# ''Real Men Use Real Cores'': AMD



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

AMD finally stepped out of its shell after Intel's launch of its newest line of Xeon processors based on the Nehalem architecture. In an interview with TechPulse 360, AMD's Pat Patla and John Fruehe took on Intel's recent marketing drive for Nehalem Xeon products. The conversation revolved mainly around the issues of platform costs, and the features the new Xeon processors introduce (or reintroduce) to the server/enterprise computing industry, namely the company's proprietary FSB-replacement, QuickPath Interconnect, and HyperThreading. 

The two first took on Intel's marketing, particularly on its material that said that the slowest Nehalem Xeon chip was faster than the fastest Opteron chip, saying that Intel's statements weren't backed by real figures. The two also alleged that Intel's server platform was too expensive and delivered lesser value in an ailing state of the economy. Perhaps the most audacious statement from AMD since the somewhat famous "only real men have fabs" statement by Jerry Sanders III, came from this interview, where AMD responded to a question on HyperThreading saying that "real men use real cores". "We've got real cores across our products. HyperThreading is basically designed to act like a core except that it only gives 10 to 15 percent performance bump for real applications workload." they said. Is AMD making a real point, or fighting fire...erm marketing with marketing? Find out in this interview.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 27, 2009)

I think they're getting cocky.. Again. Which usually turns out to be good for them. If I remember correctly they got cocky around the HD 4000 and Phenom II launch, when are their 6 core server CPU's gonna be released again?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 27, 2009)

real men use real (slow) cores?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 27, 2009)

real men have fabs link here


----------



## Tau (Apr 27, 2009)

Sure the intel platforms cost more....   thats beacuse your getting double the computing power.  So in reality when you have to buy two opteron systems to equal one intel... its cheaper in the long run for the intel setup.

Morons.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 27, 2009)

Tau said:


> Sure the intel platforms cost more....   thats beacuse your getting double the computing power.  So in reality when you have to buy two opteron systems to equal one intel... its cheaper in the long run for the intel setup.
> 
> Morons.



And dont forget energy consumption and complexity, how many fabs does AMD own now btw?


----------



## devguy (Apr 27, 2009)

Six core "Istanbul" processor comes out the end of this quarter.  What surprised me is that the 12 core processors are already being sampled.  However, from what I've read, I don't think that the 12 core "magny cours" (creative name  ) processor will be a native 12 core.  So I hope that all the crap AMD gave to Intel about their Kentsfield architecture being a "duct tape mod" doesn't get thrown back in their face.

What is good though, is that Intel may already have their 6 core "Dunnington" on the market, but it is using the older Core 2 architecture without a built in memory controller (let alone the triple channel one in the Nehalem architecture).  This means that AMD may still have the upper hand in memory bandwidth on 6 core processors.  Also, these are straight up drop in upgrades and are MUCH more appealing to those who run servers (especially who are already running Opteron) as opposed to the ship that has to be jumped through to go from the Core 2 Xeon to the Nehalem Xeon.


----------



## DaMulta (Apr 27, 2009)

I want a T-Shirt that says ''Real Men Use Real Cores'': AMD


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 27, 2009)

DaMulta said:


> I want a T-Shirt that says ''Real Men Use Real Cores'': AMD



Honestly, I'd buy that  Would go great under my amd hoody


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> And dont forget energy consumption and complexity, how many fabs does AMD own now btw?



There are zero "AMD" fabs...no more real men


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2009)

devguy said:


> What is good though, is that Intel may already have their 6 core "Dunnington" on the market, but it is using the older Core 2 architecture without a built in memory controller (let alone the triple channel one in the Nehalem architecture).  This means that AMD may still have the upper hand in memory bandwidth on 6 core processors.  Also, these are straight up drop in upgrades and are MUCH more appealing to those who run servers (especially who are already running Opteron) as opposed to the ship that has to be jumped through to go from the Core 2 Xeon to the Nehalem Xeon.


Bandwidth?  FB-DIMM can achieve some 12,000+ MB/s bandwidth using DDR2-553.  AMD only has the advantage in terms of memory latency which will be mostly erased as more Nehalem-based processors hit the market.


