blibbaI agree - personally I don't spec my machine for framerates alone. The Phenom x6s do appear particularly bad deals for anyone who isn't going to make full use of 6 cores, though. You're also right to say that older CPUs are fine in today's games (I presume that's what you mean, rather than literally that a Phenom 1 is as fast as a current Intel quad in games). That doesn't stop one chip from being better than another, though, or one chip from being worse value than another.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by calling it a red herring, though, or by having such an abrasive tone.



Yup, CPUs can last a long time. Any good PC built in 2007 will still be ok for most gamers today.

Which is why i found it hard to replace my Q9550. Although it is getting the the point were i will need to upgrade soon.. Although i only want to upgrade only if the performance is very large even more so with buying intel due to the very high price.

expected seeing as the x6 bulldozers will be cheaper and faster.

Asrock same here, my oldest box is Q9550.

If you had usd$2k would you be able to upgrade and to what cpu / motherboard desktop or server and would it still be able to give you the 1.5 years Q9550 was on top or 3 years Q9550 was still on top same results with today's hardware and still be upgradeable in 1.5 years ?

The Q9550 was a great investment just hope Intel / AMD can pull something like this out of their hats.

This is where I hit a wall, i7-2600k is nice just below what I need, i7-980xe is 1366 EOL, AMD has nothing that would compete or outperform this for home office use today.

Then if AMD / Intel comes up with something will it still be 1.5 year or 3 years Q9550 reputation or just another "premature processification" .

Who do you sleep with for one night and who do you get married too for 1.5 years, Intel / AMD current / upcoming cpu's ?

:rockout:

WarraWarraAsrock same here, my oldest box is Q9550.

If you had usd$2k would you be able to upgrade and to what cpu / motherboard desktop or server and would it still be able to give you the 1.5 years Q9550 was on top or 3 years Q9550 was still on top same results with today's hardware and still be upgradeable in 1.5 years ?

The Q9550 was a great investment just hope Intel / AMD can pull something like this out of their hats.

This is where I hit a wall, i7-2600k is nice just below what I need, i7-980xe is 1366 EOL, AMD has nothing that would compete or outperform this for home office use today.

Then if AMD / Intel comes up with something will it still be 1.5 year or 3 years Q9550 reputation or just another "premature processification" .

Who do you sleep with for one night and who do you get married too for 1.5 years, Intel / AMD current / upcoming cpu's ?

:rockout:

that decision should get pretty clear soon enough.

I figured they would have kept these around for at least another year, surprising.

Why not retire it? Its a 45nm part based on a K10.5 architecture. Hardly old but given BD will be far more profitable on a per-chip basis it makes sense to shift quickly to where higher profits can be realized.

MikeMurphyWhy not retire it? Its a 45nm part based on a K10.5 architecture. Hardly old but given BD will be far more profitable on a per-chip basis it makes sense to shift quickly to where higher profits can be realized.

or, its just time to retire the phenoms and athlons. if they have a good cpu to replace it, why keep building it. Its just costing money running extra product for no reason. Its like the problem the us domestic carmanufacturers have, to much overlapping product without enough distinction between brands. In this scenario AMD is like GM and phenom is like chevy, athlon like buick and so on. Its a waste of money and resources. In fact I'd bet by the end of 2012 they pretty will all be bulldozer cores with varying types of options and APU options built on the bulldozer cores.Better to condense the engineering resources.

_JP_How am I supposed to build a PC with a Sabertooth990FX without a CPU?
While bulldozer doesn't come out, I figured a 1090T would do just fine...
Besides, even for games, it isn't that bad...

Not bad they are plenty for now and the future just as core 2 quads from Intel are far from dead performance wise. Truely a X6 at 3.7ghz or higher with a 2600 to 3000 N/B is very fast and won't bottle neck any GPU out.

FourstaffOr you can ignore them and get something better :p The x6 is no good for gamers, its only good for people who want a cheap workstation.

On the contrary, for ~$230 I've got myself a system that goes toe-to-toe with the $300+ i7 900 series and comes out in pretty good standing. And now their price is only about $180.

You say they're not good for gamers, but for gamers who like running other apps in the background for quick alt-tabbing, there's not much better.

Any hope for 32nm phenoms for the users /w non bulldozer compatible boards? :(

ValdezAny hope for 32nm phenoms for the users /w non bulldozer compatible boards? :(

Absolutely none. There's no point in doing so except for lower TDP and maybe pushing X8 but it's an old architecture performing pretty bad for todays' high-end standarts so you better consider upgrading to a new platform.

Dr. NickOn the contrary, for ~$230 I've got myself a system that goes toe-to-toe with the $300+ i7 900 series and comes out in pretty good standing. And now their price is only about $180.

You say they're not good for gamers, but for gamers who like running other apps in the background for quick alt-tabbing, there's not much better.

Sandy Bridge is better in almost every way. Lynnfield did very well against it too. There is no reason to buy AMD hexa-core this year(or evenQ4 2010 for that matter) except for price and drop-in upgrade.

FourstaffOr you can ignore them and get something better :p The x6 is no good for gamers, its only good for people who want a cheap workstation.

What? says who? no way they almost all do 4.0ghz+ and with turbo even at stock the 3.6 to 3.7 ghz and thats on par a Intel chip. They can game with the best.