Just a month after AMD
launched its Phenom II CPUs and Dragon desktop platform, the chip maker is hitting back with five new processors in the quickly expanding line. The newcomers include the planet's first 45nm triple-core CPU and three more quad-core siblings, all of which can operate in either AM2+ or AM3 sockets. As for performance? We hope your expectations haven't been set too high, as the chips were generally found to be just "a logical extension of [the company's] piecemeal upgrade plan and a fill in [the] gap to its lineup." Reviewers across the web were generally pleased but underwhelmed by test results, with
HotHardware noting that "overall, Intel still has the performance edge clock-for-clock and core-for-core." In fairness, these chips were found to be
good for overclocking, and for the right price, we could certainly see a few gamers giving them a go. For the full spill, dive on into the deep, intricate reviews below.
Read - Official AMD announcement
Read - HotHardware benchmarks
Read - PCPerspective benchmarks
Read - DesktopReview's review
posted February 9th 2009 9:42AM
Way to go AMD!!
People need to understand that AMD is not competing head-to-head on clock speeds here, and nor should they. The Core i7 might have a slight edge on things like playing Crysis at high resolutions, and encoding two hours of 1080p video...but for things like web browsing, using Office, playing music and videos, almost any game other than Crysis, there is NO real-world difference. The market for CPU processors is not for enthusiasts, they make up only a very tiny portion. The major market is comprised of system integrators like Dell, HP, etc. who then sell their computers on their website or in Best Buy. If a system built around a Core i7 costs $999 and a system built around a Phenom II costs $599...guess which one most people are going to buy...
Hahaha there going to go for the core i7 system.
But the Phenom CAN play Crysis!!!
Why on EARTH are you comparing a phenom with an i7? They arent in the same performance category or price range. Look at the Q9 and Q6 lineup and compare price for price, clock for clock. As far as "but for things like web browsing, using Office, playing music and videos, almost any game other than Crysis, there is NO real-world difference" you still dont have your head screwed on straight. Granted for doing all these 'non-crysis' things singly you wont see much of a performance difference, how about we 'play music', 'use office', and browse the web at the same time to see how much faster the beast is. Any game you play that was made for multi core systems will play faster and or better on the I7 just because of the memory controller and uber fast L3 to L2 cache design.
AMD is struggling because the 'value' compared to a better performing intel chip is just not there. Add in the better than AMD hardware support that you get with Intel, and it's an easy choice for non-fanboys to make.
@Teh Lup: "...how about we 'play music', 'use office', and browse the web at the same time to see how much faster the beast is."
It won't be any faster at all. Not in a noticeable way. I have a Phenom (not even a Phenom II, the original Phenom), clocked at 2.3GHz. I will have Photoshop open working on 3-4 8MP photos, have a web browser open with 6-7 tabs, Microsoft Word running in the background, and a 720p video playing in the corner. I can do all of that without any lag at all (other than maybe Photoshop loading those huge pictures into memory). I definitely would not be willing to pay more for a Core i7, or even more for a Core 2 Quad, because doing everything I described above, I can see that all four cores are running at 75% or less processing power at any given time.
The ONLY legitimate argument for getting the more expensive Intel CPU is if you're doing something like heavy HD video encoding. I'll convert 1080p videos down to 720p, and it will take 11-12 hours, whereas on a Core i7 those benchmarks are somewhere between 4-6 hours. If I had more disposable income I might consider getting a Core i7 for that purpose (not a Core 2 Quad though, because it's only marginally faster at this task than a Phenom II), but outside of that, and as I said before high-end gamers that just want that extra 10% speed, there's NO reason to pay twice as much for your system, because for almost all normal tasks, there will be NO difference in speed.
Yes of course the differences are minimal at best. But having built computers around both processors I just prefer intel.
"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need."
etc., etc.
Just because joe schmoe doesn't need an i7 to browse the internet doesn't mean that we should ignore the advancements and competition of the two juggernauts of processor design. Comparison is still very important, and the article is pointing out that AMD's latest has not got them parity in either a clock speed OR performance sense.
Put your money where your mouth is and tell us how you can run photoshop 5 and winamp simultaneously on your VIA 1ghz box, and that no one should care about doing anything more. Heck, you can even write in notepad!
More and more people are transcoding video and audio, ripping audio and DVDs to a home NAS box for viewing on their media PC, shooting video and editing it for youtube, etc.
