Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1288 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 17 - 05:00am EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / More phenomenal AMD marketing?
 

  Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, Next >>
Albert Crocker Jan 12, 2009, 02:01am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
jj jj said:
... Fine details like cache are irrelevant (though it's worth noting the Phenom has twice the L2 per core...)


Remember fanboys: fine details are irrelevant when assessing Intel, but noteworthy if they benefit AMD. Any questions?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
i7-920 @ 3.3 | GA-EX58-UD5 | 6GB OCZ 1600 7-7-7 | 4870X2 | ~7.4TB Storage | PCP&C S750 | BenQ FP241W | Win7 64
Want to enjoy less advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Julian Innerhofer Jan 12, 2009, 07:28am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Most average users I know do office, web browsing, using their PCs for things like storing and viewing photos, storing and playing MP3 files and some of them maybe use a tool for making photos smaller to send them w/ e-mail.

But I don't know many "average" users, who use capture devices or do anything else w/ DVDs except watching and copying them (And DVD-Shrink is imho a copying utilitie, it doesn't convert movie files to DVDs, it converts DVDs to smaller ones). If they want to record TV shows, they use a VCR or a DVD-recorder (I used my PC for years to record TV shows, but I recently switched to a DVD/HDD-recorder, because it is much more reliable, I had a failure rate of up to ~10% w/ the PC (user errors not counted) and I didn't have a single failure w/ my DVD-recorder yet and the failurerate w/ my old VHS VCR was also <1%, excluding user errors).

All of these things don't require much CPU power (except maybe DVD-Shrink, but most people don't care much, if copying their DVD9-discs to DVD5 takes a few minutes more or less, because they don't do that so often), but people, who upgrade often have very old hardware and don't know, that a low end CPU would be enough for them and of course most salesmen don't tell them, because they want to sell expensive products, not cheap ones.

Btw, for what kind of shop do you work?

Because at least in Austria most average users buy their PCs in very big shops (like Saturn (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(store) ) and Media Markt (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Markt )), users who buy them in smaller stores, which are usually cheaper, normally have more knowledge then the average user.

PS: kids aren't average users.

Gerritt Jan 12, 2009, 09:20pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
I must not be a "kid" then, at 80-100 processes on average, and 45+ years of linear age, mayhap I'm confused.
It is my position that anyone that uses multiple processes actually needs the extra cores or thread counts.
LOL, you can't even think about it some times...but if you think, then it's OK.

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
dark41 Jan 13, 2009, 01:47pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Finally, a voice of wisdom. Nice to read you again Gerritt. :)

And for what it's worth, everyone is someone's kid. My kids are 17-20 years old, and definitely are average users. :)

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Plug & Play Jan 13, 2009, 02:08pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?

As much as AMD are struggling to compete with Intel and there multi mutli million/billion R&D, they are vital to the PC industry. If they were not around things would be terrible.....Intel would be selling AMD single core CPU's for i7 xtreme prices!

Me personally am itching for a AMD chip that smacks intel...heres hoping. And I was within inches of getting the superb 4870x2 but the version I wanted was only a few pounds cheaper then the best now! So I got the GTX295...so my E PENIS is HUGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

i5 2500K @ 4.8Ghz- Corsiar H50 WaterCooler- Coolermaster Realpower 1000w- Asus P8P67 Deluxe - Asus 6990 4GB - 8GB Corsair DDR3 2000Mhz - X-Fi Sound - 7.1 Surround Speakers - BenQ 24" TFT - G9x Mouse- G19 Keyboard
Gerritt Jan 13, 2009, 08:49pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 13, 2009, 08:53pm EST

 
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Plug & Play said:

As much as AMD are struggling to compete with Intel and there multi mutli million/billion R&D, they are vital to the PC industry. If they were not around things would be terrible.....Intel would be selling AMD single core CPU's for i7 xtreme prices!

Me personally am itching for a AMD chip that smacks intel...heres hoping. And I was within inches of getting the superb 4870x2 but the version I wanted was only a few pounds cheaper then the best now! So I got the GTX295...so my E PENIS is HUGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The proper way of indicating a large size would be to multiply the pronounced and not the silent vowel....thus HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE.
I'm not sure what you are trying to indicate via the replication of the silent, thus unpronounced vowel, mayhap that the size is unseen?

;)
(why didn't my wink translate?)


Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
Dan Boak Jan 13, 2009, 10:49pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?

dark41 said:
You say potato, I say potato.

The fact that the name is the same as a faster chip, and the price and performance is the same as slower chips, seems more to imply fraud to me.

They're hoping you don't notice that the AMD 920 CPU is as slow as the similarly priced Intel CPU of a different name, and that you think you're getting a deal for the same performance as the same named i7. Lately AMD has relied upon selling slightly faster chips for less money in the markets they can compete in. If you think that's what you're getting again with their 920, you're in for a major disappointment.


Ah yes nit pick about the name, but don't look at oh lets say..i dunno the architecture of the I7 being mysteriously similar to AMD's design's going back to the 939's launched in 2003. Seriously if anyone thinks there is any corilation between similarly named CPU's made by two different companies...well it's just pathetic.

Aside from that, look at intel's bussiness practices and whine about AMD's naming strategies. Pentium 4's were just a lovely marketing campaign, really above board, more recently how about Atom cpu's? Low power, sure...able to play a CD smoothly? Well who really needs that? Run Vista...nope nope..but Xp, that's great anything can run Xp...oh..it lags? But they're extremely overpriced, so they must be worth it.

Intel cried to microsoft about Dx10 features that would leave intel IGP boards incompatible with no new replacements in the works, and selling 64bit OS so aggressively wasn't smart cause...well Intel didn't do very well in 64bit stuff....and "the other guys" can do that stuff. It wasn't fair. But who needs 64bit, and what good could tessilation possibly have done for DX10?

But yes, naming strat...it's just so underhanded.

Plug & Play said:
Look it quite simple no matter what way you look at it. For peeps who are hardware geeks (like myself) they already know what they are after when online or walking into the store.....we constantly read up online or in magazine about the latest and greatest before its even out!

So it dont matter what price AMD stuff is they are not going to buy it (Geeks) coz they know it does not match Intels line up. And for the record an AMD high end Tri core's are slower then the high end non extreme C2D the E8xxx series with a modest overclock and is the same price give or take. So you can build a like for like system for same money....

So the average joe can buy whatever he wants....because if they sell crap and it does not do what he wants he will be BACK!!!!!

BTW,

Noboady in this cut throat industry plays by the rules so....its so dog eat dog out there.


Wow...in a thread about phenom II's you make your argument by comparing tri-core phenom 1's with C2D..way to showcase your extensive knowledge of the most current hardware.

Yes I7 is impressive, and it's got a wide margin of victory in some things, while penryns outperform it in others and it clearly struggles in some area's, such as gaming, because hey it's got a few bugs as well.

When it comes to things like power consumption of the CPU, power consumption of the entire system, having any kind of upgrade path from current systems, (or lets face it this is intel, future systems) cost and quiet operation. Well....they lose. Not by a little, but staggeringly. Things that the hardware geeks and lowest portion of the consumer market share may not mind, the other 90%+ however, kind of do. Which is why AMD wasn't aiming to compete in the high end segment with the quad Phenom II's that are just a tease of what the 6 cores will do when they launch in late march/early april.

dark41 said:


You're totally missing the point. There is no reason that 'normal' users should get anything but Intel right now. I don't know many 'average' users who wouldn't benefit from converting movies to DVDs with an i7 920. That's just 1 example. And someone who only plays games is not by any means an 'average' user.


You're either mistaken, oblivious, biased or outright lying if you can't see any reason "normal" users would get anything besides an i7.

How about the fact that I7 has a system power consumption that is consistantly 110w higher than a Phenom II system.

I7's run at 60-65c at stock speed under load with box cooler.
PhenomII 940Be has a load in the mid 40's

I7's performance is attributed to hyperthreading, which increases cpu power draw by a considerable margin increasing load temps by 15c.
Gaming is not benifited by hyperthreading, sometimes the oposite which leaves performance closer to penryn/PII 940 BE

I7's rated TDP is actually around 130w....ocing from 2.66 to 3.6 increases system power draw by 120w
PII 940BE actually draws 70w or so at stock volts and clock at 100%
PII 940Be can overclock at stock voltage by 400-700mhz on average
PII 940Be overclocked to 4ghz running at 1.475v draws 120w under 100% load

dark41 said:

The highest speed for now is a 965 i7, and that's very pricey. No bang for the buck for the average user compared to the 940 and 920 i7. That's more about bragging rights and for those with unlimited budgets.

