# Teh Phenom!



## Franklinwallbrown (Dec 13, 2007)

Is it overclockable? Are the multipliers unlocked? What are the discrepancies with the HT?


----------



## zOaib (Dec 13, 2007)

dont waste money on a phenom , sadly get an intel will last you longer and is WAY better in all respects. the only good you can buy from AMD right now is ATi vid cards , thats about it.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 13, 2007)

zOaib said:


> dont waste money on a phenom , sadly get an intel will last you longer and is WAY better in all respects. the only good you can buy from AMD right now is ATi vid cards , thats about it.



fully endorsed.

i feel sorry for teh ppl who preordered this.


----------



## Disparia (Dec 13, 2007)

Yeah, that'll probably be the standing recommendation until March when the "fixed" Phenoms are released and the 2.6Ghz and maybe 2.8Ghz models are out.

They still probably won't have a top-end chip, but the prices will be good.

But to answer your question, there will be Black Edition Phenoms that are totally unlocked. I'm assuming that the rest are downward-unlocked like the Athlon 64s? As for overclocking, Anand had trouble getting his sample to 3Ghz, but Tom didn't. There might be some threads here in the forum about it as well...


----------



## pepsi71ocean (Dec 13, 2007)

The FX-62 is unlocked, if you are looking for a unlocked chip.


----------



## AddSub (Dec 13, 2007)

> dont waste money on a phenom , sadly get an intel will last you longer and is WAY better in all respects. the only good you can buy from AMD right now is ATi vid cards , thats about it.



I agree. I would add, if you are looking for a budget solution then AMD's older AM2 lineup, 939 chips and even Socket 754 chips would be a better option. (for that media box PC or something) Since they are dirt cheap. Otherwise, Intel equivalents of Phenom lineup are a better choice.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 13, 2007)

Well people stuck on the AM2 boards phenom is ok...


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Dec 14, 2007)

I don't want to support Intel's becoming a monopoly, so, I am trying to buy AMD. I don't think I can buy new components to start my computer until after Christmas anyway.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 14, 2007)

Then I guess you dont want to use a Microsoft OS then? Or an nVIDIA video card? 

Dear god, just go with the better of the two products. I hate fanboyism and people saying that they hate company's becoming a monopoly. Its just petty.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 14, 2007)

its petty until 09 when intel may be the monopaly and your stuck with a penryn for the next 20 years and paying $800 a chip..........


----------



## hat (Dec 14, 2007)

Yeah dude, don't cheat yourself out of the better performance.
The only reason I am on an AMD system is because my uncle pretty much gave everything to me for free. All I had to pay for was the motherboard and the video card (I got one, but it was defective, and I knew it. It wasn't too bad in about half of my games though. Eventually I got an 8500gt. After I get my Corsair 450VX, I think I'm gonna try to fix it with a BIOS flash. x1800XL)


----------



## nflesher87 (Dec 14, 2007)

pick up a 5000+ Black edition, unlocked multi and all, I got mine at TigerDirect for $108 shipped with free Call of Juarez


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Dec 14, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Then I guess you dont want to use a Microsoft OS then? Or an nVIDIA video card?
> 
> Dear god, just go with the better of the two products. I hate fanboyism and people saying that they hate company's becoming a monopoly. Its just petty.



I'd rather not, but I want to play games, so, I need a Microsoft OS (unless I only play WoW). I can get an ATI card. I'm not a fanboy; just don't like potential monopolies or Intel's prices. If their were like 3 or 4 companies making computer chips it wouldn't scare me, but there isn't and I don't read enough to know the status of AMD, so...
I am running an AMD right now and I am happy with performance. I haven't had much trouble with it and I have used Intel before and have had more problems, but not that many. GGthxbi


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 14, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> its petty until 09 when intel may be the monopaly and your stuck with a penryn for the next 20 years and paying $800 a chip..........



You honestly think that if IF AMD goes under, there wont be another chip maker to compete with Intel? That I highly doubt. 

If anything, I could deal with being stuck with a chip for a while and the money prices for CPU's would keep me from upgrading all the time when I shoudlnt be. If that DID happen, it would be a good time to slow down the progression of the technology and let some things play catch up.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 14, 2007)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> I'd rather not, but I want to play games, so, I need a Microsoft OS (unless I only play WoW). I can get an ATI card. I'm not a fanboy; just don't like potential monopolies or Intel's prices. If their were like 3 or 4 companies making computer chips it wouldn't scare me, but there isn't and I don't read enough to know the status of AMD, so...
> I am running an AMD right now and I am happy with performance. I haven't had much trouble with it and I have used Intel before and have had more problems, but not that many. GGthxbi



I really dislike that reasoning but thats just me. Id rather go the company that has the better performance even if they are a bit more expensive. Id rather spend more for quality (or in this case performance) rather than spend less for shit.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Dec 14, 2007)

Let me put it another way. I just want to support an underdog. I try to always support underdogs, even if it means I have to give up a little bit.

Edit: To tell you the truth I'm 18 and I'm just getting into computers, and I don't know much about computers. So...if someone wants to be my computer mentor that would be great, but until then I only have my knowledge and experience on the subject (both of which are limited) coupled with my life knowledge and experience.


----------



## nflesher87 (Dec 14, 2007)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> If their were like 3 or 4 companies making computer chips it wouldn't scare me, but there isn't



Lol, not that I disagree with you (which I don't), but haven't you ever heard of IBM and TI just to name a couple 



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> You honestly think that if IF AMD goes under, there wont be another chip maker to compete with Intel? That I highly doubt.
> 
> If anything, I could deal with being stuck with a chip for a while and the money prices for CPU's would keep me from upgrading all the time when I shoudlnt be. If that DID happen, it would be a good time to slow down the progression of the technology and let some things play catch up.



and you're naiive if you think Intel becoming a monopoly would be good because it would restrict you from upgrading so often...
Take a second to think about how much potential progress would be lost because Intel wouldn't need to spend all it's money on R&D, just to name one thing


----------



## hat (Dec 14, 2007)

When you buy your CPU, only a certian % of it goes to AMD themselves, and it's not like whatever money goes to them helps them

If you wanna be nice, just donate a check to AMD.


----------



## spud107 (Dec 14, 2007)

i dont get how something that has a little less performance and price can be classed as shit,


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Dec 14, 2007)

^---edit

And take away money from my PC. Nuh-uh!

Edit: I don't think AMD stuff is shit either, just a little under par.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 14, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> and you're naiive if you think Intel becoming a monopoly would be good because it would restrict you from upgrading so often...
> Take a second to think about how much potential progress would be lost because Intel wouldn't need to spend all it's money on R&D, just to name one thing



I dont recall stating that Intel becoming a monopoly would be a good thing. On the contrary I said that it was unlikely. Though at AMD's current pace down the slippery slope, it MAY happen. 

I am not naiive nor ignorant on the situation at hand. Just a misunderstanding it seems. In fact, I was the one that stated the lack of progression in technology if AMD were to flatline.


