009)

@ hat, well said


----------



## Charper2013 (May 23, 2009)

Hardware is so wierd... The PSUs are getting more and more wattage... But the CPUs and GPUs are finding new manufacturing technology for there cpus to use less power.. I would be looking to find more effiency in Psus if I was them..


----------



## newtekie1 (May 23, 2009)

Charper2013 said:


> Hardware is so wierd... The PSUs are getting more and more wattage... But the CPUs and GPUs are finding new manufacturing technology for there cpus to use less power.. I would be looking to find more effiency in Psus if I was them..



The new manufacturing technology on the CPUs don't make them use less power, it allows increased performance at the same power envolope.


----------



## a_ump (May 23, 2009)

Charper2013 said:


> Hardware is so wierd... The PSUs are getting more and more wattage... But the CPUs and GPUs are finding new manufacturing technology for there cpus to use less power.. I would be looking to find more effiency in Psus if I was them..



no crap, i don't understand why they keep making larger and larger PSU's....i mean the average system power consumption hasn't really increased at all, even on the enthusiast end where u could xfire the X1950XTX. I suppose the idea of 3-way SLI and up to 4x xfire could call for an increase, especially if you were 4x xfiring HD 4890's. 

Now about all the CPU's, i'm assuming AMD is simply going to stop the retailing of current athlon x2's, cause this is a huge line up they have coming here, and i dont know how all of those CPU's would fit in the market without AMD competing with itself, hence i would think they're going to end their current athlong x2 retailing.


----------



## Melvis (May 23, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> The Q6600 released in Jan2007 is still outperforming their top offering today, they still have a lot of ground to make up.



I would like to see a Q6600 beat a Phenom 955 




newtekie1 said:


> A single core processor is not enough for todays modern games.  Saddly, even dual-cores are being bogged down.  The days of a highly clocked dual-core being better than a lower clocked quad are coming to an end.  With the increased amounts of physic game developers are cramming into games, and increased realizm, dual-core processor are starting to show they can't keep up.



I would have to start to agree on that, Quad cores seem to be doing very well at gaming these days, even against a high end dual core, but a yr ago i would of said otherwise, and a yr b4 that i would of said ya dreaming lol.
Honestly it depends on the game, and how many threads it runs, still most games are single threaded hence why i can just still get away with my single core, but i wouldn't go any less then what i run   Dual cores do the job well enough, and of course if you got the cash a quad core is good for anything and what the future brings. My next rig will be Quad, just when is the question.


----------



## a_ump (May 23, 2009)

Melvis said:


> I would like to see a Q6600 beat a Phenom 955



Shit the q6600 can't beat the 940, no need to go for 955. The Phenom II 940/55 are meant to compete with q9550/9650 if i'm not mistaken. the 920 is more of the q6600 competition. the intel chip still holds up very very well but it is slightly inferior. But i mean come on, what game today utilizes even the q6600 at 3ghz+ let alone 3.6ghz. Still a solid chip, i personally find if your just a gamer anything over an AMD PII x3 is unnecessary.


----------



## DreamSeller (May 23, 2009)

at last amd DDD


----------



## ShadowFold (May 23, 2009)

Time to move my server and backup to 45nm


----------



## crtecha (May 23, 2009)

Im looking forward to this.  I'm really looking forward to a upgrade soon maybe late fall.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 23, 2009)

*Not getting the fray this time*

I just want to point out that the info. about the Phenom II X3 7xx is wrong.  These two chips are already 95W Thermal Power, so why would there be a move to where it already is.  When this massive release starts, either the PII X3 7xx will be reduced to say....65W (or something) or will not be apart of this release.  I hope someone can clear this up.  Typo or speculation?


----------



## Kitkat (May 23, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> All good news here, will be keeping the eye open for maybe a HTPC proc.



YUP! SOMTHING TO PUT IN THAT NEW ASUS HTPC WHICH IS A DEF FOR ME!

I cant wait till they turn that 95W version UP! give me a 975! (cause im greedy ) Im so glad TDPs r going down down down down. Calisto looks great for HTPC.


----------



## hat (May 23, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> A single core processor is not enough for todays modern games.  Saddly, even dual-cores are being bogged down.  The days of a highly clocked dual-core being better than a lower clocked quad are coming to an end.  With the increased amounts of physic game developers are cramming into games, and increased realizm, dual-core processor are starting to show they can't keep up.



I can understand a single core being swamped somewhat, but not a dual.


----------



## silkstone (May 23, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> A single core processor is not enough for todays modern games.  Saddly, even dual-cores are being bogged down.  The days of a highly clocked dual-core being better than a lower clocked quad are coming to an end.  With the increased amounts of physic game developers are cramming into games, and increased realizm, dual-core processor are starting to show they can't keep up.



In what games are Dual cores bogged down?
The physics developers are cramming into game are, at the moment, being handled by the GPU or phys card.

I disagree with the Tense of your post completely. Give it another year or 2 and you'll be right. but at the moment there aren't many (if any) games that will perform better on a lower clocked, same cache quad core.
The major factor effecting modern games is the GPu not the amount of cores.