Some day we may have processors that are faster than we need, but frankly we haven't gotten there yet.
(And I'm still running a dual-core Opteron in a 939 socket, so don't write me off as a bleeding edge gamer or performance wonk. People ARE using the speed of these latest chips.)
@Cybertrash: First, I did not say anywhere, or even imply, that we should say "good enough" with technology. That will never happen. To think as much would be naive.
Second, throwing out the "VIA 1GHz" example is silly, because the tasks I mentioned do not run comparably with that setup. Comparing a Phenom II and Core i7 for those tasks though, you'll see almost no real-world difference in performance. So that's why your example is not a very good one.
Third and final, transcoding video/audio and ripping DVDs is not as common as you think. The majority of computer users do not do this. None the less, the performance difference you see between a Phenom II and Core i7 for DVD processing is, again, negligible. For ripping, there will be no difference at all as the bottleneck is first your optical drive, second your hard drive, and then third your memory, in that order. The CPU has almost no impact on this task at all (assuming it is fast enough to support the OS and the software being used to rip with, which both a Phenom II and Core i7 can do in their sleep). Processing and encoding the video is a CPU-oriented task, to be sure. However, processing 720 x 480 MPEG-2 video is not that challenging anymore, and especially if you are using an encoder that can support multiple cores (i.e. x264), then for a full-length movie, you're going to be measuring the difference in time in minutes, because with either processor, this is no longer a challenging task.
Editing movies for YouTube is the same thing. For the average ten-minute-length movie for YouTube distribution, from an SD camera...this just isn't much work for either processor. I say again, why would you spend twice as much on your computer to get a 5-10% difference in speed?
Now, if you're talking about transcoding a Blu-ray, or doing a lot of editing with AVCHD footage, that might be another story. If I were recommending a system to someone, and they were to bring up an interest in either of these two activities, I would ask them how frequently they do them. If it was not frequent, it might be worth a bit of suffering to save a lot of money. If they did however do them very frequently, I would likely recommend getting a Core i7, because it would be worth the money.
I am not Most People but I would surely buy the one with the core i7.
But before buying or (more probably) building myself another system I want to be able to stuff it also with Windows7 (64b) and get a decent price for the core i7 and some ddr3 strips otherways I would'nt notice any improvement over my actual systems; surely I would not upgrade by buying an inferior rig.
Right now it's low cost all the way for both businesses and consumers.
Just a reminder these aren't the Socket AM3 beasts everyone is waiting with baited breath for. If anything these are direct competitors to the Intel Quad Core line and not the i7. Once socket AM3 drops we should really see something. i7 had to have a whole new socket designed when it came out and isn't compatible with anything other than the new socket. AMD's Phenom IIs will be backwards compatible with Socket AM2+ however because of the Socket AM3's support for DDR3, AM2 socket processors will not be compatible.
So yes AmyFan Way to go AMD!!! This is another step toward returning to the status quot.
Intel had to go through the same thing when attempting the transition from netburst to their newer architecture. If you will recall AMD was whoopin' em' like a redheaded step child. It is all part of the process.
Actually, these are socket AM3 chips.
These are gap fillers between the original Phenoms and Phenom IIs 920 and 940. Yes they are Socket AM3 processors, but these aren't the performance chips they will probably launch when the AM3 motherboards start shipping. AMD is trying to bridge the gap between what is and what will be. Those will probably be like Phenom II 960 or something and start at 3.2Ghz in a Black Edition package and they still won't cost as much as i7s.
@J.R. - Yes, these are AM3 chips (they're actually both AM2+ and AM3), but the motherboards used are AM2+ because the AM3-based boards don't exist yet. What the OP was saying is that we need to keep in mind that these CPUs aren't being used to their full potential because they are using the older-technology motherboards.
AM3 boards do exist, and have been listed on several sites for over a week now. What kind of AMD fanbois are you?
http://www.ewiz.com/query.php?dp=1&dt=2&categry=127&categry=127&brand=&pa0=Socket+AM3&pa1=&pa2=&pa3=&pa4=&pa5=&pa6=&pa7=&pa8=&pa9=&nl=30&searchStr=Search+from+current+results&ob=&myanchor=%23displaytop
Yeah, I just have no understanding of why everyone is disappointed by anything AMD has brought out. They are not competing with intel's marginally faster and much higher priced $1200 TOL processors.
Rockin a 9850 X4 here!
I know all of my comments in this post make me sound like an Intel fanboi but that just isn't the case.