----------



## spud107 (Dec 14, 2007)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> ^---edit
> 
> 
> Edit: I don't think AMD stuff is shit either, just a little under par.





niether do i, think people forget there isnt that big a gap in performance,


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 14, 2007)

spud107 said:


> i dont get how something that has a little less performance and price can be classed as shit,



You miss my point. That statement in which you question is in regards to all things in life you buy. Not just CPU's. I was stating that I'd rather fork out more money for better performance than be cheap and get something that offers less.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 14, 2007)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> ^---edit
> 
> And take away money from my PC. Nuh-uh!
> 
> Edit: I don't think AMD stuff is shit either, just a little under par.



Before teh Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad architecture, AMD was "top dog".


----------



## DaMulta (Dec 14, 2007)

AMD will not go out, maybe bought out and under a different name. But it will be there.

Just maybe, just maybe(A Guess)if all does go even worse than it is. You might not see as many different chips from them for a while.


----------



## ntdouglas (Dec 14, 2007)

What a shitty thread.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Dec 14, 2007)

Why?


----------



## tkpenalty (Dec 14, 2007)

to be honest, i'd purchase one of the K8 offerings instead... A black edition would be a good choice.


----------



## von kain (Dec 14, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> AMD will not go out, maybe bought out and under a different name. But it will be there.
> 
> Just maybe, just maybe(A Guess)if all does go even worse than it is. You might not see as many different chips from them for a while.



even fewer than now?? for 1 year and a half amd  have present 4-5 processors barcelona (opterons)(phenoms) 2 black editon athlons  ..


----------



## trickson (Dec 14, 2007)

This thread is stupid . The facts are out there the Phenoms suck ass . they are not worth the silicone they are made from let alone the price ! 
Look around you they suck ass at OCing they can not scale for shit and you are asking the question that has been answered 100 times all ready . THEY SUCK ASS! 
Getting a Q6600 would do you so much more in OCing and performance AMD has lost there touch for now it is going to be a long time till they find the way again and for you to buy a Phenom now would be a waste of your cash and a disappointment for you as well .  
The wait ever one was hoping for will not come for another 2-3 years and AMD fanboys every were are up in arms ! my E6750 beats the PHENOM in benchmarks ! my 3dmark06 CPU score is 2x higher than the phenoms! that in its self should tell you some thing right there !


----------



## b1lk1 (Dec 14, 2007)

Your benchmark scores are higher?  Good for you.  I am proud of you and your super duper benchmark scores.

The fact is that there are no current games pushing these CPU's to anywhere near their limits.  My poor little 4800+ can play ANY current game just as well as your super duper C2D @ 3.6GHz.  In fact, our porr little AMD CPU's do everything just as well in normal use.  Considering 9-% of the world doesn't even understand what overclocking is, it doesn't come into play when factoring this stuff.  I still would not recommend a Phenomif you are overclocking, but if you have an AM2 platform and really want a Quad, they are still quite powerful.  You won't get super duper benchmark scores, but then again, benchmark scores are worthless for anything except a measuring contest.  Too many sad souls in this thread spouting nonsense as to how much better C2D is.  Real world use is the real benchmark and I notice almost no difference between the c2Q I had @ 3.4GHz as compared to my lowly 4800+ @ 2.9GHz.  You Intel guys need to get over yourselves and your super duper CPU's.  You really make yourselves sound very childish.

Games are all GPU limited.  Spend all your money there and just get a nice cheap dual core.  Quads are useless for any normal desktop user, no matter who makes them.  Unless of course you really need those super dooper benchmarp scores.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 14, 2007)

b1lk1 said:


> Your benchmark scores are higher?  Good for you.  I am proud of you and your super duper benchmark scores.
> 
> The fact is that there are no current games pushing these CPU's to anywhere near their limits.  My poor little 4800+ can play ANY current game just as well as your super duper C2D @ 3.6GHz.  In fact, our porr little AMD CPU's do everything just as well in normal use.  Considering 9-% of the world doesn't even understand what overclocking is, it doesn't come into play when factoring this stuff.  I still would not recommend a Phenomif you are overclocking, but if you have an AM2 platform and really want a Quad, they are still quite powerful.  You won't get super duper benchmark scores, but then again, benchmark scores are worthless for anything except a measuring contest.  Too many sad souls in this thread spouting nonsense as to how much better C2D is.  Real world use is the real benchmark and I notice almost no difference between the c2Q I had @ 3.4GHz as compared to my lowly 4800+ @ 2.9GHz.  You Intel guys need to get over yourselves and your super duper CPU's.  You really make yourselves sound very childish.
> 
> Games are all GPU limited.  Spend all your money there and just get a nice cheap dual core.  Quads are useless for any normal desktop user, no matter who makes them.  Unless of course you really need those super dooper benchmarp scores.



supreme commander and its expansion. theres a game that AMD cant run for shit... in fact, most duals cant. C2D and C2Q kick PHENOMS ass, not the K8 - your 4800+ is faster than the phenom, if you OC above stock. OC'd a K8 can beat a Core 2 at stock.. but the core 2's OC higher so they are faster in GAMES and in benchies. if it was just benchies, dont you think people would realise this by now?

Please, just saying everyone else is a fanboy and bagging their systems out - YOU are being childish, and really just acting like you want to prove some silly little point. fact is, AMD fell flat on their face while intel is just making faster and faster chips.


P.S - games are not all GPU limited. the games that are, need a powerful CPU to back up the GPU... oh and before you even think of bagging out my system, please refer to 'mini' which had an x1900xt til recently, so i'm quite aware of how AMD and intel compare in gaming, as well as ATI and nvidia - i probably built more systems of a gaming level than you've used in the last 6 months, and i HAVE tested all of them personally and not just read up on them online.


----------



## trickson (Dec 14, 2007)

You forget that most of us are the power users and your not seeing the point we are making . 
How can you compare a Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz to a 4400+ @ 2.9Ghz ? That is just not true . My 5200+ is nothing when I put it to the test against my E6750 even at stock! Every thing runs faster ! your not making any sense . sure in games I see a huge difference in performance I can tell it runs faster in CRYSIS and also loads windows way faster . the Intel chips are faster than ever now and for any one to dispute this is wrong . Benchmarks are every thing ! This is how we as power users and regular ones as well tell what we want to buy . I will not put a penny into a pice of crap when I can get a better Chip for 20 bucks more why oh why would I take a chance with a phenom that may or may not work on a mobo that needs a bios flash just to find out that the bios sucks and so does the CHIP? most every one I have seen over on AMD's forum that have the Phenom are more than unhappy not only can't the CPU perform for beans but the BIOS they are getting to run them are doing nothing to run them ! 
No I will not get over myself as the Intel CHIPS are far better far faster and way more reliable and they can scale far better than any AMD CHIP out there !