Btw. i'm seriously considering AMD for my next big upgrade, i just need to look into the price vs. performance for my budget.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 23, 2009)

Looking good but they also need to plan on moving to 32nm as well which Intel will have by years end I believe.


----------



## pepsi71ocean (May 23, 2009)

my first Computer was an AMD, and it kicks ass compared to my dad's intel computer(from back then).

Sadly since then ive swung to intel, and im sure that someday AMD will rise again, i hope that they will have their time in the sun once more.


----------



## suraswami (May 23, 2009)

why not some 5w netbook cpus?  someone know when these will come out?

I thought I will stop buying CPUs this year, now I am tempted lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 23, 2009)

hat said:


> I can understand a single core being swamped somewhat, but not a dual.


Once a game is coded for symetrical multiprocessing, the fewer cores it is running on the slower it will go.  Since a lot of games are ports from Xbox 360 which has a tri-core processor, you really need at least a tri-core for a lot of modern games.

An example of this is Saints Row 2.  There's other games that are still largely single threaded like X3: Terran Conflict.  It really doesn't take much happening in the game to slow it to a crawl. 




Darren said:


> Quick questions guys, a friend and I was wondering this...
> 
> From a theoretical standpoint which CPU has the advantage the six core AMD Barcelona or the 4 core I7 with 4 virtual cores
> 
> Edit: or is it the Istanbul with the six cores, but either way the advantage is where?


I believe the Core i7 still comes out on top because it can do more work than the hexa-core processor.  I imagine they are probably pretty close though.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 23, 2009)

It's 4 cores vs 6 cores, each core has a cache. I would imagine the 6 core would be better.


----------



## farlex85 (May 23, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> It's 4 cores vs 6 cores, each core has a cache. I would imagine the 6 core would be better.



It'll depend on application as always. If the app can utilize all 6 cores then yeah you'd think so, if it also utilized HT well then they may be pretty close. I believe Westmere (I7) is supposed to have a 32nm 6-core iteration near the end of this year though, so this likely won't catch AMD up much. A bit though, if they keep pushing at this rate they may get back into it (race for the fastest that is), they already know Intel's timeline for the next 3 years.


----------



## Kitkat (May 23, 2009)

pepsi71ocean said:


> my first Computer was an AMD, and it kicks ass compared to my dad's intel computer(from back then).
> 
> Sadly since then ive swung to intel, and im sure that someday AMD will rise again, i hope that they will have their time in the sun once more.



that time began at 720 launch.


----------



## Kitkat (May 23, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Looking good but they also need to plan on moving to 32nm as well which Intel will have by years end I believe.



i thought they were going to 22


----------



## ShadowFold (May 23, 2009)

They wont catch up in the ultra high end range for awhile, but they got the midrange gamer market locked down IMO.


----------



## Easo (May 23, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> They wont catch up in the ultra high end range for awhile, but they got the midrange gamer market locked down IMO.



They realy do... Unless we count those people, who goes into shop, asks for normal gaming PC, and when being offered AMD cpu, "No NO, not the AMD!" "Why?" "Eeeee, mmmm, i dunno..."


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 23, 2009)

*Fun with numbers!*



Kitkat said:


> i thought they were going to 22



Actually AMD already has a 6 core processor.  It is a server processor and is not for desktops.  I am sure they will release a 6 core desktop processor by the end of this year.

Yes Intel will be the first to 32 nm, but AMD release a statement back in Feb. I believe that stated they were currently targeting being the first to 28 nm.  Granted, 4 nm doesn't seem like much, but we are talking about at least 4 to 8 cores based on this architecture.  This provides 16 to 32 nm more space for additional core, more cache space, smaller chip size, less heat.

I just hope they can reach their goal and be the first to 28 nm.  That would be the turning point if all goes well.


----------



## Kitkat (May 23, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Actually AMD already has a 6 core processor.  It is a server processor and is not for desktops.  I am sure they will release a 6 core desktop processor by the end of this year.
> 
> Yes Intel will be the first to 32 nm, but AMD release a statement back in Feb. I believe that stated they were currently targeting being the first to 28 nm.  Granted, 4 nm doesn't seem like much, but we are talking about at least 4 to 8 cores based on this architecture.  This provides 16 to 32 nm more space for additional core, more cache space, smaller chip size, less heat.
> 
> I just hope they can reach their goal and be the first to 28 nm.  That would be the turning point if all goes well.



ah 28 is what i meant sorry.


----------



## Kitkat (May 23, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> They wont catch up in the ultra high end range for awhile, but they got the midrange gamer market locked down IMO.



720 810 940 955 , those arent midrange chips. And black additions arent purchased for "midrange" gammers. GPU market controls that anyway.



silkstone said:


> In what games are Dual cores bogged down?
> The physics developers are cramming into game are, at the moment, being handled by the GPU or phys card.
> 
> I disagree with the Tense of your post completely. Give it another year or 2 and you'll be right. but at the moment there aren't many (if any) games that will perform better on a lower clocked, same cache quad core.
> ...