And funny AMD mocks Hyperthreading.  Hyperthreading means virtually none of the processor sits idle.  What's so bad about that?  It's good because more work is done per clock without a significant addition of more power draw and heat production.  That means it's great for servers.  AMD needs a better line than that like, "We're second place and lov'in it!"  Or, "AMD, the tortoise: slow and steady.  But we'll win in the end!"


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> There are zero "AMD" fabs...no more real men




So they're hyperthreaded then?


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> So they're hyperthreaded then?



No, not even that.


----------



## Tau (Apr 27, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> And dont forget energy consumption and complexity, how many fabs does AMD own now btw?



Yup.

AMD/ATI has been sinking since the Core2s hit the market.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

Please keep the comments clean.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Apr 27, 2009)

sekkle, this is the news section


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> "HyperThreading is basically designed to act like a core except that it only gives 10 to 15 percent performance bump for real applications workload." they said.


Oh dear, that's quite an inaccurate slander. Should get him into trouble. Perhaps HT only made 10-15% performance difference on P4/Northwood architecture, but on Nehalem it gives 20-50% performance boost on multithreaded apps. Unless of course you cherry pick your benchmarks to show the worst data:shadedshu...


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Apr 27, 2009)

Cherry pickin' FTW!


----------



## MilkyWay (Apr 27, 2009)

whats with the AMD bashing they are an alternative for the average user and the budget enthusiast

if you dont want to spend a lot then AMD is just as good sure it cant compete with the i7 but calm down man


----------



## Noggrin (Apr 27, 2009)

How pathetic you must be to try to mock a product when your own isn't worth shit.. AMD just gives me lolz every now and then.. they are so pathetic, yet funny at the same time.. lolz..


----------



## HTC (Apr 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Oh dear, that's quite an inaccurate slander. Should get him into trouble. Perhaps HT only made 10-15% performance difference on P4/Northwood architecture, but on Nehalem it gives 20-50% performance boost on multithreaded apps. Unless of course you cherry pick your benchmarks to show the worst data:shadedshu...



It's obvious that logical cores can't compete with physical ones but what's undeniable is that they do boost the processor's power.

An 8 physical core AMD would (should?) kick the living hell out of any (current) I7 but AMD isn't there yet, nor is Intel for that matter.


Many claim that Phenom IIs aren't meant to be competing with I7s and should be competing with Yorkfields instead but i disagree: It's not Intel's fault AMD hasn't been able to make a closer (or better) performer to it's I7 and Intel's top CPUs should be competing with AMD's top CPUs.

This is no cause for AMD to give up: quite the contrary. Intel may have thought they were miles ahead of AMD but AMD have responded well, though not as good as they might have liked, but they did closed the gap quite a bit, IMHO.


In these CPU wars, one manufacturer must NOT get too far away from the other or it will be us consumers that will pay the price, literally.


----------



## Noggrin (Apr 27, 2009)

HTC said:


> In these CPU wars, one manufacturer must NOT get too far away from the other or it will be us consumers that will pay the price, literally.



Why all AMD fans go with that bs all the time? You know what? F*** that shit. This is the same bs I've been reading over and over ever since core 2 duo came out. What a crap. The truth is the other way around - if you want to have the newest, fastest and with big overclock potential cpu you just pay the big price, yeah, that's what high end means ffs. Right now Intel is like 1 light year ahead of AMD with Nehalem whatever you like it or not. It's a fact. Yet i7 920 that goes 3.8/4.0 with almost every x58 board is like what? $280.. news flash I bought my E4300 when it came out for $240, that was 2 years ago. So you know what? F*** off with that "if it wasn't for amd we have to pay $3000 for a cpu bla bla bla" crap. that's some bs, not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600 ffs.. amd is dead, it has been dead ever since c2d hit the market, deal with it.. yet you dont have to pay $3000 for i7 920..


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 27, 2009)

HTC is quite the AMD fan with that athlon x2 E8400

Anyway I find that AMD's current PII is hardly any better than my q6600. Not enough for me to give her up. I'd only jump to nehalem or if dual amd board which is unlikely at best.