----------



## Laurijan (Dec 14, 2007)

I bought a dual core 5000+ black edition 1Mb L2 cache and then returned it because i saw that a quad core q6600 with 8Mb L2 cache only cost double (8 TIMES THE CACHE) - so I concluded that it must be better - but later i was told that AMD CPUs dont need as much L2 cache as an Intel - but I did not regret my decision - bad marketing strategy if a CPU has less L2 Cache than another even if it doesnt need it.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2007)

lol intel uses huge caches cause they are still to lazy to replace the aging FSB on there mobos/chips. its not really better except for the fact its quad core


----------



## trickson (Dec 14, 2007)

cdawall said:


> lol intel uses huge caches cause they are still to lazy to replace the aging FSB on there mobos/chips. its not really better except for the fact its quad core


Yes it IS better in ever way ! 
Thing is they really don't need to it is not about being Lazy at all . 
The fact is also that Phenom has errata and AMD was to lazy to fix this by adding the extra Chace they maybe able to fix that but who knows . why are they even putting out a product with a know issue like errata and not fixing it first ? Intel doesn't have this problem and reall I fail to see why any one would buy a CPU with a KNOWN problem like this not to mention that they may not even work on a AM2 mobo!


----------



## Laurijan (Dec 14, 2007)

trickson said:


> Yes it IS better in ever way !
> Thing is they really don't need to it is not about being Lazy at all .
> The fact is also that Phenom has errata and AMD was to lazy to fix this by adding the extra Chace they maybe able to fix that but who knows . why are they even putting out a product with a know issue like errata and not fixing it first ? Intel doesn't have this problem and reall I fail to see why any one would buy a CPU with a KNOWN problem like this not to mention that they may not even work on a AM2 mobo!



When Intel began to sell its pentium 1 processors and there was a errata found it was possible to return the CPU to get a fixed one


----------



## trickson (Dec 14, 2007)

Laurijan said:


> When Intel began to sell its pentium 1 processors and there was a errata found it was possible to return the CPU to get a fixed one



Yes this is true . at least they offered up a fixed one not seeing AMD doing this at all! :shadedshu


----------



## Laurijan (Dec 14, 2007)

I think that the errata crippeling the performance of the phenom is as serios as the calculation error in the p1


----------



## WhiteLotus (Dec 14, 2007)

ok this thread is getting out of hand and needs a mod.

my opinion i would happily buy a phenom, most people do NOT NEED a Qextreme from Intel. if your cpu can handle what you want it to do then thats fine. 
i for one look for the cheapest option that can do everything i want it to do, why spend £100 more for a system to get an extra 10 fps when the cheaper option can do it at 20+ already.

and yes i am fully aware that the uk phenoms cost more than intel at the moment


----------



## BigD6997 (Dec 14, 2007)

my s939 opty170 is still working well lol clocked to 3ghz, still dont feel the NEED to upgrade, but now that ddr2 is SOOO cheap, im playing with the idea

get a c2d and oc the crap out of it


----------



## trickson (Dec 14, 2007)

WhiteLotus said:


> ok this thread is getting out of hand and needs a mod.
> 
> my opinion i would happily buy a phenom, most people do NOT NEED a Qextreme from Intel. if your cpu can handle what you want it to do then thats fine.
> i for one look for the cheapest option that can do everything i want it to do, why spend £100 more for a system to get an extra 10 fps when the cheaper option can do it at 20+ already.
> ...



I think the point is why not ? why would you want to buy a CPU that can not OC ? I mean yeah some don't OC but if you are into that then why would you want one like AMD Phenom? when you can get a Q6600 that will do 3.6 -3.8 GHz for the money that to me is the better one to get . the Q6600 is not an Extreme and well it is better in every way . (Even if you do not OC it is still better)
Why would we need a mod here ? I think that the facts speak for them selves we are only talking about facts here . And AMD fanboys call out mod's ? 
Look if you want a CPU that has a known Errata problem Known BIOS issues with mobo's that were supposed to be able to take the Phenom and a all out low performing CPU then go for it . most here are just trying to save you the hassle and time and cash for some thing that would only make you cry ! In the end the clear choice for a OCing power user is the Q6600 and up from intel or C2D . As far as AMD goes you get what you do not research !   
So don't cry to me when your Phenom is not performing up to par we all here have told you !


----------



## WhiteLotus (Dec 14, 2007)

trickson said:


> I think the point is why not ? why would you want to buy a CPU that can not OC ? I mean yeah some don't OC but if you are into that then why would you want one like AMD Phenom?



i am not arguing this point this is a fair point



> when you can get a Q6600 that will do 3.6 -3.8 GHz for the money that to me is the better one to get . the Q6600 is not an Extreme and well it is better in every way .



i was generalizing, people who do have a extreme, do they really need all that power, or are they future proofing? my point is nearly everyone who uses a computer uses it to look on the web, play a few simple games and do work on it. to me that does not require a CPU that can hit 3.6 - 3.8.




> Why would we need a mod here ? I think that the facts speak for them selves we are only talking about facts here . And AMD fan boys call out mod's ?



i am not an AMD fan boy - my CPU is AMD because for what i wanted my PC to do it was the cheapest. my next planned CPU is a Q6600 - because i plan to play supreme commander. i am calling a mod because i feel that this thread is getting out of hand.




> Look if you want a CPU that has a known Errata problem Known BIOS issues with mobo's that were supposed to be able to take the Phenom and a all out low performing CPU then go for it . most here are just trying to save you the hassle and time and cash for some thing that would only make you cry ! In the end the clear choice for a OCing power user is the Q6600 and up from Intel or C2D . As far as AMD goes you get what you do not research !
> So don't cry to me when your Phenom is not performing up to par we all here have told you !



i have nothing against Intel of AMD or anything for them. whoever can build me the best CPU for the job i want it to do then i will go for them. the demand for what you want your PC to do, Intel is supplying the high/upper end and AMD do a fair job of the middle, lower end.

Because everyone here, or everyone with a bit of knowledge with CPUs has an opinion there is going to be arguments. i am not arguing with anyone i am clearly stating that 99.99% of all computers users don't care whats inside the box as long as the box can do what they want it to do. people calling the new Phenoms Sh*t because the don't compare well to Intels offerings are being stupid and ignorant. for many people, nearly all the population a Phenom, IF cheaper, can easily handle most peoples needs. AMDs offerings aren't rubbish, most companies want you to buy a new computer and they say that this CPU running at 2.8 GHz is really good, and since most people look for the bigger numbers people go and get them.


----------



## erocker (Dec 14, 2007)

Phenom is broken, get over it.  Yeah, it sucks, I would love to buy a kickass AMD quad-core too, but there aren't any.  Maybe by March, AMD will have a quad that gives Intel a good run.


----------



## Laurijan (Dec 14, 2007)

Yes thats true that most of the people are as interested about whats inside a computer as an computer enthusiast is interested in ballet.


----------



## AsRock (Dec 14, 2007)

Last time i heard there was a FPS difference.  BUT anyways i think people here know whot you want so just give him what he's actually after.

I cannot say go for it due to that i don't own one of the new AMD chips \ Mobos.  BUT why not just wait a few months if AMD is whot your after.?..


----------



## pepsi71ocean (Dec 14, 2007)

My current AMD rig can play world in conflict in all max settings and yet its a 1.4 GHz single core Athlon XP. granted that over the years it has gotten older, it still kicks ass compared to some of the other computers in our house from the same time frame. They were all intel. It took me a while to go intel, but my new q6600 stock is hitting mid 37,000's in 3d bench mark. When compared to my older amd system which hits around 5,700.


