um, dude the Barton ran hotter then the tbred-b due to extra cache, so WTF are you on about?
I owned EVERY socket A k7 core, and the only truely hot ones where the tbird and the palomino the tbred-a where not hot at stock(didnt clock for shit tho) and the tbred-b where killer clockers and didn't produce alot of heat for their clocks.
as to the TDP, Intel uses what they call "AVERAGE" numbers where AMD rates their chips at MAX numbers, this is why at times intels numbers have looked FAR FAR better then other makers chips, yet have produced more heat(preshott anybody?)
a good example is the ATOM, go take a look at the PLATFORM power use on atom vs the via nano, the ATOM platform uses more power enlarge due to the HORRIBLE chipset used, and despite the higher power use, its overall performance(gfx+cpu perf not just cpu benches) is worse.
No, AMD no longer rates their chips at max. They changed their system at the introduction of the original Phenom. I believe there was a news post, or article posted, around here about it at some point.
i remember K7 days a i had a AXP 2000+ ran about 40C idle and 55C load on a copper cored cooler nothing special and the chip was a tbred. no hotter than a P4 willie which performed worse, cost more, and ran hotter.
no one said AMD was ahead infact i believe it was the intel fanboys who went and started slinging shit about this chip being 140w. maybe i missed the memo but intel rates that wonderful i7 920 to be a 130w chip. no one crapped their pants no one ran home screaming yet its running a huge 10w less than this chip will?
not to mention at stock were the vast majority of BOTH of these chips will run the AMD chip will outperform the i7 920. no if, ands, or butts about it with the clock speed ramped up to 3.4ghz this chip will have an advantage over a stock core i7 920 in just about every task. now when oc'd the 920 takes the lead i understand that everyone understands that however with that lead it outputs more heat than these chips will consume more power. performance per watt these two chips will be on AMD's favor. the phenom 965BE shows promise with prerelease retail branded chips around 4-4.1ghz on air alone and a vcore of 1.45-1.5v with those clock speeds you are looking at 170-200w TDP's on these chips. Now a i7 920 D0 will hit around 4.3-4.4ghz on 1.4-1.45v you are looking at 290-320w TDP's.
thats for the cpu alone now why don't we compare the power consumption of X58 vs 790FX. 790FX consumes 3w idle and 10w on load giving it an 8w TDP intels X58 24.1w TDP wow 3x as much power just to talk to the peripherals....
so this gives you 178-208w TDP from CPU+MOBO on AMD's side and 314-344w TDP on intel's side 41% higher than AMD's solution you could put a phenom II X4 905e rig together and run it on the energy you save going with a 965BE over a 920 and oc'ing both. that should say something.
The big, important part you are missing is, the i7 boards were built with these power draws in mind. Not all of the Phenom II boards were built with 140w tdp in mind. That's the reason people look on it as a con. Not because you have to worry about just the heat of the chip, but because the average joe, and the oem are now gonna have to worry whether their boards will handle it as well.
Now, if AMD would've outlined 140w TDPs from the beginning, and all AMD boards were built with that in mind, then yeah, it would be no problem. In short, it's a product planning issue.
lol i so said that already
Right, but they still need to make sure they an run a 140w cpu in their machines. They now have to double check if their coolers, and vreg cooling are up to the task. It still doesn't change my original point that the higher TDP will effect OEM's.
what are you talking about 790FX is AMD's gaming platform and it is the same number of lanes that X58 has and the same other options addons bells and whistles etc. woopdee fricken do X58 offers SLi and Xfire both companies offer good cards around the same price so either buy 980A/780A and get SLi or buy 790FX and get ATi cards.
Yeah, but that leaves you switching boards if you want to try a multi-card setup from the other camp. So it's not "woopdee fricken do", it's a very legitimate advantage i7 has over Phenom II. That also helps OEMs, as they now don't have to stock out 2 different boards for SLI or Crossfire setups. That's very significant.
And who the hell brought up K7 vs P4 and Atom vs Nano? Those arguments are silly, and just need to stop. They have no bearing on the current topic at all.
not to mention people already have them