Having said that, you, much like Tony and OddManOut, are straight up delusional. First: i7's aren't "marginally" faster, they are much, much faster than any AMD offering. Second: dollar for dollar, AMD is just barely competitive and that's with a three year old platform.
$20 price difference, and an extra core for AMD: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=83&p2=56&i=2.3.4.5.6.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50
Let's be real, ok? I'm considering building an AM3 box but I know exactly how it compares to the competition.
I agree with hexydes I just built my new system with the original phenom 1 quad core processor with 4 gigs of ram. The whole system costed me around $600 and its going to do what I want it to do. I won't be playing Crysis or any pc game on my pc I'm just using my comp for backups for my dvd collection and music and videos.
Right, that's what I'm saying. I priced out a Core i7-based system, and I was at $600 just for the CPU, memory (stupid DDR3) and motherboard. I went the Phenom II route, and I built my ENTIRE computer for around $550. Will it beat the Core i7 at Crysis? No. Will it beat the Core i7 at encoding HD video? No. Will it perform comparably in just about every other task you use a computer for, outside of those two things? Hell yes.
So I'll take the $500 I saved, put it in the bank for two years, collect a bit of interest, and then build another computer based around whatever AMD is offering then that is twice as fast as today's Core i7 is, and come out ahead. That's always the problem with Intel, you can just never get a good deal going with them. By the time you can get a good deal, the hardware has already been out for 18 months, and AMD has something faster (as does Intel...but then, once again, it costs twice as much as AMD's offering).
@ Hexydes
Humm... interesting theory but somehow I'm not sure you're right, remember that when choosing an Intel CPU you're not obliged to go for the most advanced and expensive solution , plenty of lesser priced kick ass intel chips are available.
In my opinion, For the same price , or around the same price, what you get by intel is better than the AMD offer.
Instead of choosing a core i7 you could choose a quad core or a core2duo and get a better deal than AMD is able to offer you.
@KilgoreTrout: ... remember that when choosing an Intel CPU you're not obliged to go for the most advanced and expensive solution ...
At the moment, as i7 goes, all options are very expensive. Even cheapest i7 - 920 - costs about $280. And this is only CPU. Chipset? X58 only - and MBs are starting at $200. With only MB and CPU we are at $500 already.
i7 is great CPU. X58 is very respectable chipset. Yet they cost at the moment improportional money.
From AMD - with support for AM2+ MBs (which cost like dirt) and CPUs starting at $130 - you get a very very good deal.
Also rocking the 9850 x4 here along with a Gigabyte MA78G-DS3HP mobo
What AMD needs most is better marketing.
These processors are awesome enough for 99.99% of customers.
AMD management needs to "go".
There is not a single point where AMD chip beats Intel at this round.
That is a big no-no in such a competitive market. A very smart move would be to for example to use the space on the shrinked 45nm die to create super fast dual-core CPU design (instead of betting everything on quad core design) such a dual core could have shitload of cache etc. now we have a poor 4 core desing that is slower then Intel's 4 core design and most of the time the other 2 or 3 cores do nothing but waste power :-(
@no_one
Where have you been? AMD's management has gone. The CEO (Hector Ruiz) resigned in July. They've changed direction and have been closing and selling divisions, factories, etc. And while they can't compete on the high end, they're being conservative at the moment as they're debt-strapped and dangerously close to Chapter 11.
They did some awfully stupid things about 2.5 years ago when intel's Core2 line came out (like marketing an overpriced AthlonFX for $1000 when a $300 C2D E6600 would destroy it in benchmarks). And they also overpaid for ATI, which IMHO didn't produce anything meaningful until the radeon HD48xx came out last year.
But their price-performance ratio is great (don't just compare CPU prices- the average i7 mobo costs 2-3 times what a comparable AM2+ mobo costs). I've been building systems for people (as a side hobby- it's not very profitable, but fun), and I currently recommend AMD systems due to the value. I just built a conservatively-OCed 3Ghz quad-core Phenom II system with mid-range GPU (ATI 4850) for $500. A comparable i7 system would cost more than twice that.
So AMD chip is designed in Germany and made in Malasia? I think we need a third, USA based chip company.
Uh, AMD is based in California.
Here's the [H]ardOCP article: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYyMSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
I disagree with regards to price/perf. You see with Intel there are abundant choices... and DEEP discounts. Maybe AMD is a good deal if all you want is the CPU, but with regards to complete desktop and servers, you can usually get a faster (much faster) and cheaper deal on the Intel side if you shop around a bit. AMD platform availability is very limited.
