» Login to reply to this

LORD ORION (1336)    Apr 28, 2009 - 05:03 am

Agreed, my workstation (not gaming/play rig) is still an Opteron 170 and is showing no signs of being unable to handle tasks. If anything, now that multi-core software is coming out, it is getting better. A decade ago I was upgrading every year because there was a clear benefit to doing so. » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (435)   Apr 29, 2009 - 12:46 pm | Edited on Apr 29, 2009 - 02:13 pm www.anandtech.com cpuchipsets intel showdoc.aspx i=3184 p=12 For those already tempted to think 65nm Core2 is obsolete, this Anandtech Dec07 article has revealing scaling graphs from 3.0 to 4.4 GHz. I like the power graph ;) » Login to reply to this

DanTheMathlete (235)    Apr 26, 2009 - 11:04 pm

Agreed » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

mr.wielder (1395)    Apr 23, 2009 - 03:33 pm

Don't forget that you can drop the AM3 proc into your existing AM2 motherboard. You don't need to upgrade mobo or memory and you'll still have a killer rig. And if you don't need a quad exactly, the AM3 720 x3's are going for like $135 on Newegg, which is insane for a CPU that good. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

DanTheMathlete (235)    Apr 25, 2009 - 07:19 am | Edited on Apr 25, 2009 - 07:21 am

AMD is targeting a market in which they can be profitable. If their chip is better at a certain price point, and there are arguments which can be made that it is, then I don't see the problem. If your complaint is that AMD isn't the making the fastest chips in the world (only 1 company can make that claim at any given time anyway) and therefore their other products are not worth while, then that just doesn't make sense. Just because a Ferrari is faster doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider a corolla. Lastly, most applications do not take advantage of the difference between a core i7 and a Phenom 2 (more like a Ferrari and a Corvette). Those that do see a difference will be only seconds (often less) of CPU time apart. In fact most applications won't or can't take full advantage of either chip. » Login to reply to this  LORD ORION (1336)   Apr 29, 2009 - 01:08 pm I guess I have a different perspective on this launch. AMD's highend is not up to par. The new 7850 is more of better example of what AMD is doing right. Their fastest dual core can now compete with mid range Intel for 1/2 the price (7000 series) and can come close to Wolfdales when overclocked. If the 955 was 1/3 less in price I would be thoroughly impressed with AMD. » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (435)   Apr 25, 2009 - 10:29 pm Historically hasn't AMD been in value market? If Intel makes separate dies for dual core 2MB, 4MB, 6MB, 3MB and perhaps other unknown versions, why is it so hard for AMD to make just one 45nm dual core (or heck tri-core). Heard lots about L3 decapitated version but never materialized. Then there is the SMT question. Intel's been playing with HT since 2006? 2004? AMD response... we'll make 12 core chips... oh great :rolleyes: » Login to reply to this  DanTheMathlete (235)    Apr 26, 2009 - 08:58 am | Edited on Apr 26, 2009 - 09:07 am IMO, emphasis opinion, specs sell cpus to fan boys and the uninformed public but the reality is that cpus have been light years ahead of software for years (Ex: 64 bit cpus are a decade old) and therefore, there is no real market for these chips. AMD knows this and so they are content to invest limited RnD dollars into directions that will make their chips competitive where it counts. Hence, lip service to 12 core cpus because AMD knows HT is just pretend multi-threaded processing. Just consider the human brain for an example of a true multi-threaded cpu and you will see that even if you one puts HT at the end of a single pipe all still must run through that pipe. It just speeds things up with regards to queing data transfers. Remember the 12ghz cpu IBM made 10yrs(?) ago. It was based on very efficient clock syncing. HT just sounds good, idc what you call it, it is't a true multi-thread. A single 5ghz processor, even an old athlon, will stomp a 3 ghz i7 quad-core in a single threaded application. Most ppl dont know this (most floor salesmen don't care) and so they buy (and sell) computers for playing music and sending e-mails. Hence buyers care about one thing, boot timings. Boot timings are dependent upon two things, software engineers and clock speeds. Since clocks speeds are still king, even in most gaming applications, AMD will invest in increasing their clocks speeds even if this sacrifices revenue in niche markets. I'm an applied math grad student and almost everyone in my department runs a Mac, Linex OS, or a Sun workstation (we have 20 work stations in our computer lab and only 3 PCs.) If one wants to do some serious computer computations, then one doesn't use a PC. AMD and Intel know this but since Intel has the advantage they are going to press even though they know they provide little to no benefit (over their AMD counterpart) for most (+90%?) of their users. » Login to reply to this

Anonymous (-) Apr 23, 2009 - 01:24 pm

i7 920, and q9550 cost about the same. blame i7 motherboard makers for 200-300 dollor mobos. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Note: You need to be logged in to write a comment!