----------



## HTC (Apr 27, 2009)

Noggrin said:


> Why all AMD fans go with that bs all the time? You know what? F*** that shit. This is the same bs I've been reading over and over ever since core 2 duo came out. What a crap. The truth is the other way around - if you want to have the newest, fastest and with big overclock potential cpu you just pay the big price, yeah, that's what high end means ffs. Right now Intel is like 1 light year ahead of AMD with Nehalem whatever you like it or not. It's a fact. Yet i7 920 that goes 3.8/4.0 with almost every x58 board is like what? $280.. news flash I bought my E4300 when it came out for $240, that was 2 years ago. So you know what? *F*** off with that "if it wasn't for amd we have to pay $3000 for a cpu bla bla bla" crap. that's some bs, not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600 ffs.. amd is dead, it has been dead ever since c2d hit the market, deal with it.. yet you dont have to pay $3000 for i7 920..*



Let me give you an example: here in my area, a gas vendor started selling their gas (lower quality) 10 cents per liter lower then anyone else (this was when the gas prices were very high).

What do you think the result was? They started getting far more costumers then anyone else and the competition started lowering their prices as well.

Who do you think won this? IMO, there were two winners:

- the dudes that started selling the gas @ 10 cents lower then anyone else which gave them hordes of costumers and, despite been selling @ a lower price, made them more money then those that sold @ regular price;

- those consumers that saved 10 cents per liter and ended up saving a ton of money.


The point i'm trying to put across is that, without competition, those that sell a product can set it's price freely but, when faced with competition, they are *forced* to make a competitive price.





DrPepper said:


> *HTC is quite the AMD fan with that athlon x2 E8400*
> 
> Anyway I find that AMD's current PII is hardly any better than my q6600. Not enough for me to give her up. I'd only jump to nehalem or if dual amd board which is unlikely at best.



I have had the following CPUs, over the years:

Pentium 100
Celeron 300A
Duron 800
Athlon 1800
Athlon 64 3200
E6300
E6850
And my current one: E8400.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2009)

HTC said:


> Many claim that Phenom IIs aren't meant to be competing with I7s and should be competing with Yorkfields instead but i disagree: It's not Intel's fault AMD hasn't been able to make a closer (or better) performer to it's I7 and Intel's top CPUs should be competing with AMD's top CPUs.


Actually it is--but intentinonally so.  Intel has at least three research teams: process, NetBurst, and Pentium Pro (for lack of better terms).  AMD has only two: process (the foundry company) and Kryptonite (K series of architectures).  Intel stumbled bad on NetBurst expecting it to be, well, miraculous.  It can do 10+ GHz!!!!  Wrong.  Intel had faith in their engineers and after a few years (especially Hammer's release) it became clear that NetBurst was more or less a boondoggle: big on promises, little on delievery.

This is where Intel threw a curveball: instead of telling those working on NetBurst to just give up, they let them continue to peck away at the idea of NetBurst while they get another research lab in Israel to look at destops/workstations.  Israel, deciding that NetBurst wouldn't work for mobile processors some time before because of heavy power demands and high wattage, went back to Pentium III to develop what would be sold as Pentium M and later Core.  Intel saw how well the Pentium M's were doing (namely, weren't stuck in an infinite loop of trying to get higher clockspeeds) and had them adopt their yet-to-be-released Core architecture to desktop, and later, workstation use.  It worked.  Intel released a product that caught virtually everyone (especially AMD) off guard: the Core 2.

Meanwhile, the research firm back in the USA was still trying to turn Nehalem into a feasible product.  It took them 4-6 years but they did it.  AMD, already shamed, was shamed again.

Morale of the story, Intel hit their stride and they are simply outspending and out-innovating AMD at every turn.  AMD is, again, relegated to K5/K6 territory where they make and sell processors that are cheap.  Let's just hope they don't fall back into reverse-engineering Intel products like they did back in the 80's and 90's.




HTC said:


> This is no cause for AMD to give up: quite the contrary. Intel may have thought they were miles ahead of AMD but AMD have responded well, though not as good as they might have liked, but they did closed the gap quite a bit, IMHO.


Note the clockspeeds a lot of Nehalem processors can achieve on air.  If Intel feels threatened, expect those stock clocks to increase by at least 1 GHz (1/4 greater stock performance than available now).  AMD has to not only match Intel, but even do one better to threaten Intel's position.  Yeah, it's great if AMD can manage it but, stating the obvious here, it is a very steep hill to climb.