I like AMD... but they really messed up by stalling on their quad core and allowing Intel to play catch up ... remember, Intel didn't even have a dual core when AMD was touting their future quad core. AMD was convinced they had won when they temporarily secured about 17% of the server market. Stupid.... lazy... over confident... and it cost them dearly.
I don't like the faster argument, because it's akin to saying that a Ferrari is faster than a Porsche. Yes, on paper, and pushed to the limits, the Ferrari (Core i7) is faster than the Porsche (Phenom II). However, at the end of the day, unless you take your car over to the Autobahn, or illegally drive your car on a highway somewhere at night, you're going to be stuck going 70MPH, despite how fast your car can technically go. Encoding Blu-ray video and playing Crysis are like driving on the Autobahn; using Office, Media Player, Firefox, and even Photoshop are like driving on your standard freeway.
And I hope you're not saying that you can buy a Core i7, or even a Core 2 Quad-based computer cheaper than you can a Phenom-based computer of otherwise same specs. If that's what you're saying...you're just wrong.
The empire strikes back!
Just barely being competitive with nearly a nearly three year old platform isn't striking back. It's more like saying "yeah, well, YOUR MOM!".
2009= AMDs Comeback Year.
I just built a AMD Phenom II X4 920 on a ASUS M3A78-EM
It turned out to be a great little office machine.
(it's boots up out of the box, so you can flash the bios to latest 1401)
Maybe these II x4 can not compete against a i7-940,
but the $250 savings I could spend somewhere else.
"...the $250 savings I could spend somewhere else. "
Like on a video card. When looking at overall performance even for specific tasks, I think AMD actually has a much wider price/performance advantage than a lot of people think...
Ci7 940 ($600) + mobo ($275) + 8GB DDR3 RAM ($100) + Graphics ($50) = $1025
X4 940 ($240) + mobo ($250) + 8GB DDR2 RAM ($100) + graphics ($435) = $1025
That's just an example. I'm sure anyone with access to newegg or tigerdirect (which is where I got all these prices from) could come up with a whole set of different specs, but look at those two layouts. Which will likely play Crysis better ?
This isn't to say that AMD is better, or even that Ci7 doesn't have good performance/performance. I'm just saying that unless your system is in the price range of maybe $1300 or above, you get no real advantage from an i7. And the vast majority of systems consumers buy are waaay under $1300. Above that price range sure i7 rocks, but until you're dropping equal amounts of scrilla on all your other parts, RAM, mobo, and Vid the CPU will not be used to it's full potential anyway...
* I tried to be fair in how I picked the parts I used for pricing. I picked those two CPUs because they are both clocked right around 3.0ghz, so I figured that was a fair enough comparison. For the RAM I simply decided on 8GB and looked for the best deals, was kinda shocked to find DDR3 can be as cheap as DDR2. For mobos I tried to price competatively based on features, but I found the LGA 1366 mobos to generally be more expensive so I alloted more money for intel. And for the graphics...well, the total price was set to around $1000...so the graphics got what was left...
You guys are delusional. Compare apples to apples and any value offered by AMD goes out the window. Try E8400 v. PII X3 720: similar performance and a $20 price difference. And that's three cores vs. two. AMD needs an extra core to compete with old Intel chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=83&p2=56&i=2.3.4.5.6.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50
@greyscale :it is funny the test, because its consider 3d program and games for a benchmark. In theory and using the same gpu but different cpu, then the performance must be the same.
Also, the trouble with Intel is not just the price of the cpu, also the price of the motherboard.
"...Compare apples to apples and any value offered by AMD goes out the window."
Not when you are comparing it to Ci7 in the mid range - budget sector as I believe we were doing. I shouldn't have to tell an obvious Intel enthusiast like yourself but even Intels OWN last gen offerings offer a better VALUE in the sub $1300 - $1500 range when stacked up against Ci7. The point isn't that AMD has higher performing products. And the debate isn't that 'Intel/AMD BEATS Intel/AMD' (even people who like AMD will freely admit that as far as business goes AMD has had seemingly NO sense in the last 3 - 4 years).
The point the original poster was making is that AMD is starting to once again turn out good priced, effective products and that such will continue in 2009. My point was mainly that for most people AMD processors are at present a viable alternative to Ci7, since MOST PEOPLE don't need, wouldn't use, or in some cases, COULDN'T use the extra power anyway.