That's very true GPU market controls that also at the moment unfortunately. Unless there is software advancement or an EASY conversion via OS (miracle) happens we wont see true power of these processors. They will just have t keep building them into tiny SUPERCOMPUTERS (which they are now) to run our poorly coded (according to what the standard SHOULD BE of good code and efficiency by now at least) programs that don't utilize any of it. Right now most processing power is "raw" and not coded TO most processors "features" or advancements. You'll hear the same 6 or so names ("Photo shop andddddd the rest here on Gilligan's isl.......)" in the list of programs that use the next gen processors. This is the IMPORTANCE of good development software (easy quick smart efficient scalable) to back up great software also. So more MANY MORE companies WITH LIMITED TO EXPERT skill sets can convert,upgrade,and utilize current and future software. Just like race car engineers no longer look toward JUST the engine for "power". All the parts have to come together. Just look at boot times and what AS rock did. Imagine a world where everyone was on the same page on the subject of input, and one didn't JUST depend on the other for output.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 23, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> It'll depend on application as always. If the app can utilize all 6 cores then yeah you'd think so, if it also utilized HT well then they may be pretty close. I believe Westmere (I7) is supposed to have a 32nm 6-core iteration near the end of this year though, so this likely won't catch AMD up much. A bit though, if they keep pushing at this rate they may get back into it (race for the fastest that is), they already know Intel's timeline for the next 3 years.



Intel has the hexa-core Dunnington (based on Penryn) out which will definitely be faster than AMD's hexa-core.  If the quad-core Nehalem is faster than Dunnington then the quad-core Nehalem is also faster than AMD's hexa-core.  Unfortunately, I can't find any benchmarks for a Dunnington processor--probably because they are really expensive.





TheLaughingMan said:


> Actually AMD already has a 6 core processor.  It is a server processor and is not for desktops.  I am sure they will release a 6 core desktop processor by the end of this year.
> 
> Yes Intel will be the first to 32 nm, but AMD release a statement back in Feb. I believe that stated they were currently targeting being the first to 28 nm.  Granted, 4 nm doesn't seem like much, but we are talking about at least 4 to 8 cores based on this architecture.  This provides 16 to 32 nm more space for additional core, more cache space, smaller chip size, less heat.
> 
> I just hope they can reach their goal and be the first to 28 nm.  That would be the turning point if all goes well.


AMD doesn't own the fabs anymore.  They split the fabs off and created the "Global Foundry Company" or something like that.  AMD's fabs have never transistioned to a smaller processs before Intel.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 23, 2009)

more cash for phenom II please


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 23, 2009)

Kitkat said:


> 720 810 940 955 , those arent midrange chips. And black additions arent purchased for "midrange" gammers. GPU market controls that anyway.



You got that backwards, that is midranged. Those are the procs that most of the population buy and the most expensive of them is about 1/4 of the price of the best proc out there. And the cheapest of them is about 1/6th of the best procs price, if that isn't mid ranged then exactly what is?

When you can pickup a 720BE at $140 they are purchased for midranged gamers, that cheap for unlocked multiplier why not (thats why I have one).


----------



## Valdez (May 23, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Actually AMD already has a 6 core processor.  It is a server processor and is not for desktops.



Where? Amd server processors


----------



## Valdez (May 23, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Intel has the hexa-core Dunnington (based on Penryn) out which will definitely be faster than AMD's hexa-core.



I don't think so. Dunnington uses the old and crappy fsb, i could imagine, this would be a serious bottleneck.
If i have to bet, a six core opteron would be faster on the whole.


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 23, 2009)

45 nm?  took long enough. =/


----------



## Valdez (May 23, 2009)

beyond_amusia said:


> 45 nm?  took long enough. =/



lol. Did you sleep in the last half-year or what?


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 23, 2009)

Valdez said:


> lol. Did you sleep in the last half-year or what?



I'm new to the AMD platform - was using a Pentium D 925 OCed to 3.77 GHz for over 2 years and it was 65 nm and also from 2006 - Intel has more $, so I can see why they do die shrinks so rapidly - Intel will soon be 32 nm actually - next year I think - but when it comes to price vs performance, AMD pwns Intel


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 23, 2009)

Valdez said:


> I don't think so. Dunnington uses the old and crappy fsb, i could imagine, this would be a serious bottleneck.
> If i have to bet, a six core opteron would be faster on the whole.


It isn't.  The FB-DIMMs on Xeons are higher latency but mega bandwidth (not to mention very high write performance).  The FB-DIMM design effectively eliminates the problems associated with FSB bandwidth.  If you had some $15,000, you could make a 24-core server.


----------



## Kitkat (May 23, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> You got that backwards, that is midranged. Those are the procs that most of the population buy and the most expensive of them is about 1/4 of the price of the best proc out there. And the cheapest of them is about 1/6th of the best procs price, if that isn't mid ranged then exactly what is?
> 
> When you can pickup a 720BE at $140 they are purchased for midranged gamers, that cheap for unlocked multiplier why not (thats why I have one).