Oh, and AMD fell way behind not because Phenom sucked--just AMD's/IBM's 65nm process was absolutely hideous.  People kept buying 90nm Windsor processors because 65nm Brisbanes (remember the introduction of .5 multipliers?) were coughing and choking to keep up with the Windsors, let alone a Core 2.  I'm glad they put that bad chapter behind them.  That was depressing.





Noggrin said:


> F*** off with that "if it wasn't for amd we have to pay $3000 for a cpu bla bla bla" crap.


Three words: Moore's Second Law


----------



## Noggrin (Apr 27, 2009)

HTC said:


> The point i'm trying to put across is that, without competition, those that sell a product can set it's price freely but, when faced with competition, they are *forced* to make a competitive price.



Yeah, sadly there is no competition whatsoever.


----------



## w00t (Apr 27, 2009)

Noggrin said:


> Yeah, sadly there is no competition whatsoever.



Ignorance is bliss


----------



## MilkyWay (Apr 27, 2009)

the x2 5000+BE was a good cpu

lets see that AMD have the x3 720be that is £100 and you cant get a comparable cpu for that price on intel

they need to just keep on doing what they are doing, i couldnt see the point of going from an x2 5000+BE to a intel e8200 or something when i could do phenomII

people who havea bit of cash obviously want to go for the higher performers

totaly derailed the thread now its a bash amd thread


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 27, 2009)

Theese statements show that amd really got something up their sleeve, theyve been quiet the past.... 2 years...

have they had anything the past 2 years? no.

What do they have now, a competetive PHII, a very very very very competetive HD4xxx lineup, and is ahead schedual on everything! amd is finally back in the game if the same repeats as before.

Amd was abit cocky before too 

And the fact that more people are buying amd now than the last 2 years says only one thing, amd is giving intel compotition, they are taking MARKET SHARE.

They dont even have to match intels performance! the value is what that matters to people!


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 27, 2009)

Noggrin said:


> Why all AMD fans go with that bs all the time? You know what? F*** that shit. This is the same bs I've been reading over and over ever since core 2 duo came out. What a crap. The truth is the other way around - if you want to have the newest, fastest and with big overclock potential cpu you just pay the big price, yeah, that's what high end means ffs. Right now Intel is like 1 light year ahead of AMD with Nehalem whatever you like it or not. It's a fact. Yet i7 920 that goes 3.8/4.0 with almost every x58 board is like what? $280.. news flash I bought my E4300 when it came out for $240, that was 2 years ago. So you know what? F*** off with that "if it wasn't for amd we have to pay $3000 for a cpu bla bla bla" crap. that's some bs, not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600 ffs.. amd is dead, it has been dead ever since c2d hit the market, deal with it.. yet you dont have to pay $3000 for i7 920..




LMAO..... I like a man that speaks his mind, even if he has to say F*** a few times to get there!


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> "real men use real cores"



 That's awesome. I hope they make a commercial. It can come on right after the truck commercials, get us feeling super macho......


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

Noggrin said:


> Why all AMD fans go with that bs all the time? You know what? F*** that shit. This is the same bs I've been reading over and over ever since core 2 duo came out. What a crap. The truth is the other way around - if you want to have the newest, fastest and with big overclock potential cpu you just pay the big price, yeah, that's what high end means ffs. Right now Intel is like 1 light year ahead of AMD with Nehalem whatever you like it or not. It's a fact. Yet i7 920 that goes 3.8/4.0 with almost every x58 board is like what? $280.. news flash I bought my E4300 when it came out for $240, that was 2 years ago. So you know what? F*** off with that "if it wasn't for amd we have to pay $3000 for a cpu bla bla bla" crap. that's some bs, not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600 ffs.. amd is dead, it has been dead ever since c2d hit the market, deal with it.. yet you dont have to pay $3000 for i7 920..



intel fanboy find me the benchmarks to back this up


----------



## TreadR (Apr 27, 2009)

great... now's AMD's fbz turn!