----------



## BigD6997 (Dec 14, 2007)

pepsi71ocean said:


> My current AMD rig can play world in conflict in all max settings and yet its a 1.4 GHz single core Athlon XP.



highly doubt it.. especially with the x700 you list in your system specs for that PC

the newest cards play that game around 30-45fps average at 1280x1024.


but this thread isnt about that 

don't get the Phenom
go quad intel ATM or WAIT

easy answer

but if you realllly want amd ,the newer amd 5000+ black edition does not look like a bad deal at all, especially at $120usd


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 14, 2007)

Okay guys, simmer down. I think the point about Phenom has been made. Instead of getting this into an all out flame war and having it locked (which doesnt help the OP in any way) I say we help the kid out and whatever he wants to use, let him. He did state he was a noob in all of this after all.


----------



## nflesher87 (Dec 14, 2007)

as an ode to zek:


----------



## niko084 (Dec 14, 2007)

Right now Intel takes it all...

Hopefully next years AMD chips will take a bite out of Intel again.


----------



## Fizban (Dec 15, 2007)

Next years? Keep dreaming, Nehalam launches from Intel next year...


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 15, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> You honestly think that if IF AMD goes under, there wont be another chip maker to compete with Intel? That I highly doubt.
> 
> If anything, I could deal with being stuck with a chip for a while and the money prices for CPU's would keep me from upgrading all the time when I shoudlnt be. If that DID happen, it would be a good time to slow down the progression of the technology and let some things play catch up.



you know what your right when amd ...IF amd dies ill use the logic in this statement and buy nothing but cyrix chips........i can feel da powa NOW!!!

lol kinda kidding i mean if AMD falls what is going to take over? some under powered company like cyrix or w/e?.....im pretty sure but im taking a leap that i wouldnt be able to build a sweet rig with that....and im not sure what should play catch up.......we have 64bit OS's weve had processor affinitys since windows 2000 and the gaming engines are or have already been made to support hardware years from now....sooooo idk what ud be waiting for but i wouldnt be waiting for anything.


----------



## SSXeon (Dec 15, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> its petty until 09 when intel may be the monopaly and your stuck with a penryn for the next 20 years and paying $800 a chip..........



I doubt it, amd with a new respin and dropping to 45nm should get faster per clock over the penryn and hopefully up to around 3.0Ghz+ mid next year. Their new slide shows alot of info, kinda sad the R700 is pushed to 09, but if you see they have "6xx" ala R690 (HD3970x2) and RV680 (HD3970) im guessing, a 45nm beefed up RV670, and a dual RV680 = R690? Beefed up being maybe seperate clock domains like nvidia, a smart move if infact they do it. All specualtion on my part so....


----------



## Mussels (Dec 15, 2007)

i find it great how all the AMD users comebacks revolve around old intels (P4) or K8 series chips - AMD might be cheaper for a low end system, but they're damn well useless in mid-high, since the phenom is totally useless.

That comment about 'people just surf the web and play the odd game' makes about as much sense as me buying my Wii just to use the Opera browser in it - NO, people buy a quad core for video rendering or extreme gaming. neither party (web user or extreme gamer/encoder) would choose a phenom, because its either too expensive or too slow.


----------



## hat (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> too expensive *and* too slow.



fixed


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

And that sums up what I have been saying all along . 
I just help a friend get a Intel Q6600  today . His P4 is slow out dated and he asked me what to get I told him about the options he has with the AMD and with Intel  . He is not a gamer nor a video encoder . But HE wanted a fast computer the fastest one he could get right now . 
I told him about the Phenom and all about the Quad cores ( all I know ) we visited this thread and many others in 1 hour he made the Q6600 his choice . It is a matter of being informed IMHO he made the best choice ! And there are no Quad core AMD setups out there for sale any way LOL! No one wants to be left in the dust all the time and HE was no exception to the rule !


----------



## Mussels (Dec 15, 2007)

hat said:


> fixed



a guy web browsing, its merely too expensive  a pentium 3 is fast enough.

for a gamer, its too slow...


----------



## AsRock (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> a guy web browsing, its merely too expensive  a pentium 3 is fast enough.
> 
> for a gamer, its too slow...



Never mind pointless cash spent....  Finding this so funny...


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 15, 2007)

this site is just crawling with fanbois ...

this is reminiscent of the toyota vs honda threads over at wheelsjamaica


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> this site is just crawling with fanbois ...
> 
> this is reminiscent of the toyota vs honda threads over at wheelsjamaica



How are we being fanboys ? Is it not the truth being told ? If so and that makes me a fanboy then I guess I am one . For I don't want slow I want fast ! no matter what I am doing .


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 15, 2007)

im not saying you, but im talking the ppl who say i must/should/maybe support X company so that they dotn go oout of business, so im supposed to knowingly buy an inferior product?

its just irrational and its pissing me off.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 15, 2007)

trickson said:


> And that sums up what I have been saying all along .
> I just help a friend get a Intel Q6600  today . His P4 is slow out dated and he asked me what to get I told him about the options he has with the AMD and with Intel  . He is not a gamer nor a video encoder . But HE wanted a fast computer the fastest one he could get right now .
> I told him about the Phenom and all about the Quad cores ( all I know ) we visited this thread and many others in 1 hour he made the Q6600 his choice . It is a matter of being informed IMHO he made the best choice ! And there are no Quad core AMD setups out there for sale any way LOL! No one wants to be left in the dust all the time and HE was no exception to the rule !



So how exactly does this benefit him? He has a four core system that he wont utilize in the slightest. He would have been better off with a mid-high end dual core system. Especially if he is not a video encoder or a gamer.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> im not saying you, but im talking the ppl who say i must/should/maybe support X company so that they dotn go oout of business, so im supposed to knowingly buy an inferior product?
> 
> its just irrational and its pissing me off.



OH well yes than I totally agree with you on this . Yes I find supporting some company that just put out a product that is less than the comps is just dumb blind loyalty! Just because some day it will be good is not enough for me !


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 15, 2007)

trickson said:


> OH well yes than I totally agree with you on this . Yes I find supporting some company that just put out a product that is less than the comps is just dumb blind loyalty! Just because some day it will be good is not enough for me !



right now the only amd proc id buy is a 5000 BE


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> So how exactly does this benefit him? He has a four core system that he wont utilize in the slightest. He would have been better off with a mid-high end dual core system. Especially if he is not a video encoder or a gamer.



Well as I told you this is what he wanted fast and well I can tell you it is way fast ! windows vista loads in less than 15 seconds ! It doesn't matter how you think it is or what benifit you see from it I told him about the dual core systems and all this but this is what HE wanted so he paid for it ! 
When you tell people straight up don't candy coat it and give them all you can people can make there minds up for them selves ! I think that he will be more than happy with it and that is what really counts . I am sure there will be more than enough programs in the near future that he will use and that will use the 4 core CPU he has .