"that cheap for unlocked multiplier why not " (cause its common sence plz spread it  )
The price dosnt make it midranged it makes it a steal.   oh and AX2 7XXX  P1 9XXX. AX4


----------



## Valdez (May 23, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It isn't.  The FB-DIMMs on Xeons are higher latency but mega bandwidth (not to mention very high write performance).  The FB-DIMM design effectively eliminates the problems associated with FSB bandwidth.



Can you show me some benchmarks about it? Or this is first-hand experience?


----------



## Imsochobo (May 24, 2009)

Mostly bullshit.

Expensive, design flaw compared to what amd was the only one to have( is not the story anymore.)
and well, so on.
FB-Dimms isn't fast like a Freaking Unganged 1066 mhz.!
12 gb copy, everest. ? 
DDR3 pushes 16-17 easy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

Geekbench: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=88575






Intel Burn Test: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=94721






Clock for clock, Xeons with FB-DIMMs spank the rest.  It's a clear trend.  They're slow out of the start gate but once they get going, they're hard to stop.  As proof of this, note how they generally have lower memory scores but still win in the end.  The latency of the FB-DIMMs will strike against any benchmarking but it more than makes up for it in CPU results because of the huge bandwidth.

Mine, for instance, is only running at 533 MHz FSB but with memory running in quad-channel.  It could push upwards of 16,800 MB/s.  My motherboard supports 32-64 GiB memory (8 DIMMs).

Also, the biggest advantage of FB-DIMMs are shown on the four-way platform (604 socket).  The reason there are over 150 fewer pins is because FB-DIMM only needs a fraction of the number of memory controller -> DIMM interconnects as normal DIMMs.


Core i7s are currently getting the highest marks for memory because of QPI.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.

Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.


----------



## Kitkat (May 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.
> 
> Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.



well said.


----------



## Studabaker (May 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.
> 
> Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.





Kitkat said:


> well said.



Agreed.  This is exactly what I was trying to say to Weer back on page 1, except I didn't want to have to go to this detail.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> Agreed.  This is exactly what I was trying to say to Weer back on page 1, except I didn't want to have to go to this detail.



I dont care about weer. I want newtekie1.

<< Throws his beer down.


----------



## Studabaker (May 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I dont care about weer. I want newtekie1.
> 
> << Throws his beer down.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.
> 
> Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.


I got WCG running on both Core i7 920 and dual E5310 systems.  Even if the game/app I'm running doesn't use more than one core (13%), WCG will take the other 87-100% of the clocks.  There is rarely ever a clock wasted, game or not.


When I code/run an app that is high-demand (like this), I take up 100% of the clocks on that single task.  Even if a game doesn't use all that power, it's great to have it available on demand.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I got WCG running on both Core i7 920 and dual E5310 systems.  Even if the game/app I'm running doesn't use more than one core (13%), WCG will take the other 87-100% of the clocks.  There is rarely ever a clock wasted, game or not.
> 
> 
> When I code/run an app that is high-demand (like this), I take up 100% of the clocks on that single task.  Even if a game doesn't use all that power, it's great to have it available on demand.



Like I said. Unless the application uses all the threads then an i7 isn't any better than a Phenom II. However if it does like the application you posted then the i7 shines. But the average person doesn't use those kind of apps.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

Even on a single thread, the Core i7 is superior.  This is especially true of encoding tasks--the rest are marginally faster.  The only place Core i7 loses is some of your game benchmarks.

Check here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14

Core i7 920 came out on top (usually by a large margin too) of the Phenom II X4 955 22 times out of 24.  The only two benchmarks the Phenom II came out on top of are two gaming benchmarks.  Core i7 920 wins 92% of the time, yet, they have a similar price.  The only reason why Phenom II ends up cheaper is because of the platform costs of the LGA1366 package.

Is it worth the extra money?  Without a doubt.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Even on a single thread, the Core i7 is superior.  This is especially true of encoding tasks--the rest are marginally faster.  The only place Core i7 loses is some of your game benchmarks.
> 
> Check here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing the i7 isnt faster. I'm arguing the Phenom II is better buy for the average consumer. As for the game benches I've seen some where the Phenom II spanks the i7. However no one can argue the Phenom II can hold a candle to the i7 in encoding.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm not arguing the i7 isnt faster. I'm arguing the Phenom II is better buy for the average consumer. As for the game benches I've seen some where the Phenom II spanks the i7. However no one can argue the Phenom II can hold a candle to the i7 in encoding.


Average consumers buy Celerons and Semperons.  Depressing, I know. 

Spending more than $200 on a processor is above average (at least).  I'd actually classify it as enthusiast (not ridiculous enthusiasm though ).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Average consumers buy Celerons and Semperons.  Depressing, I know.
> 
> Spending more than $200 on a processor is above average (at least).  I'd actually classify it as enthusiast (not ridiculous enthusiasm though ).



