The Phenoms that are gonna be available at launch (2.2GHz 9500, 2.3GHz 9600 and 2.4GHz 9700) are all slower than the cheapest Intel Quad, the Q6600. And only the 2.2GHz 9500 is cheaper.
That doesn't really matter if it can't deliver the performance. Intel introduced they're first Quads a year ago, and they'r better than Amd's "true" quads. And then there's the fact that Intel has better yields for they're quads than AMD, BECAUSE of the dual Die design.
Back when i had an Athlon processor, AMD didn't advertise their processor with speed. The reason is that the processor speed for AMD was slower than Intel although the performance was the same.
Now, I truly believe processor speed is irrelevant. The FSB speeds climbing above 1000Mhz truly changed computer performance.
The fact that Intel and AMD have gone into the multiple core area is there concession of the speed game. Now it is up to software (operating systems and third party apps) to make the most of the multiple cores.
When I said speed, I didn't mean clock speed, I meant real world performance. The Phenoms are slower at REAL WORLD USAGE than the Core 2 Quads. It's only in some cases where the phenoms perform the same at the same clock speed. Otherwise, the 2,6GHz phenom 9900 performs worse than the 2,4GHz Intel Q6600 why costing more. Even the 2,3GHz 9600 costs more than the Q6600.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The Phenoms that are gonna be available at launch (2.2GHz 9500, 2.3GHz 9600 and 2.4GHz 9700) are all slower than the cheapest Intel Quad, the Q6600. And only the 2.2GHz 9500 is cheaper.
true, but Intel's solution is to just put 2 dual core processers on 1 chip, this is a true quad core
This is 2007 not 1997. GHz don't really matter all that much. That race has been over for quite some time
That doesn't really matter if it can't deliver the performance. Intel introduced they're first Quads a year ago, and they'r better than Amd's "true" quads. And then there's the fact that Intel has better yields for they're quads than AMD, BECAUSE of the dual Die design.
Back when i had an Athlon processor, AMD didn't advertise their processor with speed. The reason is that the processor speed for AMD was slower than Intel although the performance was the same.
Now, I truly believe processor speed is irrelevant. The FSB speeds climbing above 1000Mhz truly changed computer performance.
The fact that Intel and AMD have gone into the multiple core area is there concession of the speed game. Now it is up to software (operating systems and third party apps) to make the most of the multiple cores.
When I said speed, I didn't mean clock speed, I meant real world performance. The Phenoms are slower at REAL WORLD USAGE than the Core 2 Quads. It's only in some cases where the phenoms perform the same at the same clock speed. Otherwise, the 2,6GHz phenom 9900 performs worse than the 2,4GHz Intel Q6600 why costing more. Even the 2,3GHz 9600 costs more than the Q6600.