But the current bottom end i7 is the 920, which is quite a bit faster than AMD's fastest Phenom II which costs more (The Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition).

If you really can't justify spending the additional $60 for the i7 920 over the Phenom II 920, you probably shouldn't be buying a new computer now because you can't justify the price of any of your other components either. :)


$295 920 2.66ghz I7
$200 Gigabyte GA-EX58-ud3r (the cheapest I7 board around)
$150 3x2gig Triple channel DDR3 1333

$650 For the cheapest I7 barebones config, which is not enthusiast standard, which is not even gaming standard.

That doesn't include the added cost of a heatsink sinch the i7 box cooler is a complete POS at .26c/w cooling performance, which when used in over clocking I7 can reach 100c before hitting 4ghz.

$570 940 2.93ghz I7
$1010 965 3.20ghz I7 EE

By comparison,
$235 920 Phenom II
$275 940 Phenom II Black edition
$135 Asus 790GX 750SB motherboard
$40 2x2gig Crucial basilisk 800mhz 4-4-4-12 (overclocks to 1190 @ 5-5-5-15)
$410-$450 for overclocking chip, gaming/overclocking motherboard and 4gigs of some of the best DDR2 overclocking memory you can get.

So it isn't about the extra $60 for the cpu, it's the extra couple hundred you spend just to get the cheapest motherboard and ram availble. That it runs hot, is a power hog and the performance enhancing selling point, the return of hyperthreading has to be disabled with things like games to prevent performance decrease or possible fire if using the intel box cooler.

Yes i7 is very spiffy in certain things depending on what features are enabled. It's the performance king for sure.

But not what the majority of people are going to be looking for, certainly not the best option, and no where near as cheap as ya try to make out when the mid-range products cost almost $900 for the cpu and motherboard alone.

Suspended User Jan 13, 2009, 10:55pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
possible fire if using the intel box cooler.


Strange, either you don't know how to apply thermal paste, or you don't know how to attach the HSF, because the i7 we have here at work at the moment is running at a nice 33 degrees.

Better call the fire brigade.

Albert Crocker Jan 14, 2009, 05:15am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
AMD has always done this with their naming conventions. They were sued by Intel for using the same name for their chips with the 386. Intel lost that suit because it was judged that an SKU is not a trademark, which prompted Intel to name its upcoming 80486 the "i486" so it could be trademarked. AMD responded by naming their version the Am486. Then Intel decided to name the 586 the "Pentium" and settle the matter one and for all. (They hoped.)

I remember right around the time that Windows XP was first hitting the market in 2001, AMD named their upcoming followup to the Athlon CPU the new AthlonXP. AMD claimed that it was purely a coincidence. Their desire to assuage some business' concerns that AMD's chips weren't as compatible as Intel's with the new Windows XP never entered their minds when they came up with the AthlonXP name. Never.

When AMD stopped using clock speeds in their product names (as Intel was still doing), they used a "performance rating" that was, also coincidentally, the same as their Intel counterpart's clock speed in MHz (instead of the actual speed of the chip, which was slower than Intel's, but more efficient, so they were trying to compare the products by using the same or similar naming convention.) Intel later changed to model numbers instead of clocks in their product name, so AMD had to make due with their own names for awhile (higher numbers).

But now, they have returned to the direct naming fray with a new product that boldly takes the same model number of the i7 products that are making so much press. Not even a "+" or an extra couple of zeros or anything, just straight-up take it. i7 920 --> PII 920; i7 940 --> PII 940... The Phenom II moniker doesn't look anything like the Pentium II, either. That's just paranoid.

Pentium II
Phenom II

How could anyone see any similarity? Conspiracy theorists, the lot of you!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
i7-920 @ 3.3 | GA-EX58-UD5 | 6GB OCZ 1600 7-7-7 | 4870X2 | ~7.4TB Storage | PCP&C S750 | BenQ FP241W | Win7 64
dark41 Jan 14, 2009, 08:17am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 14, 2009, 08:22am EST

 
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Dan Boak said:


Ah yes nit pick about the name, but don't look at oh lets say..


The article that this thread refers to is about the name only. That's also what my comments relate to.

You seem to be playing both sides from the middle when you condemn Intel's marketing and then use it to justify AMD copying the names. The architecture is similar in one way to AMD (onboard memory controller) but completely different in others. If it was so similar, AMD would have a comparable CPU. They don't.