What about 130? Because thats how much a Phenom II x3 costs and like I said in games it hangs with any i7 at decent gaming resolutions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

Budget is $49 or less.  Average is $50-99.  Above average is $100-199.  High end is $200-499.  Ridiculous is $500+.

The same scale can be applied to pretty much everything else including power supplies, cases, sound cards, video cards, and hard drives.  That means two-way servers are always ridiculous.  :shadedshu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Budget is $49 or less.  Average is $50-99.  Above average is $100-199.  High end is $200-499.  Ridiculous is $500+.
> 
> The same scale can be applied to pretty much everything else including power supplies, cases, sound cards, video cards, and hard drives.



Would you like to see some benches where the i7 gets a bloody nose at decent resolutions?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

I play games at 1024x768 so no, it really doesn't matter to me.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I play games at 1024x768 so no, it really doesn't matter to me.



I hate you.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

LMAO!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

I'm sorry. Its 1:30am and Ive been drinking.


----------



## farlex85 (May 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm not arguing the i7 isnt faster. I'm arguing the Phenom II is better buy for the average consumer. As for the game benches I've seen some where the Phenom II spanks the i7. However no one can argue the Phenom II can hold a candle to the i7 in encoding.



Completely depends on what you mean by "average" consumer. If you mean most who use computers, then most of them don't game either, but mostly just surf the web and such. For these people, a PII is overkill as well (w/ the one exception being the x3 720, I swear if it wasn't for that proc the whole line would be useless). Any old regular dual core suits them fine, pre-builts and all the junk and unoptimized windows crap is what slows them down (if you don't see the value in a mac, try using a pre-built unconfigured pc and then imagine doing it if you were your grandmother or computer illiterate friend).

Of those people (general public), many are just as likely to be into music/video editing as gaming (perhaps a bit more likely), and for these things i7 is far and a away better for the money. 

Now, if you mean people on forums like these, you still have to be more specific. Because the "average" person on a forum like this is a hardware junkie, buys parts for the hell of it, likes synthetic benchies and oc'ing, and generally goes for the best around. Again, i7 is better for the money. 

If, however, you mean by "average" they are playing mostly games and/or have a love affair w/ AMD, then yes PII does serve a better buy for those folks. I would hesitate to call them average though. 720BE is great in all situations though, doesn't matter what the build that's just a great chip for the money. Thought I would clarify though......


----------



## MrAlex (May 24, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> The Q6600 released in Jan2007 is still outperforming their top offering today, they still have a lot of ground to make up.



Thats weird because the Phenom II X4 955 is exactly the SAME as the i7 at gaming, and general purpose, and the Phenom II is only slower at media encoding because the i7 uses SSE 4.2 while the Phenom II uses SSE 4a. Lets not forget that even though the memory controller on the Phenom II isn't as effiecient, because unlike Intel they care a bit bout the customer so they provided support for both DDR2 AND DDR3 so people with older motherboards etc can still upgrade their CPUs. If AMD's only objective was to get people to spend money and nothing else like Intel, then we'd have one hell of a CPU battle like back in the Athlon FX days.


----------



## farlex85 (May 24, 2009)

MrAlex said:


> If AMD's only objective was to get people to spend money and nothing else like Intel



That is every corporation's sole objective and thus reason for existence, to have you buy their products. They are precisely like Intel in this respect. AMD has apparently done a brilliant job of making you think they care about you and your computer, which is a good marketing technique indeed. Enjoy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

MrAlex said:


> Thats weird because the Phenom II X4 955 is exactly the SAME as the i7 at gaming, and general purpose, and the Phenom II is only slower at media encoding because the i7 uses SSE 4.2 while the Phenom II uses SSE 4a. Lets not forget that even though the memory controller on the Phenom II isn't as effiecient, because unlike Intel they care a bit bout the customer so they provided support for both DDR2 AND DDR3 so people with older motherboards etc can still upgrade their CPUs. If AMD's only objective was to get people to spend money and nothing else like Intel, then we'd have one hell of a CPU battle like back in the Athlon FX days.


Core i7 = glorified Pentium 4/D

If you recall, Pentium 4/D handed it to Athlon 64/X2 in media/encoding but the Athlon 64/X2 handed it to the Pentium 4/D in the gaming department.  History repeats except Core i7 isn't as weak in gaming as Pentium 4/D were. 

Core i7 is faster because it has many more stages which go through media work much faster.  Longer stages aren't good for games though because it takes longer to recycle those stages.

Not many applications use SSE 4.2.  Only professional software really does and, even those take some time to update then proliferate the market.  AMDs 4a isn't the same as Intel's 4.1 (47 instructions) or 4.2 (7 more instructions).  Intel and AMD have split ways at SSE4 (SSE4a only support 4 of 54 + 2 more instructions--6 total).  Intel will be going to AVX while AMD goes to SSE5.  I can tell you right now that SSE5 will flop (reminds me of AMD's 3D Now! back on the K6).  AMD will be implementing AVX in 2011.

