if its true that fu*k YEAH!! tho it IS fud..

Well sometimes Fudzilla is right. Besides it isn't like they support AMD so why say this ? :)

a cpu-z shot would be nice

Seems alot of people dont like AMD lately. At 90nm they hit 3 GHZ , so why not higher at 65 on a new arch, with better transistors

I already posted this, like, 2 weeks ago.

We posted the 3GHz news but not the 3.24GHz news. Not really awesome but it is good for AMD.

jaydeejohnSeems alot of people dont like AMD lately. At 90nm they hit 3 GHZ , so why not higher at 65 on a new arch, with better transistors

I agree....


But AMD did at 1 point say that they never needed raw speed like intel to make a good CPU - back then Intels Netburst's & AMD's Shortpipeline CPU's were on the stage. now the tables have turned & a new hero has emerged victorious (Intels Core @ Duo). things have changed much since the 90nm days

FreedomEclipseI agree....


But AMD did at 1 point say that they never needed raw speed like intel to make a good CPU - back then Intels Netburst's & AMD's Shortpipeline CPU's were on the stage. now the tables have turned & a new hero has emerged victorious (Intels Core @ Duo). things have changed much since the 90nm days

Relatively but not absolutely. AMD's processors get wider and wider with every new "generation". They're getting wider again with this "generation", I see no reason to believe the trend will change this time around. I don't see what the size of the transistors have to do with "raw speed" needed (I presume you mean transistor switching rate, if not, ignore this entire comment), though.

Core @ Duo? I think you mean Core 2 Duo :D And use the UK keyboard layout, your'e in London...

Ben ClarkeCore @ Duo? I think you mean Core 2 Duo :D And use the UK keyboard layout, your'e in London...

My bad. sorry this keyboard & mouse set was imported from China - lol

AtechRelatively but not absolutely. AMD's processors get wider and wider with every new "generation". They're getting wider again with this "generation", I see no reason to believe the trend will change this time around. I don't see what the size of the transistors have to do with "raw speed" needed (I presume you mean transistor switching rate, if not, ignore this entire comment), though.

Im talking about raw speed. Intel has always favoured more Ghz then a more efficient architecture - I'm referring the the Pre-Core 2 Duo days. when AMD was king of the castle.

AMD never needed raw speed to kick Intels asses back then but It seems its been demoted from King Of The Castle to Royal Inhouse Butler Otherwise Known As Jeeves like i said things have changed. I think AMD need to really start pumping some Engelbert Humperdinck during the manufacturing process to sweeten up the process - or send them to Iraq to get some action so they can come back beefed up like Vin Diesel.

More Cycles perclock = Higher frame rate - higher frame rate = better gaming = more time spent in Guildwars

While we're being pedantic, its you're, not your'e.......

FreedomEclipseAMD never needed raw speed to kick Intels asses back then but It seems its been demoted from King Of The Castle to Royal Inhouse Butler Otherwise Known As Jeeves like i said things have changed.

And I've said only relatively. The K10 is wider than the K8, as the K8 was wider than the K7, as the K7 was wider than the K6.

More Cycles perclock = Higher frame rate - higher frame rate = better gaming = more time spent in Guildwars

No ****. As I said, the K10 is very wide.

AtechAnd I've said only relatively. The K10 is wider than the K8, as the K8 was wider than the K7, as the K7 was wider than the K6.


No ****. As I said, the K10 is very wide.

Forgive me. I did not understand when u used the term 'Wide'

HellasVagabondWell sometimes Fudzilla is right. Besides it isn't like they support AMD so why say this ? :)

because of the "sometimes" part ;)

i would love this to be true, its just a couple of hundred Mhz but that would be very nice

FreedomEclipseIm talking about raw speed. Intel has always favoured more Ghz then a more efficient architecture - I'm referring the the Pre-Core 2 Duo days. when AMD was king of the castle.

P3@ 1ghz could open a can of whoop ass on a p4 below...I think 2.13 ghz. Also, look at Intel's laptop lineup (excluding p4 m). Only netburst was a highclock rate, narrow pipe, long pipestage architecture.

If this is true, then it's good news. I need proof though if I'm to believe these claims. As mentioned above by cjoyce1980, a cpu-z shot would suffice.

Thats nice if they arent OCing the procs to get them that speed (But I was under the impression and from several reputable magazines that the FX's were reaching those speeds on the quads at stock, not the X2 and X4s) but if its on an OC, C2D whoops the shit out of these new procs.


Im really interested in seeing how the Phenoms spar with the C2Ds. If they are awesome and reclaim the crown, Intel wouldnt have had it for but a year. However, as much a fanboy as I am, I think they will be a nice kick in the nutts, but thats about it...Intel wins this war...for now.