Dan Boak said:
When it comes to things like power consumption of the CPU, power consumption of the entire system, having any kind of upgrade path from current systems, (or lets face it this is intel, future systems) cost and quiet operation. Well....they lose. Not by a little, but staggeringly. Things that the hardware geeks and lowest portion of the consumer market share may not mind, the other 90%+ however, kind of do. Which is why AMD wasn't aiming to compete in the high end segment with the quad Phenom II's that are just a tease of what the 6 cores will do when they launch in late march/early april.


The power consumption differences amount to pennies per month on your electric bill. You're exaggerating the impact and my testing doesn't support your claims about i7 power consumption. As far as upgrade path, you have no idea if there will or won't be an upgrade path for i7. No one does unless they work for Intel at this point.

AMD didn't design Phenom II to compete with the high end because they have nothing to compete with the high end, period. If they did, they'd be foolish not to offer it.

dark41 said:


...There is no reason that 'normal' users should get anything but Intel right now. I don't know many 'average' users who wouldn't benefit from converting movies to DVDs with an i7 920. That's just 1 example. And someone who only plays games is not by any means an 'average' user.


Dan Boak said:
You're either mistaken, oblivious, biased or outright lying if you can't see any reason "normal" users would get anything besides an i7.

How about the fact that I7 has a system power consumption that is consistantly 110w higher than a Phenom II system.

I7's run at 60-65c at stock speed under load with box cooler.
PhenomII 940Be has a load in the mid 40's

I7's performance is attributed to hyperthreading, which increases cpu power draw by a considerable margin increasing load temps by 15c.
Gaming is not benifited by hyperthreading, sometimes the oposite which leaves performance closer to penryn/PII 940 BE

I7's rated TDP is actually around 130w....ocing from 2.66 to 3.6 increases system power draw by 120w
PII 940BE actually draws 70w or so at stock volts and clock at 100%
PII 940Be can overclock at stock voltage by 400-700mhz on average
PII 940Be overclocked to 4ghz running at 1.475v draws 120w under 100% load


I've built 2 i7 920 systems so far with a single HIS IceQ4 HD4850. My ambient temp is consistenty 24C. Both systems idle at 32C and 125w total system draw. Overclocking them to 3.6GHz (with the box cooler) made little difference to the total system power draw (130w at idle), which is roughly the same as the C2D and C2Q. Running the systems at full load the power jumps to 240w and the temp to 70C. The power jump is mainly due to the video card. The CPU temp is easily lowered to 52-55C by adding a $40 3rd party CPU cooler.

So I don't know where you get your information from, but my experience sure doesn't support your claims.

Dan Boak said:

$295 920 2.66ghz I7
$200 Gigabyte GA-EX58-ud3r (the cheapest I7 board around)
$150 3x2gig Triple channel DDR3 1333

$650 For the cheapest I7 barebones config, which is not enthusiast standard, which is not even gaming standard.


Exactly what about that system is not gaming standard? That system will outgame any Phenom II you can build, both at stock speeds and overclocked, with the same video card. It's also very much an enthusiast standard if you're an AMD enthusiast looking to upgrade to something faster.

Dan Boak said:

That doesn't include the added cost of a heatsink sinch the i7 box cooler is a complete POS at .26c/w cooling performance, which when used in over clocking I7 can reach 100c before hitting 4ghz.

$570 940 2.93ghz I7
$1010 965 3.20ghz I7 EE

By comparison,
$235 920 Phenom II
$275 940 Phenom II Black edition
$135 Asus 790GX 750SB motherboard
$40 2x2gig Crucial basilisk 800mhz 4-4-4-12 (overclocks to 1190 @ 5-5-5-15)
$410-$450 for overclocking chip, gaming/overclocking motherboard and 4gigs of some of the best DDR2 overclocking memory you can get.

So it isn't about the extra $60 for the cpu, it's the extra couple hundred you spend just to get the cheapest motherboard and ram availble. That it runs hot, is a power hog and the performance enhancing selling point, the return of hyperthreading has to be disabled with things like games to prevent performance decrease or possible fire if using the intel box cooler.


Again, not sure where you get your information from and it does little good for me to compare prices in AU. But suffice to say that I can beat what you've listed for both systems and there's a much smaller gap between the 2. I'm also a reseller for Crucial. The BL3KIT12864TB1337 • DDR3 PC3-10600 • 7-7-7-24 is a bit cheaper than the 2x2GB DDR2 you list and will beat it for performance. Timings haven't been as important as bandwidth for memory since DDR2 took over. So to use your own line ".....way to showcase your extensive knowledge of the most current hardware."