AMD is rapidly phasing out the DDR2 chips.  The only reason why AMD processors can support both is because the pin count didn't change between them.

Very, very, *very* few people ever upgrade their processor.


AVX looks a lot like Larrabee.


----------



## farlex85 (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Core i7 = glorified Pentium 4/D
> 
> If you recall, Pentium 4/D handed it to Athlon 64/X2 in media/encoding but the Athlon 64/X2 handed it to the Pentium 4/D in the gaming department.  History repeats except Core i7 isn't as weak in gaming as Pentium 4/D were.
> 
> Core i7 is faster because it has many more stages which go through media work much faster.  Longer stages aren't good for games though because it takes longer to recycle those stages.



Not so much, this isn't netburst. It has hyperthreading, but that doesn't make it a glorified netburst chip. Different architectures. Different computing world than it was in those days too w/ more uses at hand, and gaming in those days was more cpu reliant than it is today. It isn't weak, it's just a non-factor.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

The only critical difference between Nehalem and Netburst is Nehalem fixed all the cache misses that plagued Netburst (they compensated by upping the clock speed).  QPI helps but Netburst didn't fall flat because of the FSB.

Their architectures are strikingly similar.  Not to mention, the name Nehalem was originally attached to a Netburst chip.

P6: Pentium Pro (USA), Pentium II (USA), Pentium III (USA), Pentium M (Israel), Core (Israel), Core 2 (Israel)
Netburst: Pentium 4 (USA), Pentium D (USA), Core i# (USA)


At AMD...

Kryptonite: K6, K6-2, Athlon (K7), Athlon XP (K7 w/ SSE), Athlon 64 (K8), Phenom (K10)


----------



## Valdez (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Geekbench: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=88575
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090523/geekbench.png
> 
> Intel Burn Test: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=94721
> ...




That's nice, but you're using a 8 core system, and scores you marked are the score/ghz. 
Because of this every 8 core system will have a much bigger score/ghz value than the other 4 core systems.

We need the score/core, but there is no such column!



Anyway i don't see why the fb-dimm helps when there is cpu limit (because of fsb). 
Fb-dimm only gives a big bandwith, which helps in applications which are memory bandwith limited.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 24, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> If, however, you mean by "average" they are playing mostly games and/or have a love affair w/ AMD, then yes PII does serve a better buy for those folks. I would hesitate to call them average though. 720BE is great in all situations though, doesn't matter what the build that's just a great chip for the money. Thought I would clarify though......



Ether I'm still sobering up or there was a jab in there towards me.


----------



## farlex85 (May 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ether I'm still sobering up or there was a jab in there towards me.



I wasn't trying to jab at you, just challenging the notion that PII is better for the "average" consumer that you said in the post I quoted, and is a sentiment others have said before. I suppose it wasn't totally relevant nor necessary, but in truth I wasn't totally sober myself.  



FordGT90Concept said:


> The only critical difference between Nehalem and Netburst is Nehalem fixed all the cache misses that plagued Netburst (they compensated by upping the clock speed).  QPI helps but Netburst didn't fall flat because of the FSB.
> 
> Their architectures are strikingly similar.  Not to mention, the name Nehalem was originally attached to a Netburst chip.



Perhaps they are similar to the same vein as PIII was to Core 2, but to me that really isn't very much. Both architectures, although maybe using and building off of previous architecture, are their own and the performance is of course very different. There will of course be similarities though as they can't start from scratch every time.


----------



## Valdez (May 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you recall, Pentium 4/D handed it to Athlon 64/X2 in media/encoding



That's true, but only when p4/d were clocked 800-1200mhz higher than a64/x2.


----------



## DrPepper (May 24, 2009)

Melvis said:


> I would like to see a Q6600 beat a Phenom 955



955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's


----------



## MrAlex (May 24, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> 955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's



No...there are 4 platforms for the Q6600...if you get the cheapest theres not chance in hell...if you go X38/X48 it's the same price?


----------



## DrPepper (May 24, 2009)

MrAlex said:


> No...there are 4 platforms for the Q6600...if you get the cheapest theres not chance in hell...if you go X38/X48 it's the same price?



p35 ?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2009)

Valdez said:


> Anyway i don't see why the fb-dimm helps when there is cpu limit (because of fsb).


Since the north bridge is talking to processors directly on the sticks of memory, requests to the memory can be shorter and more complex.  It decreases physical interconnects and bandwidth consumed by the memory modules.




Valdez said:


> That's true, but only when p4/d were clocked 800-1200mhz higher than a64/x2.


Again, that was because of the Netburst architecture.  They had the clockspeeds so high to overcome the high number of cache misses.


----------



## Kitkat (May 24, 2009)

I love how all AMD post really bring out the love in this forum O


----------



## Darren (May 24, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> 955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's



Here in the UK I could build a Phenom II 955 build for almost the same price as a Q6600 build. The Q6600 is around £160, the Phenom II 955 is around £200. But because AM2+ boards are cheaper than socket 775 boards, the total price is almost the same.