And as far as apple to apple comparisons go, why are you comparing dual cores to tri cores ? If you want to be fair compare duals to duals, tris to tris, and quads to quads. Intel wins every time (except of course in tris as they don't offer any). No one is debating that. Except perhaps you, but I'm not sure who with...
But hey, it's the internet so spout your beliefs and opinions all you like (much as I am doing now). Pointless techno debating is always fun...we all ultimately vote with our dollar anyway...
Magallanes: I'm not sure if you looked at that link but there are over 30 benchmarks. And there is no problem with the price of Intel motherboards, P45 boards start at around $80. AM2+ 790FX and 790GX boards start at $90-$100, AM3 boards start at $105 and require DDR3 and that's not even the new chipset which isn't due til Q3.
Stop trying to compare AMD chips with Ci7. It's not happening in any way.
OddMan: There is no such thing as Ci7 mid-range or budget, which is why you can't compare the platform to anything from AMD. Nor can you compare its performance.
"My point was mainly that for most people AMD processors are at present a viable alternative to Ci7"
I think you mean Core 2, not Core i7.
"And as far as apple to apple comparisons go, why are you comparing dual cores to tri cores ?"
Similar price point and performance, obviously. And like I said earlier, the fact that AMD needs an extra core to compete with a three year old platform kind of says it all.
"Stop trying to compare AMD chips with Ci7."
Why would I stop? You always come up with the such good responses...
Besides, not everyone who expresses an opinion on the web is trying to PROVE a point or convince other people to think like they do. Sometimes people just like to add to the discussion. But if someone finds that threatening...well...I'd apologize (if I was sorry)...
'It's not happening in any way.'
Apparently it is. It's being compared right here in the thread. And if someone is planning on building their own system they would be wise to consider all the options.
"OddMan: There is no such thing as Ci7 mid-range or budget, which is why you can't compare the platform to anything from AMD. Nor can you compare its performance."
Again you misunderstand. I can build a Mid range PRICED SYSTEM (sub $1300) and stick pretty much any kind of CPU in it I like. If you mean that HP, Dell, Acer, Sony and all the other mainstream system vendors out there aren't offering SYSTEMS in the mid range or budget brackets with a Ci7 well then by golly you may be right. But just because no one else is building such doesn't mean that *I* can't...or that anyone else who likes to build their own system can't either. Never having purchased a desktop from a mainstream vendor I don't tend to look at the technology based on what they're turning out. Since I've always built my own systems I don't see even 'frankenstein' rigs (mixes of high and low end parts) as 'not happening' because I've built them myself.
"I think you mean Core 2, not Core i7."
Again, wrong. I meant what I said. If you want to build a system for under $1000 that will meet the needs of most desktop users an AMD X4 is a viable alternative to a Ci7 (particularly if you don't want to spend 60% of your budget on the CPU alone). So is an X3...So is a Core 2 for that matter.
"Similar price point and performance, obviously."
Ok, so then by Apples to Apples you really meant dollars to dollars. You could have just said that straight out.
"And like I said earlier, the fact that AMD needs an extra core to compete with a three year old platform...."
Oooookay. AFAIK the x3's are QC failed x4s with a bad core disabled, they were not designed to compete with anything...they weren't designed at all. They were offered as a way for AMD to cut their losses manufacturing defects (hey...it beats lay offs).
As for performance, I doubt the dual cores beat them in multitasking or multi-threaded applications. But I could be wrong...
"...kind of says it all."
In the limited debate (that no one is debating) of top end performance that you can't seem to get enough of, maybe...
Unffff. There is no end to the convoluted excuses and scenarios that you people will come up with to avoid admitting that Intel makes a better product and has for years now AND that there is absolutely no indication that it will change anytime in the near future. Intel has 32nm chips coming at the end of the year, AMD is just now putting out 45nm.
"Again you misunderstand. I can build a Mid range PRICED SYSTEM (sub $1300) and stick pretty much any kind of CPU in it I like. If you mean that HP, Dell, Acer, Sony and all the other mainstream system vendors out there aren't offering SYSTEMS in the mid range or budget brackets with a Ci7 well then by golly you may be right."
I have no idea what you're talking about or how it entered the discussion but you can get a Ci7 920 with 6 gigs and a 23" 1080p monitor from Dell right now for $999 shipped. I hope that helps.