Dan Boak said:
Yes i7 is very spiffy in certain things depending on what features are enabled. It's the performance king for sure.


That's about all we agree upon.

The i7 is spiffy in everything. I'm biased toward whichever company is offering the best bang for the buck at any particular time. Right now that is Intel, and has been for a couple years. I don't see AMD regaining that crown anytime soon. :)

Whether a person buys a C2D, C2Q, or i7 they're getting the best bang for the buck of each category IMO.

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Julian Innerhofer Jan 14, 2009, 04:02pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 14, 2009, 04:25pm EST

 
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
I sometimes had >140 proccesses, that need <1% CPU utiisation together in Vista. You don't need a muulticore CPU, when you are just runninhg a lot of background tasks (I didn't use Vista for a while, but I remember, that even if you have nothing installed except the drivers, you already have ~100 background processes running).

Edit:

Strange, either you don't know how to apply thermal paste, or you don't know how to attach the HSF, because the i7 we have here at work at the moment is running at a nice 33 degrees.


Idel temps don't count much. I know guys, who are running a Core 2 Q6600 @ 33°C idle, but they get >90°C using Intel Burn Test v1.8 and still up to 65°C in prime95. And theya don't have there PC in a very cold room, but at normal room temperatures (~18-20°C).

Another imporotatnt thing when comparing Intel to AMD CPUs: AMD uses the maximum power consumption, which is possible as TDP, Intel uses the maximum power consumption under "normal working conditions". This makes the power consumption of Intel CPUs about 20% higher than on AMD CPUs w/ the same TDP.

G. G. Jan 14, 2009, 04:41pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Julian,

dang... I dont know where you get your OS and drivers from or how you installed them.... lol... but " ~100" processes??? either you are exaggerating or you got some really bad OS/drivers..... I say this is because.... I just built a new system with Vista Enterprise x64/SP1 and updated from MS updates to the hilt..... then I installed CAT 8.12 and then all my drivers for the motherboard with onboard sound..... Giving my only 29 processes when I finished.... and even with these 29 processes.... I could have turned off 4 of them and would have not missed a thing... 100 process.... wow... you system must be really bloated... heheheheh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
Suspended User Jan 14, 2009, 05:09pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Julian Innerhofer said:
I sometimes had >140 proccesses, that need <1% CPU utiisation together in Vista. You don't need a muulticore CPU, when you are just runninhg a lot of background tasks (I didn't use Vista for a while, but I remember, that even if you have nothing installed except the drivers, you already have ~100 background processes running).

Edit:

Strange, either you don't know how to apply thermal paste, or you don't know how to attach the HSF, because the i7 we have here at work at the moment is running at a nice 33 degrees.


Idel temps don't count much. I know guys, who are running a Core 2 Q6600 @ 33°C idle, but they get >90°C using Intel Burn Test v1.8 and still up to 65°C in prime95. And theya don't have there PC in a very cold room, but at normal room temperatures (~18-20°C).

Another imporotatnt thing when comparing Intel to AMD CPUs: AMD uses the maximum power consumption, which is possible as TDP, Intel uses the maximum power consumption under "normal working conditions". This makes the power consumption of Intel CPUs about 20% higher than on AMD CPUs w/ the same TDP.


Well we just ran loop of 3dmark06 4 times and CPU temp is 58 degrees....again, still very low.

Idle temps do count for soemthing. Especially when comparing them to whta he stated they were.I was proving a point in which the idle temp is far lower than what he says it is.

dark41 Jan 14, 2009, 05:30pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 14, 2009, 05:31pm EST

 
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
3dmark puts more stress on the graphics than the CPU.

The way to really test the CPU stabilization and temps is with Orthos. That's the new version (well not so new anymore) of Prime95 and is designed for multiple cores. I believe in order to do the same thing with Prime95 you'd have to start an instance for each core separately, which is a PITA.

I've got Vista 64 bit Ultimate on several systems that connect to a Windows 2003 server. None have more than 35 processes running with AV and Anti-Spyware. It's still a lot more than XP, but not really as much stress on the CPU as on the memory.

Anyway, I agree that the temps stated by Dan were a bit ridiculous. No way Intel or AMD would sell a CPU that would fry itself under normal gaming conditions.