----------



## ntdouglas (Dec 15, 2007)

Lets kill this stupid thread anyways. Intel is on top right now, period. 
@trickson. Dude, start a new benching thread. You seem to do quite well at that. Maybe a pcmark 05 thread? Just think, it just might turn into a sticky like alcpone's 3dmark thread.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

ntdouglas said:


> Lets kill this stupid thread anyways. Intel is on top right now, period.
> @trickson. Dude, start a new benching thread. You seem to do quite well at that. Maybe a pcmark 05 thread? Just think, it just might turn into a sticky like alcpone's 3dmark thread.



I have the pie thread going yeah I think I will good call and I will get my friend into it too with his new quad ! see if the Phenoms come out ???


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 15, 2007)

trickson said:


> Well as I told you this is what he wanted fast and well I can tell you it is way fast ! windows vista loads in less than 15 seconds ! It doesn't matter how you think it is or what benifit you see from it I told him about the dual core systems and all this but this is what HE wanted so he paid for it !
> When you tell people straight up don't candy coat it and give them all you can people can make there minds up for them selves ! I think that he will be more than happy with it and that is what really counts . I am sure there will be more than enough programs in the near future that he will use and that will use the 4 core CPU he has .



I dont see how that is possible. I have a Q6600 @3GHz and a RAID 0 array on my OS drive with  no gui and I dont get a 15 second boot. 

All I am saying is that he should have gotten a CPU (dual core) that he could actually get full potential out of. For him, that is NOT a quad core processor. He wont even be using a quarter of it. Might as well just disable two cores. Then again, thats just wasting the money. Then again, he is anyway. :shadedshu


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 15, 2007)

ntdouglas said:


> Lets kill this stupid thread anyways. Intel is on top right now, period.
> @trickson. Dude, start a new benching thread. You seem to do quite well at that. Maybe a pcmark 05 thread? Just think, it just might turn into a sticky like alcpone's 3dmark thread.



Why kill it? The OP is trying to get help and all we are doing is bickering between one another which is not helping the OP. Seems we scared him away from his own thread.


----------



## ntdouglas (Dec 15, 2007)

trickson said:


> I have the pie thread going yeah I think I will good call and I will get my friend into it too with his new quad ! see if the Phenoms come out ???



Yeah, lets bench the phenoms, just to see where they stand. 3dmark is cool, but pcmark is total system strength. Just do it. I will be there.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I dont see how that is possible. I have a Q6600 @3GHz and a RAID 0 array on my OS drive with  no gui and I dont get a 15 second boot.
> 
> All I am saying is that he should have gotten a CPU (dual core) that he could actually get full potential out of. For him, that is NOT a quad core processor. He wont even be using a quarter of it. Might as well just disable two cores. Then again, thats just wasting the money. Then again, he is anyway. :shadedshu



Like I have said you see it this way he sees it another way . 
I know this guy and I know what he runs and he will be using it for KAD so I think that this setup will do him fine .


----------



## ntdouglas (Dec 15, 2007)

If you need help, just ask.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

ntdouglas said:


> Yeah, lets bench the phenoms, just to see where they stand. 3dmark is cool, but pcmark is total system strength. Just do it. I will be there.



What version of PCmark ?


----------



## SSXeon (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> i find it great how all the AMD users comebacks revolve around old intels (P4) or K8 series chips - AMD might be cheaper for a low end system, but they're damn well useless in mid-high, since the phenom is totally useless.
> 
> That comment about 'people just surf the web and play the odd game' makes about as much sense as me buying my Wii just to use the Opera browser in it - NO, people buy a quad core for video rendering or extreme gaming. neither party (web user or extreme gamer/encoder) would choose a phenom, because its either too expensive or too slow.



NO offence but they really arnt, if priced right. AMD got their name because of affordable chips and very competitive in their price range. Phenom isnt any diff, and im a HUGE intel supporter as i get chips 50% off (yeah got my QX for $500 in jan), but dont give up on AMD. They just need a respin and a smaller process. Plain and simple, if you didnt know they are VERY competitive in server computing. But you wouldnt make a post like that if you knew.     



[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> this site is just crawling with fanbois ...
> 
> this is reminiscent of the toyota vs honda threads over at wheelsjamaica



Then leave, lack of intelligence to see what peoples points really are is a skill or a talent, guess you dont have that strength.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 15, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> So how exactly does this benefit him? He has a four core system that he wont utilize in the slightest. He would have been better off with a mid-high end dual core system. Especially if he is not a video encoder or a gamer.



because even in single or dual core apps, its still faster than a phenom. it uses less power (read the news once in a while) and doesnt have known bugs that arent being fixed.

edit: and if history is any indication, it is future proofing - i know a lot of gamers who went faster single cores in 939 over a 'slower'
 dual, and then many games came out with dual core optimisations that made their singles run like crap (supreme commander and company of heroes both suck on single cores, as my examples)


----------



## Mussels (Dec 15, 2007)

SSXeon said:


> NO offence but they really arnt, if priced right. AMD got their name because of affordable chips and very competitive in their price range. Phenom isnt any diff, and im a HUGE intel supporter as i get chips 50% off (yeah got my QX for $500 in jan), but dont give up on AMD. They just need a respin and a smaller process. Plain and simple, if you didnt know they are VERY competitive in server computing. But you wouldnt make a post like that if you knew.



[sarcasm]
no, i dont know a thing. i dont have Core 2 duals and quads, i dont have any AMD chips from 939 AM2 and FX chips, and i dont read the news on this very site. [/sarcasm]

Phenom is NOT competitively priced - its barely cheaper than the intels which are a good chunk  faster because of that errata problem. the only thing AMD have going for them is cheaper motherboards, and thats a slim advantage.

and really i'm sorry, but wtf does server market have to do with desktops? they need a respin and a smaller process, oh yay... wait, intels doing that first. so... AMD just need to do it twice! yay AMD is still better!

Please... fanbois are ruining this. K8 was great, but got beaten and phenom is a failure. next gen is next gen, but its quite a ways off. while intels next gen is a handful of months away - HOW can you people still be arguing?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 15, 2007)

SSXeon said:


> Then leave, lack of intelligence to see what peoples points really are is a skill or a talent, guess you dont have that strength.



whate'er d00d.

if im on a site with supposedly intelligent well thinking ppl i shouldnt have to be sifting thru that shit, if u love intel/amd get a tat on ur ass or sumpn and keep it off the forums. trying to cloud an argument with made up/irrelevant facts is no better than the general nonsense section.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> Please... fanbois are ruining this. K8 was great, but got beaten and phenom is a failure. next gen is next gen, but its quite a ways off. while intels next gen is a handful of months away - HOW can you people still be arguing?



a man who sees it like it is.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> because even in single or dual core apps, its still faster than a phenom. it uses less power (read the news once in a while) and doesnt have known bugs that arent being fixed.



Thanks for the degradation. That was a real pick me up.

