POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

Back to Article

  • fireedo - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link

    can we call this fair comparison since AMD side using only DDR2 800 Mhz and Intel side using DDR3?
    can that things makes any differences in benchmarking?
    if so then this comparison is not valid
    sorry no offense :)
    Reply
  • magnusr - Saturday, April 12, 2008 - link

    Consider the power usage of the 9850 compared to the Q9300.

    If you get the 9850 for free and pay full price for a q9300, then you leave both systems running for an x amount of time, the 9850 will then after a x period of time be more expensive (considering expensive power bills).

    Common AMD you can be better than this. When Athlon 500MHz came out they rocked the boat until Intel came out with core 2, amd just got lazy....

    Currently running Q6600 @ 3GHz, had it for almost a year now.
    Reply
  • js01 - Friday, April 11, 2008 - link

    When i saw the crysis bench and saw the 9500 only getting 27 fps I ran the same bench with my system which consists of Phenom 9500, hd 3850, k9a2 cf, and 2gb ddr 800. My results were 53.095 fps average, 70.70 max, and 34.24 min. It just goes to show you the only benchmarks you can trust are your own.
    Reply
  • ntavlas - Saturday, March 29, 2008 - link

    AMD can`t compete in the high end, there is no doubt about that. But I think their real purpose with this launch is improving their presence in the mainsteam. Since they can`t reach the clock speeds or instructions per clock of intel they use more cores. This approach does have it`s merit: in 4 threaded apps they are faster than intel`s dual cores in the price range. Of course they are much slower in 2 thread applications but this doesn`t tell the whole story: a core 2 8200 might be faster than a phenom 2,2 when running a 2 threaded benchmark, but don`t forget that the later still has 2 cores in reserve that can be used for other tasks. It`s something that can improve the users computing experience in real word situations.
    Of course if you can afford an intel quad core, by all means go for it, it is the better chip, but I think that up to the $200 price point the phenoms make good sense.
    Reply
  • Thorsson - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link

    Despite the lower power consumption the word I'v heard is that Intel's new 45nm Quads can't take extra voltage and consequently don't OC as well as the Q6600.

    It would have been nice to see Anandtech address this issue.
    Reply
  • JustAnObserver - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link

    I love seeing you morons arguing about who has THE best, clock per clock, top extreme black super duper alpha and omega overclocking part. When the enthusiast processor is more like a ferrari. Nice to show, but who really mekes the big money is Toyota and their common cars. You see MOST people won't overclock, MOST people won't CrossFire nor SLI, MOST people just want an average system for a day in day out workload. So the only thing that really mather is this:

    Keep struggling for the Extremely Over priced parts, so that the average parts (AMD or Intel, whatever) keep coming cheaper and cheaper every day. After all, I'll get, let's say, 75% of your performance, but pay less than 50% what you paid. Sounds nice to me.

    But hey, thats just me.

    Ps.: You americans are funny, you can't even realize that the US only answers for 7% of the world processor market. And the rest of the world is a bit smarter about how to spend their money.
    Reply
  • gochichi - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link

    Intel outdid itself, kind of shot too high I guess. Look at how Apple for instance hasn't released an iMac with the Q6600... if they did, it would completely mess up their line up and price points.

    Anyhow, AMD's "competition" is pretty lame, was I the only one to notice how far inferior the Phenom line is to the tried and true Q6600. Everybody knows it's basically a downclocked chip... can easily do 3.0ghz. The only reason Intel doesn't do that is that it doesn't fit in the market.

    There is currently nothing in the horizon to handily beat a 3.0-3.2Ghz Intel Quad so they are showing very little interest in maxing themselves out.

    Dell should absolutely feel ripped off, so many years trying to carry both intel and AMD only to achieve that when AMD makes relatively junky chips.

    Anyone can plainly see (hindsight is 20/20) that purchasing a Q6600 the day it came out was the best value to be had in years (both before and after).

    I did not, but I finally have one (whole computer w/ Q6600 was $400) and I feel very confident that its performance will be relevant for a couple of years to come still.

    We are pampered to death these days... technically the Phenom is plenty but it's just not Intel-grade. Pentium 200 MMX for $380 anyone?

    Furious computing power is now more affordable than ever and with power envelopes (Intel-wise anyway) that will hopefully bring the form factors down even further. Even graphics cards are being re-corrected in terms of efficiency... they were runaway for a while there.

    I think that's what the 2000's are all about, nothing new, just delivering on old promises. Finally computers that approach "fast enough", worlds more reliable and affordable.
    Reply
  • papounet - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link

    The article is lame, it is utterly biased in its conclusion.
    The logic it tries to build around the fact that here is no speed improvment (" We get the impression that there are some speed paths that could be optimized on the current B2 and B3 Phenoms that simply aren't because of a very sensible thought process. AMD is still on track to begin shipping its first 45nm Phenom processors (Deneb core) by the end of this year and it doesn't make sense to waste time and resources respinning a 65nm Phenom, when presumably these clock speed issues are addressed at 45nm.") displays an absolute ignorance of the CPU design business. This stepping was an attempt to speed up the whole Phenom and improve yelds (and not only to correct the TLB bug). It does not at all deliver the speed bump (2.5% improvment ?). so let's claim that AMD did not try ... Ahahah.
    With the pressure from Intel and Wall Street and OEM, AMD can not afford to do yet another stepping to try to fix their technology and/or their design and/or their process, so AMD wil bet on 45nm to fix everything.