"Again, wrong. I meant what I said. If you want to build a system for under $1000 that will meet the needs of most desktop users an AMD X4 is a viable alternative to a Ci7 (particularly if you don't want to spend 60% of your budget on the CPU alone). So is an X3...So is a Core 2 for that matter."
Trying to compare PII to Ci7 just makes you look silly. It's what fanbois do to skew the comparison and convince themselves that there is some sort of major value in an AMD system. It just ain't so. "Meet the needs of most desktop users" is AMD fanboi code for "our chips are slower but I just can't say it".
And how is $290 ($250 at MicroCenter) 60% of $1000? Are AMD fanbois developmentally disabled? It would explain why this discussion even needs to take place and the difficulty that you and others are having . Or are you pretending like you'd have to buy the Ci7 940 in order to have a much, much more powerful system? Either way, I'm kinda loling at you.
"Ok, so then by Apples to Apples you really meant dollars to dollars."
Obviously. It's the only way AMD can appear competitive. You're welcome.
Dollar for dollar, clock for clock, Intel wins. It's as simple as that. Deal with it.
AMD more like LOL rite???
(still might build an X3 720 box though)
try using a multicore benchmark next time then.
There, problem solved.
It's good to see them back in the game.
If by "back in the game" you mean still slower and still cheaper, I agree.
Tom's sums it up nicely:
"With that said, adopting AM3 does require one of the Phenom IIs being introduced today. It'll also necessitate a motherboard like the Asus M4A79T Deluxe with an AM3 interface. And you'll need DDR3 memory, which remains significantly more expensive than DDR2. Given no real tangible performance gains and really only the energy savings of which to speak, stepping up to a fully AM3-compatible platform, not surprisingly, doesn't make sense today.
What does make sense is the Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition on an existing AM2/AM2+ setup, leveraging cheap DDR2 memory. Gone are the days of Core 2 Duo's dominance over the value-oriented gaming market. Now that AMD has its hat in the ring, there's a lot more to like about the oddness of three cores."
A big pat on the back to AMD for catching up (still not beating), three years after the fact.
"Unffff"
Hmm...very articulate...
"There is no end to the convoluted excuses and scenarios that you people will come up with to avoid admitting that Intel makes a better product and has for years now"
From my first comment on the subject...
"This isn't to say that AMD is better, or even that Ci7 doesn't have good price[edited]/performance."
From a later comment...
"The point isn't that AMD has higher performing products."
But moving on...
"It would explain why this discussion even needs to take place..."
I guess so. I must admit I had been wondering why you felt the need to respond to my first comment and then pursue the discussion (considering my post was a response to 'Tony', not to you). But that pretty much clarifies it. Rampant fanboi-ism...
"Are AMD fanbois developmentally disabled?"
Probably. But no more so than Intel fanbois I would imagine.
"Intel wins. It's as simple as that. Deal with it."
Well thank god. Now you can sleep at night...
""Meet the needs of most desktop users" is AMD fanboi code for "our chips are slower but I just can't say it"."
Very interesting. That sounds like something I myself might say. And yet, considering half my systems (including my primary) are Intel based, I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of either company.
I tend to find that fanboyism is an affliction reserved for those obsessed with one company BEATING the other, or WINNING against the other. But maybe that's only true if you spell it with an 'i'...
It's been fun Mr. Scale...
Yaaaaaaaaaay, I loooove fire. Please, don't stop the flamin!
on topic: I am lovin my new sorta dragon build (780g mobo, PH II 920, HD 4850). I have managed to get me cpu up to 3.3ghz on the stock voltage (and that's not even a black edition version)
I think one thing every intel fanboy is disregarding is that AMD has a HUGE competitive advantage here because these things are backwards-compatible.
i7 motherboards are as far from cheap as you can get, and you don't have a choice if you want an i7. With a Phenom II, you have the option of getting just the CPU, throw it in an existing AM2+ board then plan for a new AM3 later.
All the comparisons so far have taken an iC7 + DDR3 and compared it with an Phenom2 with DDR2. How is this relevant I dont know. If we want real life comparisons I think we should wait for the AM3 mobos to come out on the shelves, since every review out there pushes the iC7 as much as it can its only fair AMD gets to do the same thing.
I think I'll hang onto my old Wolfy e8500 for another year.By then there should be more apps utilizing quads and i7's will be more economical while remaining #1 of the OC game.