Im not a dumbass in this situation. I know the Phenoms are slow. I know that they are having issues. I know that the Q6600 arent. I understand that I see it one way and this guys friend sees it another. I understand that. But what you fail to see is that it's a total waste. I dont give to shits for a fuck that the Q6600 is "faster" in single or multi-core apps. However, if a single core app is not utilized to take advantage of a multi core processor, then that multi-core processor is not going to process that app all that much faster than what a single or dual core would. 

While the Q6600 may not have bugs that need fixing, the Penryn does. Hence the release date being pushed by only a month later than anticipated. And dont even go the route that Penryn hasnt even been mentioned at all because I know that. Just stating.

"edit: and if history is any indication, it is future proofing - i know a lot of gamers who went faster single cores in 939 over a 'slower'
dual, and then many games came out with dual core optimisations that made their singles run like crap (supreme commander and company of heroes both suck on single cores, as my examples)"

Okay. What would you have gone with during the time of the initial release of the dual core? I to would have chosen single core as there wasnt ANY support for dual core. Right now, there is a load of support for multi core systems. I would have went the faster dual core for his situation over the lower end quad core. However, had he gone the faster dual core offereing from Intel then that I can understand. But when he is using a computer for nothing more than just basically surfing the internet and listening to music, then teh quad core is very pointless. If I were helping a customer make a decision on a multi core system I would find out what they would be using that system for then find a price range that they are willing to pay in and go from there. If all they are doing is surfing the net, I would strongly recommend NOT getting a quad core. Not even a mid to high end dual core. If they were doing video encoding or something like that, then hell yeah go for a quad core.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> because even in single or dual core apps, its still faster than a phenom. it uses less power (read the news once in a while) and doesnt have known bugs that arent being fixed.



This is for sure ! Once you put aside your unending desire for your chipmaker and the blind loyalty towards them and READ some real news cut through the BS and dig you will finaly see the forest from the trees here . 
Look the Q6600 is the best CPU for money and there is nothing at all that AMD has out that can touch it ! and why the hell would you want a CPU that has a known errata error in it ? what the hell is that ? they are putting out a faulty product knowingly and you AMD fanboys can't wait to get one ?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 15, 2007)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Thanks for the degradation. That was a real pick me up.
> 
> Im not a dumbass in this situation. I know the Phenoms are slow. I know that they are having issues. I know that the Q6600 arent. I understand that I see it one way and this guys friend sees it another. I understand that. But what you fail to see is that it's a total waste. I dont give to shits for a fuck that the Q6600 is "faster" in single or multi-core apps. However, if a single core app is not utilized to take advantage of a multi core processor, then that multi-core processor is not going to process that app all that much faster than what a single or dual core would.
> 
> While the Q6600 may not have bugs that need fixing, the Penryn does. Hence the release date being pushed by only a month later than anticipated. And dont even go the route that Penryn hasnt even been mentioned at all because I know that. Just stating.



my comment wasnt meant to be degrading. the kentsfields are faster in single and dual apps than the AMD offerigns, and vs. a core 2 duo they have more cache and leftover cores if something does max 1-2 of them out - i also edited my post to mention how dual cores suddenly took off, which may help clarify my point. The person in question wanted 'the best' and 'future proof' which on the current offerings, the Q6600 is.

your swearing and ranting about single vs multi makes no sense - if you think about it, the Q6600 and the conroe series ARE the fastest cores for single core apps. just because the other cores arent being used has NO effect whatsoever, if the single threaded apps are still fast. the leftover cores can still be used for other tasks, just because it only uses the first of four cores doesnt negate the fact the first core is still faster than the first core of anything AMD has to offer! its not a 'waste' because it is being used, and WILL be used more in the future.

Penryn: it wasnt mentioned as you said, and intel pushed it back rather than release a faulty product like AMD. I think thats the far better choice to make as a busienss.


----------



## ntdouglas (Dec 15, 2007)

trickson said:


> What version of PCmark ?



05 right?


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> my comment wasnt meant to be degrading. the kentsfields are faster in single and dual apps than the AMD offerigns, and vs. a core 2 duo they have more cache and leftover cores if something does max 1-2 of them out - i also edited my post to mention how dual cores suddenly took off, which may help clarify my point. The person in question wanted 'the best' and 'future proof' which on the current offerings, the Q6600 is.
> 
> your swearing and ranting about single vs multi makes no sense - if you think about it, the Q6600 and the conroe series ARE the fastest cores for single core apps. just because the other cores arent being used has NO effect whatsoever, if the single threaded apps are still fast. the leftover cores can still be used for other tasks, just because it only uses the first of four cores doesnt negate the fact the first core is still faster than the first core of anything AMD has to offer! its not a 'waste' because it is being used, and WILL be used more in the future.
> 
> Penryn: it wasnt mentioned as you said, and intel pushed it back rather than release a faulty product like AMD. I think thats the far better choice to make as a busienss.



I have to thank you this post makes great sense to me !


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> my comment wasnt meant to be degrading. the kentsfields are faster in single and dual apps than the AMD offerigns, and vs. a core 2 duo they have more cache and leftover cores if something does max 1-2 of them out - i also edited my post to mention how dual cores suddenly took off, which may help clarify my point. The person in question wanted 'the best' and 'future proof' which on the current offerings, the Q6600 is.
> 
> your swearing and ranting about single vs multi makes no sense - if you think about it, the Q6600 and the conroe series ARE the fastest cores for single core apps. just because the other cores arent being used has NO effect whatsoever, if the single threaded apps are still fast. the leftover cores can still be used for other tasks, just because it only uses the first of four cores doesnt negate the fact the first core is still faster than the first core of anything AMD has to offer! its not a 'waste' because it is being used, and WILL be used more in the future.
> 
> Penryn: it wasnt mentioned as you said, and intel pushed it back rather than release a faulty product like AMD. I think thats the far better choice to make as a busienss.



My apologies as coming off as an ass then. 

However, while I understand what you are getting across as far as a multi core cpu on a single threaded app, if a person/user/he/she/whatever is using a system such as XP, there is nothing that really needs the extra attention of that of a quad core anyway as nothing that is a background process is CPU intensive. Vista, that may be a different story and I can see where the tri core can come into play at least. But if the other three cores of a quad core are there for doing whatever on an idle system, that is still a waste of CPU potential. Even overclocking the system is a bit pointless. 

On the Penryn note, I 100% agree with you on that and couldnt agree more.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 15, 2007)

you were picking out that that person has wasted CPU power - its not the case.

You're looking at a web browser with an 8800GTS? waste of power.

4GB of ram for a web browser? what a waste!

you buy these parts beccause you need it SOMETIMES, not all the time. otherwise we'd all be on pentium 3's with 512MB of ram.

You seemed to miss this in the first post: they wanted the best, and future proofing - that DOES mean a quad, look how poor the single cores fare today in the dual world - this will happen soon enough with quads.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 15, 2007)

Mussels said:


> you were picking out that that person has wasted CPU power - its not the case.
> 
> You're looking at a web browser with an 8800GTS? waste of power.
> 
> ...



I could say the exact same for you as your setup is very similar to mine. 

I dont use my machine solely for web browsing. I use my computer for video encoding and hardcore gaming. But I understand your point regardless. 