If I was to put together a Phenom II  810, 920, 940, or 945 build it would be alot cheaper than the Q6600 build. Cheaper and faster, you can not go wrong!

Edit:

i7 is just too expensive to consider in the UK.

Edit 2:

Actually you should know you're from Scotland!


----------



## DrPepper (May 24, 2009)

Darren said:


> Here in the UK I could build a Phenom II 955 build for almost the same price as a Q6600 build. The Q6600 is around £160, the Phenom II 955 is around £200. But because AM2+ boards are cheaper than socket 775 boards, the total price is almost the same.
> 
> If I was to put together a Phenom II  810, 920, 940, or 945 build it would be alot cheaper than the Q6600 build. Cheaper and faster, you can not go wrong!
> 
> ...



Okay counting motherboard and cpu only

i7 = £385
Phenom II = £332

That is the cheapest Phenom II board that does DDR3 (I know it can do DDR2) 
And the i7 build is a Asus P6T SE and 920 D0 with a free game. Now I would pay the extra for the i7 build. Also I though q6600's would be cheaper. I got mine when they were about £105.


----------



## Darren (May 24, 2009)

Most Phenom II reviews see little performance gain between DDR2 and DDR3 anyways, but I must admit the DDR3 and AM3 motherboards are still expensive, usually from £100 but its optional, you could easily drop the Phenom II in a regular £40-50 motherboard with PC8500 and there is no way that a socket 775 or i7 could beat it from a price/performance ratio.


----------



## DrPepper (May 24, 2009)

Darren said:


> Most Phenom II reviews see little difference between DDR2 and DDR3 anyways but I must admit the DDR3 and AM3 motherboards are still expensive, usually from £100 but its optional, you could easily drop the Phenom II in a regular £40-50 motherboard with PC8500 and there is no way that a socket 775 or i7 could beat it from a price/performance ratio.



Indeed that is true but I tried to keep RAM costs out of the question.


----------



## Darren (May 24, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Indeed that is true but I tried to keep RAM costs out of the question.



If we take ram out of the equation and we presume that both the i7 and Phenom II builds are using DDR3 compatible motherboards and memory the Phenom II should be a lot cheaper than your predicted prices.

Remember if we match up the two cheapest and the two most expensive CPUs in the opposing brands range we'll see the price gap.


Cheapest CPUs:
Intel Core i7 920  is £229.99
AMD Phenom II 810 is £146

*Difference: £83*


Most expensive CPUs:
Intel i7 940 is £505
Intel i7 965 Extreme Edition is £804
AMD Phenom II 955 is £200

*Difference: £305 or £604*

Prices from Novatech.co.uk

Edit:

£305-604 is a huge difference in price, if one was to go the AMD route and select a AM2+ board/DDR2 memory the gap would be even larger for the overal build.


----------



## DrPepper (May 25, 2009)

I got my prices from OCUK though they aren't predicted. Also I did them in terms of performance not flagship v flagship


----------



## Melvis (May 25, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> 955 would win but its a more expensive platform. Another thing is that in games there wont be much of a different between the two anyway and will be down to what can oc the best. Even then the old q6600 isn't far behind the brand new phenom II's



I said what i said because of what the other poster said >  Originally Posted by newtekie1  View Post
The Q6600 released in Jan2007 is still outperforming their top offering today, they still have a lot of ground to make up.

As proven along time ago that the AMD 9950 and Q6600 are around the same in performance (im not going into OC because not many people do it) so when i see someone say that!! i know that there way off, because any Phenom above the 9950 will outperform a Q6600, its just crazy thinking a Q6600 can compete with any Phenom II these days. It might be more expensive and so it should be if it out performs a Q6600 at stock speeds........

The fact is that it beats it, thats all i was trying to say


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 25, 2009)

Remember, the X58 chipset which is mandatory for Core i7 is the creme of the crop with Crossfire and SLI support and 6.4 GT/s QPI links.  AMD doesn't have any boards that support both or even close to that much bandwidth.

Core i7 920 is substantially faster than the Phenom II X4 955 (benchmarks are 11:1 in favor of the i7).  Never mind the 940 and 965--they turn a bad beating into a slaughter.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 25, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Remember, the X58 chipset which is mandatory for Core i7 is the creme of the crop with Crossfire and SLI support and 6.4 GT/s QPI links.  AMD doesn't have any boards that support both or even close to that much bandwidth.
> 
> Core i7 920 is substantially faster than the Phenom II X4 955 (benchmarks are 11:1 in favor of the i7).  Never mind the 940 and 965--they turn a bad beating into a slaughter.



I wish AMD boards did support CF and SLI, it does make me slightly jealous.

But I would like to see what benches are 11:1, because I just dont find myself encoding or running Vantage all day long, what I find myself doing is gaming, which seems like most of TPU'ers do. You can pick end results to make it look like a landslide if you pick well. No one is arguing that i7 crushes PII's in synthetics and most benches, but in gaming performance the PII's are awesome and even the tri-cores hang with the i7 920.

