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: Ritz who wrote (247653)	2/12/2008 3:33:40 PM
From: jay101	Respond to of 275872

< .. Not only is Phenom a step backwards, it is a step backwards from a total failure...>> A mediocre product from a substandard company ......

To: Ritz who wrote (247653)	2/12/2008 4:08:59 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Not only is Phenom a step backwards, it is a step backwards from a total failure. Quad FX @ 3.4GHz - 13,991 3DMarks Phenom @ 2.7GHz - 12,679 3DMarks It's another example of Phenom getting killed due to its low clocks, not its per clock performance. It does better than Quad FX, and no question it's lower power, but it isn't a step forward, because AMD's 65nm process has so far dramatically underwhelmed, relative to AMD's 90nm process. If AMD had the capability of stock binning at 3.0GHz, they would have a product that looked better relative to past products, and not too bad relative to Intel's cores (it would still underperform per clock, but at least it wouldn't underperform Intel's lowest bin). Instead, Phenom bins at 2.3GHz - MAX - today, with 2.4GHz in Q2, and maybe 2.6GHz in Q3 (they've promised it, but history has shown that they do not often hit their promises). That's still a far cry from competitive. Maybe at 45nm, they'll hit frequencies which they should have hit at 65nm, and maybe they'll look good relative to Intel's 65nm products, too.