----------



## demonkevy666 (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> intel fanboy find me the benchmarks to back this up



this thread is full of nothing but *THREAD CRAPPERS*

:shadedshu


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 27, 2009)

> not to mention amd overprice their cpu's, PII 940 when it came out was ~$260 and clock-to-clock was weaker then Q6600



1st time I heard that myself. Some benchmarks would be nice. It's my understanding the Phenom 9850 and 9950 matched the q6600 and the PII match the q9550 and q9650


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 27, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> 1st time I heard that myself. Some benchmarks would be nice. It's my understanding the Phenom 9850 and 9950 matched the q6600 and the PII match the q9550 and q9650



Not really, the PII 940 is a bit ahead of the Q6600, but not by much, more in line w/ the Q9400. It's still a decent bit slower than 12mb L2 Yorkfield. Here's a nice comparison: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3557964&postcount=1

In some apps kentsfield is indeed faster clock for clock than denab. Given the way current kentsfields overclock though I'd give the edge to current denabs, but the difference is negligible.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> "real men use real cores"



Its a good thing Intel processors have real cores too...idiots.


----------



## erocker (Apr 27, 2009)

AMD is posting flame-bait.   Any publicity is good publicity as far as I'm concerned.  I wish they would run their mouth off more than this!


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 27, 2009)

erocker said:


> AMD is posting flame-bait.




Don't that mean they get a infraction?  (sorry man, I had to)


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 27, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> 1st time I heard that myself. Some benchmarks would be nice. It's my understanding the Phenom 9850 and 9950 matched the q6600 and the PII match the q9550 and q9650



Take a look at both the performance and overclocking sections here: ........

http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews/605368/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-black-edition.html


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 27, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> Take a look at both the performance and overclocking sections here: ........
> 
> http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews/605368/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-black-edition.html



I wasn't really including OC'ing, in that respect, yes, intel wins hands down. 

But at stock speeds, my statement was about right. The 9850 and the 9950 phenoms
weren't as close to the q6600 as I was thinking, but the PII are between the q6600 and q9550 levels. Maybe I was giving AMD alittle too much credit, but I wasn't far off.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 27, 2009)

BTW, the original statement I was responding to said the PII were weaker than the q6600 clock for clock


----------



## erocker (Apr 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Oh, and AMD fell way behind not because Phenom sucked--just AMD's/IBM's 65nm process was absolutely hideous.  People kept buying 90nm Windsor processors because 65nm Brisbanes (remember the introduction of .5 multipliers?) were coughing and choking to keep up with the Windsors, let alone a Core 2.  I'm glad they put that bad chapter behind them.  That was depressing.



Actually AMD really dropped after Phenom came out and failed.  It started with the 65nm brisbanes, but Phenom just sunk it.  

Pre-Phenom AMD = 11.70/share
Post-Phenom AMD = 2.00 (ish) a share


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 27, 2009)

^ please dont forget a few stock splits along the road! You cant just compare prices like that.


----------



## Noggrin (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> intel fanboy find me the benchmarks to back this up



3dmark06

Q6600 @ 3.59GHz - 5574 CPU SCORE





Phenom 2 @ 3.8GHz - 4921 CPU SCORE

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/14

WinRAR

Q6600 @ 3.71GHz - 2226 kb/s





Phenom 2 @ 3.8GHz - 1775 kb/s

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/15

SuperPI - 1M

Q6600 @ 3.73GHz - 13.734s





Phenom 2 @ 3.7GHz - 19.407s

http://news.ati-forum.de/index.php/...st-amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-black-edition?start=7

That's just for start.. you want more?


----------



## erocker (Apr 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> ^ please dont forget a few stock splits along the road! You cant just compare prices like that.



Their stock never split.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Bandwidth?  FB-DIMM can achieve some 12,000+ MB/s bandwidth using DDR2-553.  AMD only has the advantage in terms of memory latency which will be mostly erased as more Nehalem-based processors hit the market.


FB-DIMMs have a theoretical bandwidth in that range. They have never achieved that throughput tho. FB-DIMMS are a rather large bottleneck in highly memory intensive apps.



FordGT90Concept said:


> *Oh, and AMD fell way behind not because Phenom sucked--just AMD's/IBM's 65nm process was absolutely hideous.*  People kept buying 90nm Windsor processors because 65nm Brisbanes (remember the introduction of .5 multipliers?) were coughing and choking to keep up with the Windsors, let alone a Core 2.  I'm glad they put that bad chapter behind them.  That was depressing.