Look how long it took single cores to get there though. Sure dual and quad cores will be phased out much quicker, but not that much.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

Here it is ! test your computer ! Bring it on Phenom! 
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=569722#post569722


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

ntdouglas said:


> 05 right?



Yes PCmark05 the newer version .
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1106
get it here !


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 15, 2007)

Letsw take it easy boys...though this is all very intresting.


----------



## FatForester (Dec 15, 2007)

I've read this entire thread, and there seems to be absolutely no purpose in it. Everyone's arguing essentially the same point, except in drag. This is pretty stupid, but what the heck, it's the internet. Keep going!


----------



## jpierce55 (Dec 15, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> pick up a 5000+ Black edition, unlocked multi and all, I got mine at TigerDirect for $108 shipped with free Call of Juarez



Not to derail the thread but how did the cpu oc on that mobo? I second a 5000+ black edition if you want to stay AMD. It is low heat/power, even if not Intel speed.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

FatForester said:


> I've read this entire thread, and there seems to be absolutely no purpose in it. Everyone's arguing essentially the same point, except in drag. This is pretty stupid, but what the heck, it's the internet. Keep going!



And your input was to what ? 
I see this thread as informative . Say what you will but we are talking about it no matter what you say .


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Dec 15, 2007)

OKay, umm...my intent wasn't to start this big AMD vs. Intel discussion. I don't know that much about computers. I am worried that Intel will become a monopoly. I don't know that much about the business world actually. I'm not a power user. I just want to play games on an affordable gaming system, and I will probably mess around with it, and OC it to learn about computers. I'm thinking about going to college for computers, but I don't know yet. It's all very confusing.


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> OKay, umm...my intent wasn't to start this big AMD vs. Intel discussion. I don't know that much about computers. I am worried that Intel will become a monopoly. I don't know that much about the business world actually. I'm not a power user. I just want to play games on an affordable gaming system, and I will probably mess around with it, and OC it to learn about computers. I'm thinking about going to college for computers, but I don't know yet. It's all very confusing.



Look technology is always changing and evolving . For Intel AMD IBM every one . Intel is big yes but it will never be a monopoly no matter if you buy one of there CPU's or not . if you want a great set up get a AMD 6400+ black if you want an even better one with power and speed and all the bells and whistles get a Quad core Intel set up . 
Simply put there is no real way to tell you what you want you have to want it then get it .


----------



## DaMulta (Dec 15, 2007)

I need to get the old floppy disc out today///\\


----------



## BigD6997 (Dec 15, 2007)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> I just want to play games on an affordable gaming system, and I will probably mess around with it, and OC it to learn about computers.



affordable with good performance = AMD x2 5000+ Black Edition

you can find it for around $120 and you can oc it easy to 3+ghz

with its unlocked multipliers you wont have as hard of a time ocing it and will help the learning curve

and its cheap!


----------



## DaMulta (Dec 15, 2007)

Damn MSI bioes are too big for a standered floppy disc, and they don't have a inside windows flash tool.....


----------



## anticlutch (Dec 15, 2007)

Hm... I'm just thinking aloud but if people knowingly bought an inferior product, doesn't that kind of send the wrong message to the company? Wouldn't they just continue to "just survive" and not innovate because they know that they have people who would buy their products regardless of whether or not a competitor's product performed better?

Honestly I think the act of buying a product specifically to "help out a company" is retarded. If they knew their products were crappy, yet people continued to buy them, it would most likely just send the company a message that they did not need to excel because some people would pity them and always buy their products, thus insuring an income (albeit a rather modest one). If people were to stop buying their products because of their inferior quality, the company would become scared shitless and start to innovate (which is why I refuse to buy AMD until they get their act together... the past few months have been absolutely embarassing).


----------



## hat (Dec 15, 2007)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> OKay, umm...my intent wasn't to start this big AMD vs. Intel discussion. I don't know that much about computers. I am worried that Intel will become a monopoly. I don't know that much about the business world actually. I'm not a power user. I just want to play games on an affordable gaming system, and I will probably mess around with it, and OC it to learn about computers. I'm thinking about going to college for computers, but I don't know yet. It's all very confusing.


Get a 6400+ then. It's faster than the Phenom, heh


----------



## anticlutch (Dec 15, 2007)

@ Franklin: I'd suggest that you take the same route that I advised my dad to do. Buy a decent K8 CPU (i.e. anything from the the Athlon 4000 series, 5000 series, and 6000 series for the AM2 socket) and a Phenom compatible motherboard. And when AMD rolls out their fixed Phenoms, replace your K8 CPU with the Phenom.


----------



## hat (Dec 15, 2007)

Yeah man, get an AM2+ mobo, and pair it with this cpu for now
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103046

then when phenoms drop in price and get fixed up, get one of them. THis CPU clocks to like 3GHz sometimes, should have no problem taking it there on a high-end am2+ board


----------



## trickson (Dec 15, 2007)

hat said:


> Yeah man, get an AM2+ mobo, and pair it with this cpu for now
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103046
> 
> then when phenoms drop in price and get fixed up, get one of them. THis CPU clocks to like 3GHz sometimes, should have no problem taking it there on a high-end am2+ board



Yes but then this spurs on the debate of why not a Intel setup then ? C2D is faster more Over clock able and just a better path for upgrading with out the wait and see if AMD gets there shit fixed !


----------



## BigD6997 (Dec 15, 2007)

trickson said:


> Yes but then this spurs on the debate of why not a Intel setup then ? C2D is faster more Over clock able and just a better path for upgrading with out the wait and see if AMD gets there shit fixed !



its ultimately up to him to decide what he wants

i believe we have given him enough options and standpoints


----------



## hat (Dec 15, 2007)

trickson said:


> Yes but then this spurs on the debate of why not a Intel setup then ? C2D is faster more Over clock able and just a better path for upgrading with out the wait and see if AMD gets there shit fixed !



We've told him this over and over again, yet he still wants to support AMD. I'm just telling him what he wants to hear.


----------



## trickson (Dec 16, 2007)

hat said:


> We've told him this over and over again, yet he still wants to support AMD. I'm just telling him what he wants to hear.



You see some people you just can't reach .. So you get what we had here last week  , which is the way he wants it ,,,, Well he gets it .


----------



## WhiteLotus (Dec 16, 2007)

thats a quote from a film^^^^^^^^^^^ but what film??!?!?


----------



## trickson (Dec 16, 2007)

WhiteLotus said:


> thats a quote from a film^^^^^^^^^^^ but what film??!?!?



Cool Hand Luke .


----------



## adrianx (Jan 14, 2008)

about the phenom... 

the curent revision B2 

this revision support DDR2 at 1066Mhz only with 1 or 2 dims combination. do NOT support 4 dims at 1066Mhz. 

The strange think is that Everest and CPU-Z say the memory controler support.... ddr2 400/533/667/800 and *DDR3 800*

soo this is correct? the X4 supports DDR3 at 800Mhz?


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jan 14, 2008)

They came out with the black edition. Is it good? When are the fixed Phenoms coming out?