And most of the PII users wouldn't bat an eye at the 940 or 965 comparisons, because thats 2x and 4x the price of the best AMD procs. If I was spending that money it would be going under DICE, and bringing that into account no cold bug the PII's rock for quiet a bit less than a 965.

Either way I don't really see the point of this as it has very little to do with the new offerings of 45nm processors.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 25, 2009)

My bad, it's 12:1.  Core i7 920 took all except two gaming benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14

Only Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead went to the Phenom.  However, the Phenom didn't beat the Core i7 965 in either of those benchmarks; moreover, in all those benchmarks, the Core i7 920 was greater than 60 FPS average.



1Kurgan1 said:


> Either way I don't really see the point of this as it has very little to do with the new offerings of 45nm processors.


I agree.  AMD threads are doomed to become vs Intel and Intel threads are doomed to become vs AMD.


----------



## Kitkat (May 25, 2009)

Darren said:


> Most Phenom II reviews see little performance gain between DDR2 and DDR3 anyways, but I must admit the DDR3 and AM3 motherboards are still expensive, usually from £100 but its optional, you could easily drop the Phenom II in a regular £40-50 motherboard with PC8500 and there is no way that a socket 775 or i7 could beat it from a price/performance ratio.



even so the controllers in the chip so when they do make a gain/advance/ect we'll have it. and hopefuly like last time the next chip will fit the slot.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 25, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My bad, it's 12:1.  Core i7 920 took all except two gaming benchmarks:
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14
> 
> Only Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead went to the Phenom.  However, the Phenom didn't beat the Core i7 965 in either of those benchmarks; moreover, in all those benchmarks, the Core i7 920 was greater than 60 FPS average.
> ...



Once again all except for 2 gaming benchmark is twisting the words to sound favorable as I could turn and say.

"PII beat the i7 920 (it's competitor, not the 965 thats 4x the price) in all but 2 gaming benches"

What you really should say is the gaming results were a tie, the 955 took 2 and the i7 920 took 2. To even compare the 965 at 4x the price is absurd as it is a far different market.

But I don't see why the threads are doomed, a troll jumps in the thread and says something to piss everyone off that is reading the thread. They get shot down, then a bunch of people jump in to back a troll (why?) This goes for both sides, it's a news thread if you think its cool that AMD is fleshing out their product line and finally releasing a Dual Core version for budget consumers and adding in some energy efficent offerings then speak up, otherwise move on. I can see the debate happening about WR bench results or the new AMD or Intel top dog, but this is about low end procs, why even bother talking about top dogs? These offerings aren't meant to compete with the i7 920/940/ 965 so why is any of that being brought up?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 25, 2009)

I'm not going to argue wording.  I cramed a lot of info into three sentences. :þ


Yeah, it's good AMD is getting off 65nm.  Their 65nm processors are hideous performance wise.  The sooner they get 65nm in the past, the better.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 25, 2009)

I'm really not looking to argue  Looking to just keep it all on subject.

But yeah 65nm is the past now, granted I been having a lot of fun with my gf's 7750. Seems the old 65nm's just clock much better as dual cores than quads, my old 9850 would clock, but it made me feel like tearing my eyes out.

Now the question is when 32nm is coming around for AMD. I'm really curious to see how much it helps moving to that process and to see the results, what will it be 24mb L3?


----------



## laszlo (May 25, 2009)

i read the comments and is boring...to many fanboys from all sides...


----------



## Valdez (May 25, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My bad, it's 12:1.  Core i7 920 took all except two gaming benchmarks:
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14
> 
> Only Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead went to the Phenom.  However, the Phenom didn't beat the Core i7 965 in either of those benchmarks; moreover, in all those benchmarks, the Core i7 920 was greater than 60 FPS average.
> ...




Those are not realistic benchmarks. I mean who plays fallout 3 in medium with 80 fps, if it is playable with maximum settings + 4xaa + 16xaf?
Nobody. Nobody plays it in medium without aa and af with 80 fps. That's nonsense.

Here is a more realistic benchmark:
http://www.hardware-infos.com/tests.php?test=64&seite=1

(in all of the 3 game tests the phenom is ahead of i7 in realistic resolution and settings)


Unfortunately a lot of sites do these game test in low or in medium settings just to show that the i7 is ahead in gaming too. But it's not true.


----------



## Darren (May 25, 2009)

Indeed, Valdez is correct!

It would appear that the Phenom II is faster than i7 in games especially when the pressure is on at @1680x150, with 4x AA, 16 AF.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 25, 2009)

FordGT90Concept games at 1280 x 1024. You are not going to change his mind about the i7 and gaming. Hes a low resolution gamer. Its kinda like having a vitamin deficiency.


----------



## Geofrancis (May 25, 2009)

i want to see some low wattage mobile like chips for the desktop platform like the 35w 3800+ ee sff chip that amd released. at the moment you either have to go for a 45w athlon x2 thats getting a bit old or a 45nm e5200 or low end pentium dual core. how many people here would kill for a 35w quadcore?


----------