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Julian Innerhofer Jan 14, 2009, 06:23pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 14, 2009, 06:32pm EST

 
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Ok, maybe I don't know exactly, which services of Vista are necesarry and which can be turned off.

Also I used Vista Ultimate x32, maybe this version of Viista has more services activated by default.



The way to really test the CPU stabilization and temps is with Orthos. That's the new version (well not so new anymore) of Prime95 and is designed for multiple cores. I believe in order to do the same thing with Prime95 you'd have to start an instance for each core separately, which is a PITA.


I use prime95 v2..56 and this version supports multithreading w/o having to run several instances. But mersenne.org had an outdated version of Prime95 online for a long time, but now they already have v2.258, which also supports multithreading.

Plug & Play Jan 14, 2009, 06:44pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?

Dan Boak,

Did you even read my posts....I was the one who said lets compare like to like....the post you refer to was putting the earlier posts straight.....but you come in at the last post not reading the previous ones and give it all the JAY LENO's trying to be a big shot...Jeezzz another member that has to post the entire national phonebook to make a simple point! :angry:

i5 2500K @ 4.8Ghz- Corsiar H50 WaterCooler- Coolermaster Realpower 1000w- Asus P8P67 Deluxe - Asus 6990 4GB - 8GB Corsair DDR3 2000Mhz - X-Fi Sound - 7.1 Surround Speakers - BenQ 24" TFT - G9x Mouse- G19 Keyboard
carl 0ski Jan 14, 2009, 10:36pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
Gerritt said:
jj jj,
There is not a huge cost difference.
On Newegg the AMD is $235 and the Intel is $295. A $60 difference yes, but this is not a huge difference.

Additionally the Intel has 8MB of L3 cache, whereas the AMD has 6MB of L3 cache.
The Intels are rated at 130W and the AMD at 125W, so you can see a small savings in power requirements as well as the $60 delta between the two offerings.
AMD will need to widen the cost/price delta even more if they want to get any market penatration....lets say a sub $200 pricing point.


Gees dude where did you study arithmatic $60 20% is a decent difference
$60 X 4 = AMD
$60 X 5 = Intel

dark41 Jan 15, 2009, 06:07pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
The 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Vista both run the same amount of processes. We need a couple more processes for connecting to a server than a system not connecting to a server does. Most users cut Vista Ultimate processes to under 30, or around 30.

You do realize that multi-threading and mult-core are not the same thing right?


General:
Here's a review by Tom's hardware comparing the i7 920 and Phenom II 940, and a few quotes that I found relevant to this discussion. My experience is similar to their results, although prices are changing all the time and I can now get a i7 920, MB and DDR3 (better) memory for about the same price:

"Intel’s sub-$300 entry-level model running at 2.66 GHz, seems to have little trouble reaching up to 4 GHz on air cooling. "

"As far as we can see it, there are four different factors that go into the purchasing decision of one of these next-gen platforms.

The first is price. AMD has the upper hand here."

"In all, the Phenom II machine costs about $250 less to build than our i7 box did, while arming the AMD platform with a better aftermarket cooler would have shaved $50 or so from its advantage."

"Next is performance. Intel maintains its advantage in this one, even with both configurations overclocked."

"Given the speeds we were able to achieve, Intel’s entry-level Core i7 walked away from AMD’s fastest Phenom II in every single one of our tests."

"Third, you have power. We’re giving this one to AMD, as well. At idle—where you’ll spend most of your time—the overclocked Phenom II spins down to 800 MHz and yields some impressive power figures. Once it shoots back up to 3.64 GHz, it’s sucking down more juice than Intel’s 3.8 GHz Core i7. However, we anticipate that most enthusiasts aren’t going to peg their chips at redline very often."

"Finally, there’s the upgrade question."

"For owners of existing Socket AM2+ motherboards, today’s Phenom II is a drop-in component. Provided that your board and graphics are beefy enough to warrant the new CPU, stepping up is a matter of spending $275. Conversely, adopting i7 means buying a CPU, motherboard, and DDR3 memory, at least. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Intel has always been aggressive about nudging the bleeding edge forward and advocating new technologies—sometimes to its own detriment. We know DDR3 is going to replace DDR2, and it’s nice to have an X58 board able to support CrossFireX and SLI. AMD’s upgrade path simply lets enthusiasts stretch their aging hardware out a little bit longer."