----------



## kenkickr (Jan 14, 2008)

Phenom will not receive DDR3 support til AM3 is released.  From what I have read many users and review sites have had either really good OC's from 2.8 to 3Ghz without problems but some are struggling just to hit 2.4 and I think it is the HT causing the problem since it seems alot of the AM2+ boards are having problems with either not being able to adjust HT or just no option in the bios TO change it.  The new stepping will come out whenever AMD decides to fix the problems and get them out.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 15, 2008)

one budget amd system that played crysis just as well as my current overclocked intel system does.. 

abit an52 mobo..

6000+ cpu clocks nicely at 3.350 gig..

2 gigs of system ram.. can be cheap..

ati 3870 grafix card.. 

one artic pro cooler..

having just swapped from one system to the other it can be assumed that my comments are based of fact not hearsay..

this intel amd thing gets f-cking boring..

all u need intel for is good benching scores.. u wanna play games amd will do the job just as well..

and if u dont know exactly why u want a quad.. u dont need one.. 

trog


----------



## strick94u (Jan 15, 2008)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> I don't want to support Intel's becoming a monopoly, so, I am trying to buy AMD. I don't think I can buy new components to start my computer until after Christmas anyway.



Black box 6400 than


----------



## wiak (Jan 15, 2008)

am putting my brain into this thread now, last time i checked, amd phenom realy did well on x264 encoding against a higher clocked quad intel, that shows a good deal

x264 = video encoding and its heavly multiprocessing

and you should compare amds budget to what intels budget is, and then you should re-see the benchmarks

i say thats outstanding

and the reason i want amd is i dont like having intel, if everyone had bought intel, you whouldt have had any good cpus, and some realy slow progress, intel got ass raped when amd released their Opteron in 2003, even now intel starts to COPY it with their nehalm, and there is another point, AMD has used DDR on Athlon 64 and Opteron, that was a big diffrent compared to intel on DDR2 back then, now that intel go DDR3, AMD still uses DDR2 as you wont see any big diffrent between DDR2 and DDR3

anyway this thread starts to be a AMD vs Intel fight
be done with it!


----------



## kenkickr (Jan 15, 2008)

I agree with you totally wiak on the intel vs amd nothingness that plagues reviews and forums we read and see everyday.  I work in a PC shop and we sell both AMD and Intel and there are certain reasons why.  The kid who comes in with mommy and daddys money and is told the best and only the best well we will sell him an intel.  Now the guy who comes in and wants a good system but not one that will cost him an arm and leg we talk him more into the route of AMD.  With Intel they should stop the celeron line and AMD should get rid of the Sempron line because with the why AMD is going their processors give far better performance/value than any Cely or Sempy can give and then you have intel for the performance freaks and the people that just play benchmarks for bragging rights.  I like them both but I'll be honest I am a money conscience guy and the Phenom would win my money right now.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 15, 2008)

phenoms just aint cheap in the UK.. my recommendation would always be the 6000+.. 

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&sortby=nameAsc&subid=&mfrid=3

anybody that recommends a phenom is simply giving bad advice.. phenoms are for die-hard amd fanboys who think they need a quad but have no idea why..

in essence the phenom is a failure.. its should have arrived sooner and it should have arrived faster.. 

amd by all means but not the phenom.. possibly in the future but definitely not now.. 

trog


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 15, 2008)

Hit these CPU scores with that 6000....

Stable
http://img.techpowerup.org/071224/stable.jpg

bench
http://img.techpowerup.org/071218/7oc.jpg


----------



## trog100 (Jan 15, 2008)

synthetic benches that run four cores dont reflect real life for lost folks thow do they..

mind u if phenoms can get up to around the  2.8 to 3 gig mark i might change my mind about em.. a phenom at 3 gig i would go for any day.. its the out of the box 2.2 and 2.3 that bothers me.. more so being as they are amds latest and greatest  top of the range chips..

trog


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jan 15, 2008)

Well, guys! I might be falling into some money & I think I would like to run some stuff by you. First, let us pretend that money is no option, but I am frugal. So, I would like performance, but I don't really want to over do it. All I do is play BF:2142, WoW (my subscription ran out tho), Warcraft (rarely), but I would like to play some of the high end games; get on the internet; watch movies (I want a blu-ray/HD DVD player); & listen to music. I want to become more familiar with OCing & building computers. I have never built a computer myself before, but I would like to build this one. I have only OCed my current computer, but very marginally; and I have OCed my current video card, but again not anything to go crazy over. If AMD will get me where I'm going, then I would rather support them and their small business. If I don't need a quad core (which I assume is for multitasking) then I don't need one, and I would be happy with a dual core. Heck, I'm on a single core right now anyway. Truthfully guys, I don't know that much about computers except for what my friends & you tell me about them. I want to learn, it's just that I haven't been around them that long. Only in the past few months have I been immersing myself in computer stuff. So, if you guys could help a brotha out I would appreciate it. Oh, & when I OC my stuff I don't want it to be too terribly load. I also think that I don't want to mess with liquid cooling. Thanks in advance guys!

Bigfoot NIC card? Yay or nay?
Physics card? Yay or nay?

I think I have it, I just need a good case and aftermarket HSF.


----------



## adrianx (Jan 15, 2008)

the bigfoot nic card  will be ok, if you have a clear network connection  with low time of responce.. ~ 20-30ms or better


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2008)

bigfoot nic card, maybe. its for people to whom ping matters hugely.

Physx = nay. useless at the moment.

Dual core? grab a new intel one from the 8x00 series, 45nm and overclock like MAD. they certainly are better value for money than the Q6600, which was the overclockers favourite til now.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jan 15, 2008)

What sound card & sound system would you guys recommend?

How do you know if you network connection has a low response time?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2008)

i like my audigy 4, so i guess an X-fi would be a better choice (it works better under vista)

Sound: Logitech X-530 speakers. Dirt cheap, great analogue sound.
Digital speakers you cant go past the logitech Z-5500's, they own everything including your soul.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jan 15, 2008)

What does analogue mean?

Can you go Intel & ATI?

Alienware uses SSDs on their machines! I wounder if I could?

Are 7.1 speakers way better--and more worth your money--than 5.1 speakers?


----------



## j00sh (Jan 16, 2008)

just wanna put my 2 cents in. out of the box a 6000+ is slighly faster than the C2D. I didn't price compare..but im almost certain that AMD's chip will be cheaper. As for OC'ing the AMD 6000+ seems like it was made for it. My knowledge of the average OC (as opposed to exctreme OC) of the C2D is lacking. but i know that with slight tweaking the 6000+ responds quite well. 
I bought my 6400+ for the fast 3.2 out of the box speed. hope that helps.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jan 16, 2008)

I don't know really. I am doing so many things right now I think I could just fall, but I do know that AMD is cheap and that they aren't bad by any means & you can OC them. So, I think I will go AMD & ATI, and in doing so, supporting the little guy, which I like to do. I'm not a fanboy per say because I don't think I have enough computer knowledge to be one way or the other. I just know that I run AMD now & it works. I don't think that I will need a computer much over 3ghz if at all. I just wish I had more knowledge to understand what I needed. You know?


----------

