Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (245373)	1/3/2008 1:08:06 PM
From: wbmw	Respond to of 275872

Re: Older BIOS's. Now Phenom beats it. Maybe because Lost Circuits actually spent some time on the review rather than rushing out a "this is shit" review the day they had a Phenom system for testing. Well, there's always that hope, Petz. I think the review in general is probably legitimate, but you will always see benchmarks that are outside the "norm". I think UT3 is one of them, and may have to do with the map they used, or the settings. Phenom is not without its strengths, but in the vast majority of test cases, it will lose to Intel's quads. Re: A $240 AMD part outperforms a $1000 Intel part and you are complaining that I didn't try a higher-end one? Petz, time to come out of la-la land. First, the QX6700 has since been replaced at the $1000 price point by the QX6800, the QX6850, and the QX9650 (the latter two of which are present in the review). Anyone still testing the QX6700 is 3 generations behind what's currently available. Second, there is a 95W Q6700 that's currently available with identical performance to the QX6700, so anyone making price/performance or performance/watt comparisons to the QX6700 is being unreasonably selective in their comparison. Lastly, I would argue against any blanket statements that a $240 AMD part outperforms a $1000 Intel part, when in the vast majority of benchmarks from more than a dozen other reviewers all agree that a $265 quad core from Intel is all that is necessary to beat a $240 quad core from AMD, and I might add, by a rather substantial margin. Lost Circuits' review is definitely the exception, rather than the rule as far as making Phenom look good, but even it has a number of benchmarks that are unquestionably in Intel's favor at the $1000 price point: - TrueSpace (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 45%) - Cinebench (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 57%) - DVD Shrink (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 27%) - MainConcept (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 29%) - V-Dub SSE4 (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 100%) - 3DMark CPU (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 47%) - Far Cry (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 73%) - World in Conflict (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 51%) - Crysis (currently available Intel part beats unpatched AMD part by 61%) The win in F.E.A.R was marginal, and as you know, the $1000 part loses in UT3. Big deal, if a consumer is buying a processor, they are looking at more than one review, and they are certainly looking at more than one benchmark. When Intel does win, they win by sizable margins (avg. 54% victory in all but 2 benchmarks). The funny thing is that if you want to be selective to a particular benchmark, I might as well call your attention to Crysis, where you will see the $245 Phenom losing to a 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo, another obsolete part, but one with performance that is likely equivalent to a $95 2.2GHz Pentium Dual Core. If you are going to make a big deal about a single review, then you might want to explain how consumers will choose to take UT3 seriously, but at the same time ignore other brand new and popular games like Crysis.

To: Petz who wrote (245373)	1/3/2008 5:17:40 PM
From: jay101	Respond to of 275872

From ZD NET : AMD Phenom 9500 / 2.2 GHz processor <The good: "True" quad-core design handles data efficiently; cheaper than competing Intel quad-core chips. The bad: Not fast enough to justify the price savings compared to Intel's chips; next-gen Intel quad-core due out soon could further the performance gap. > <The bottom line: AMD's new Phenom quad-core CPU has little to recommend it over competing chips from Intel. The Phenom is marginally less expensive, but not enough to make up for its subpar performance. Unless AMD drops prices more aggressively, it looks like Intel will maintain its grasp on the CPU market for the foreseeable future. > review.zdnet.com <....As you can see, on every single test, the Phenom chips fall behind their Core 2 Quad competitor. And considering prices right now, we don't think the $10 savings on the higher-end Phenom 9600 is worth the performance hit. Perhaps you can make a case for the Phenom 9500, but even at $40 less, the performance loss is enough so that you'd notice; gamers, photo editors, and multitaskers, especially...>>>