"The Core i7 and Phenom II seem suited to two different customers. Indeed, there will undoubtedly be gamers who go all-AMD and are willing to sacrifice a bit of speed in order to save money and Intel loyalists who adopt i7 at a bit of extra cost for its newer technology."

"For the gamer or multimedia aficionado with a mind to performance, Intel’s Core i7 920 overclocked to 3.8 GHz simply delivers the most compelling experience."

"If you’re instead buying for a more productivity-oriented purpose, the Phenom II makes sense."


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-phenom-ii,2119.html

Not a lot has changed with Phenom II. They still don't overclock as well as any recent Intel. They still use less power at idle and more power under load than Intel. AMD's top performing CPU is a little cheaper and slower than Intel's bottom of the line i7 920.

I see it as doing a major upgrade now (Intel) or later (AMD).

My system is rarely at idle and runs 24/7 (FAH). It's cheaper for me to run Intel because I save more under full load than I save at idle. I care about speed, so again Intel is the choice for me. I can get both systems for about the same price ($30AUD difference with after market CPU cooler on each). DDR3 RAM out performs DDR2 RAM. CrossfireX and SLI are available only from Intel on the same system.

I see AMD's path as more constrictive at this time.

And I still see the same CPU name as an attempt to fool the customer into thinking they're getting the same performance for less money. I also don't see how pointing out what Intel has done wrong in the past justifies AMD's conscious decision to do the wrong thing now. But that's just my opinion.

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Julian Innerhofer Jan 15, 2009, 06:34pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
"For owners of existing Socket AM2+ motherboards, today’s Phenom II is a drop-in component. Provided that your board and graphics are beefy enough to warrant the new CPU, stepping up is a matter of spending $275. Conversely, adopting i7 means buying a CPU, motherboard, and DDR3 memory, at least. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Intel has always been aggressive about nudging the bleeding edge forward and advocating new technologies—sometimes to its own detriment. We know DDR3 is going to replace DDR2, and it’s nice to have an X58 board able to support CrossFireX and SLI. AMD’s upgrade path simply lets enthusiasts stretch their aging hardware out a little bit longer."


From my POV, performance and price matters, not what technology is used to optain it. DDR2 will be out for a long time, so there is no need to run DDR3, if the performance is better w/ DDR2 for the same price, or if the price is much lower. And DDR3 showed no significant performance improvement over DDR2 in Corre 2 Duo benchmakrs (which is the only CPU, which can run w/ DDR2 and DDR3), so I don't seee any reason to use DDR3 now, if you are not forced to use it. DDR2 will be on the markte for a long time in teh future (you still get SDRAM today and they even released the foirst 1GB SDRAM DIMMS, when DDR was already mainstream), so memory upgrade won't be a problem.

And about the new motherboards: except DDR3, SLI and CF on the same board is the only new feature. This is a nice feature, but it isn't worth buying a new Motherboard for >200$, it isn't even worth the price permium over Socket 775 boards. The socket 1366 itself has imho less future in the deslktop markte then s775, because it is a server socket an will likely be completely replaced by socket 1166 on the desktop market, like AMD's socket 940 was completely replaced by s939 on the desktop market.

Hugh Scriven Jan 15, 2009, 07:31pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: More phenomenal AMD marketing?
I must say this: The discussion within this topic has been very enlightening.

It would seem that buying processors is very much akin to buying a car. For a variety of reasons we seem to develop a 'brand name allegiance' which is in line with our life attitude and outlook.

Some are not satisfied unless they have the very latest 'status symbol' at the moment it becomes available. Even though at that time it is very costly. Speed is addictive whether 'real' or 'imagined.'

Others tend to be much more pragmatic and are able to be content with a suitably fast processor that is less than the 'top of the line' but still able to meet their most demanding requirements.

Windows has proven to be a problematic OS to contend with and for my taste Linux has proven to be faster, more efficient and completely reliable. Crash free!

Advertising is a well honed art which is very powerful. Irresistable to many.
Manufacturers have been well schooled in how to capitalize by use of the art.

How to exploit our 'weaknesses' and our 'emotions.'

Consumer reliant 'Capitalism' at its best, U.S. style.

How some of us have managed not to get 'hooked' on Windows or Intel's 'latest and best' is really quite amazing. AMD is very good. Linux is very good.


Write a Reply >>

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.