I have to agree with this, although Phenom 1 did, in fact, suck. I tried my hand at the Brisbane chips, only to go back to the Windsors, as the F3 Windsors actually clocked better, and performed better clock for clock, especially the 2x1MB Windsors.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

Noggrin said:


> 3dmark06
> 
> Q6600 @ 3.59GHz - 5574 CPU SCORE
> 
> ...



actually i would like you to go to the futuremark page and check were phenom II and the Q6600 fall onto the top 10 list.

no to actually furthur this super pi has always been a intel thing hands down. 3d06 is a bullshit test to different rigs could be as little as a driver change

go run a couple benches and i will happily post mine


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> actually i would like you to go to the futuremark page and check were phenom II and the Q6600 fall onto the top 10 list.
> 
> no to actually furthur this super pi has always been a intel thing hands down. 3d06 is a bullshit test to different rigs could be as little as a driver change



top 10 list of performance or popularity ? 

I can only find this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





and neither are on it


----------



## Noggrin (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> actually i would like you to go to the futuremark page and check were phenom II and the Q6600 fall onto the top 10 list.



actually i don't give a crap about the futuremark page, clock-to-clock Q6600 > PII 940 

deal with it..



cdawall said:


> no to actually furthur this super pi has always been a intel thing hands down. 3d06 is a bullshit test to different rigs could be as little as a driver change



yeah yeah.. 3d06 is intel thing too, winrar too, from now on if in a test the 2 years old intel coal-burning stove beats amd's super overpriced pii 940 ass then we'll just know that that test is "intel thing".. everything is "intel thing" nowdays..


----------



## erocker (Apr 27, 2009)

Make your point and leave the thread alone.  I nor any other moderator are going to tolerate insults towards other members.  Grow up or get out. 


VV  NP Wile E.  It's good that members don't tolerate this type of garbage either.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 27, 2009)

Noggrin said:


> actually i don't give a crap about the futuremark page, clock-to-clock Q6600 > PII 940
> 
> *deal with it..*
> 
> ...


You know, your post could've done without those 2 little comments, and it still would've made your point. That was completely unnecessary. :shadedshu

EDIT: Sorry erocker. Cross posted.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> BTW, the original statement I was responding to said the PII were weaker than the q6600 clock for clock



And Clock for Clock, the PII is weaker than the Q6600.  Stock speeds has nothing to do with that statement.  As Tatty already pointed out in his link, at stock speeds the PII 940 outperforms a Q6600, but when both are overclocked to the same speeds(3.6GHz in Tatty's article) the Q6600 takes the lead.  The issue is that the Q6600 comes at a much lower stock clock compared to the 940(2.4GHz vs. 3.6GHz).


----------



## cdawall (Apr 27, 2009)

TreadR said:


> great... now's AMD's fbz turn!



well if that dont scream intel fanboy? ask freaksavior and several other member i run both right now i have AMD but i have run C2D, C2Q , P4 list goes on



DrPepper said:


> top 10 list of performance or popularity ?
> 
> I can only find this http://img.techpowerup.org/090427/Capture034.jpg
> 
> and neither are on it



performance phenom II holds some very high spots



Noggrin said:


> actually i don't give a crap about the futuremark page, clock-to-clock Q6600 > PII 940
> 
> deal with it..
> 
> ...



i never said that i siad you have 2 different systems with 2 different OS's if you want to compare systems go for i name a benchmark and i will post scores with my system.

how about sciencemark2? thats with cheap ram and a 320GB seagate 7200.10


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> performance phenom II holds some very high spots



I know it held the world record on 06 but I can't find that little chart. It seems to me that 3dmark is a little bit corrupted it says the most popular cpu is core i7 when it really isn't especially compared to some of those on the list.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

The Q6600 vs. Phenom II debate must end. Also, keep tabs on what you're typing.


----------



## TreadR (Apr 27, 2009)

cdawall said:


> well if that dont scream intel fanboy?



I've never owned an Intel before... now how makes me that a fanboy? 

It was a sarcastic remark at fbz... overall... just enjoying the grlz fight!


----------



## suraswami (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> The Q6600 vs. Phenom II debate must end. Also, keep tabs on what you're typing.






What to do, its always like that:shadedshu


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 27, 2009)

Nothing like coming home and seeing some grade A hate  Chill people. AMD's just trying to get their existing server customers to stay with them.. They have valid points in that interview, he just so happened to mention that real men use real cores. This is the server market, not the desktop. Of course the desktop market Intel has the highest performing stuff.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 27, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> BTW, the original statement I was responding to said the PII were weaker than the q6600 clock for clock



I didnt post the link to prove any point, I didnt know the answer, some people wanted facts, i found this so posted it, I was not taking sides i spose is my point


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 27, 2009)

Bold statement there AMD, about time they grew some balls... too long (i feel) they have been cowering in the corner repeating

"no not the core2duo, dont make me use the core2duo, why a core2 why, precious phenom i loves the precious"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I have to agree with this, although Phenom 1 did, in fact, suck. I tried my hand at the Brisbane chips, only to go back to the Windsors, as the F3 Windsors actually clocked better, and performed better clock for clock, especially the 2x1MB Windsors.





erocker said:


> Actually AMD really dropped after Phenom came out and failed.  It started with the 65nm brisbanes, but Phenom just sunk it.


ATI killed AMD as much as the Core 2 and 65m process.  It was a 1, 2, 3 punch which left them scrambling for financing; hence, this:



erocker said:


> Pre-Phenom AMD = 11.70/share
> Post-Phenom AMD = 2.00 (ish) a share


Realize that Phenom isn't a bad architecture, it was just delievered on a horrible process making an otherwise good processor, bad.  Little changed from Phenom to Phenom II except the move to 45nm and finally got themselves off the cursed 65nm process.





Wile E said:


> FB-DIMMs have a theoretical bandwidth in that range. They have never achieved that throughput tho. FB-DIMMS are a rather large bottleneck in highly memory intensive apps.


Correct, I remembered the wrong figures.  Anyway, 7-8 GB/s is still excellent (gotta love the write performance).
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/124295


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2009)

You might notice the odd edit, the odd post removed. A certain person couldn't choose his words well, and others didn't read moderators' posts well. Please proceed with the topic. If you feel there is nothing you can contribute to this discussion, do not post in this thread any more.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Apr 27, 2009)

yea, I wondered why there was 66 replies then I refreshed and there was like 61 lol, I guess some people get too worked up about pointless stuff, AMD is far from dead just because it can outperform i7.  It's a good choice for a budget system, end of.


----------



## Nick89 (Apr 27, 2009)

I actually didnt see any moderator posts and didnt read any moderator posts. What he said was...well maddining. 

I'm sorry for adding a post in a time of extreme hate. And sorry to erocker.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Apr 27, 2009)

like mentioned above AMD is very nice for some budget systems and if they try a bit harder they will be on top again (hopefully) and the market will be a better place for everyone (hopefully) if it werent for AMD we would still be using Pentium I.


----------



## DaMulta (Apr 28, 2009)

I like!!!


----------



## Hayder_Master (Apr 28, 2009)

''Real Men Use Real Cores'' , this is sparta , "xeon with HyperThreading " let put them on the test


----------



## HeadlessChicken (Apr 28, 2009)

I see some people feel amd is dead and all....


----------



## mR Yellow (Apr 28, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> HTC is quite the AMD fan with that athlon x2 E8400
> 
> Anyway I find that AMD's current PII is hardly any better than my q6600. Not enough for me to give her up. I'd only jump to nehalem or if dual amd board which is unlikely at best.



Actually, it's a lot better. I went from the Q6600 to the Phenom II 940 and it rocks. It's a lot faster in gaming and apps to


----------



## Hayder_Master (Apr 29, 2009)

HeadlessChicken said:


> I see some people feel amd is dead and all....




dead , no they was sleep after athlon 6000x2 , the worst product was phenom x3 and x4 , but now they rise up again with phenom II
AMD still doing well with servers cpu's , no fail at all but you know my friend there is something called performance and numbers are talking , maybe intel have better performance but still amd sell cpu in cheap price and that's what is make AMD cpu as good option for many people me as first one


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2009)

If memory serves, AMDs tend to have better FPU performance in addition to being cheaper so if you're going to buy 60,000 processors, they tend to be favored.

Once you mix in the economic troubles, AMDs lower prices tend to move a lot of product.

Intel may be faster but the circumstances currently don't weigh in their favor.


----------