    Some other sentences just made me laugh "While we only had a few hours left over to test the overclocking stability of the 9850 it does look like it may be the first Phenom capable of easily breaking the 2.6GHz barrier." how difficult is this when starting from 2500Mhz ??

    "In our opinion it's highly unlikely we'll see AMD release a 3.0GHz Phenom on 65nm this year. " Indeed


    The Phenom with this performance level is one year too late to compete. It is useful for people who have bet on the m2+ plateform. but how many did ?
    The model released at 2500 Mhz is very close to the design limits of the stepping (little overclocking room).

    The Q6600 is not the best chip ever (celeron was, then the XP-mobile, then core2duo 4500), but is is rather good.
    With some research it was possible to buy the Q6600 B0 just when it came out at a decent price: it was cooler , cheaper, faster than s3 stepping and most motherboard bugs around quads had been solved.
    The higher fsb of the Q9300 as annouced by Intel could be already seen as limiting the potential easy overclock.

    Did I need today that my q6600 bench at 3.6 Ghz on air on a GA-p35ds3p with 4 gig of crucial ballistix ? i run it on a daily basis at 3.2 Ghz at nearly stock voltage.

    :-) OK not all my buys are as smart

    (I am no fan of Intel or or AMD. I have used parts from both to build computers professionally and I still dabble into the hobby).
    Reply
  • eye smite - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Why am I seeing an Intel review when the article is supposed to be about Phenom? Is this the same cry baby ranter that did the original phenom review for AAT back in November? I see sticking to the facts and being professional isn't a high priority at this site, but hell I knew that already just from reading the articles on daily tech. Reply
  • rodh - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    The TLB error DOES NOT CAUSE PERFORMANCE LOSS!!!!!!!

    the PATCH for the TLB error causes a performance hit, but all the TLB error does is cause instability in extremely rare situations involving hardware virtualization (when did you last use that) on multiple cores at the same time.

    Cant stand it when people overblow this error. Not that it matters anymore, its fixed.

    Rod
    http://roddotnet.blogspot.com">http://roddotnet.blogspot.com
    Reply
  • aju - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Ok, the fastest Phenom is still not quite as fast as the Q6600. The problem is that the cost issues is really much larger than it is made to seem in the article. The review does not really figure the total system price into the equation. The exact parts listed in the review for the test AMD system with an Phenom X4 9850 would cost $864.97. The exact parts listed for the Intel system with a Core2Quad Q6600 would cost $1273.96. Were talking about a difference of $405.99 here. For that price difference, you could forgo the 8800GT and put in 4 Radeon HD 3870s in its place and have quad CrossFire for a total of $1314.94. That MSI board supports 4 PCI Express 2.0 slots. Then we would be comparing systems at a similar price point. I wonder if the Intel system could keep up on the games then. Reply
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    The situation would not change dramatically if Intel was changed back to DDR2-800. Intel processors don't benefit significantly if at all from the extra memroy bandwidth.

    This is a performance of the processor without limitation of other components, not a price/performance article.
    Reply
  • IvanAndreevich - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Can we have a bench with the Q6600 running the same FSB and clockspeed as the Q9300? Would be an interesting comparison. Reply
  • Schugy - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Seems like q'n'q 2.0 still isn't working as good as the specs on paper tell us. Reply
  • Nihility - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    I'm really disappointed by Intel's 45 nm Q9300.
    Doesn't overclock as well, less cache and only marginally better performance over the Q6600.
    Intel is obviously holding back because AMD can't deliver. I am not amused.
    The updated phenoms are nice and all but as an overclocker I'll have to pass on this entire generation from BOTH manufacturers. That and WOW does AMD get owned at the gaming benchmarks.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    From an overclockers perspective yes, but what's not to like if your buying this product for stock performance, faster then the Q6600 with less cache, and much more efficient energy wise.

    The only chips that AMD and Intel sell that are geared toward overclocking in mind are AMD's Black Series, and Intel's Extreme Series..

    They have no obligation to sell you cheap overclockable processors. If they do it's just very well a bonus.
    Reply
  • Nihility - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link

    From a stock perspective, it's more expensive than a Q9300 but offers marginal performance gains.
    I don't like marginal processor upgrades. It's a bad sign when a year later you get sold the same speed processors instead of something that is 50% faster. They could obviously be releasing these processors with much higher clock rates but they choose not to so they have that option to crank performance up another useless 5% if they feel like it.
    I don't like being toyed with, can you blame me?
    Reply
  • nubie - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Hot Damn! Now I am torn between a 45nm Intel and a Tri/Quad AMD.

    I guess I can afford to sit back and wait, but this is just awesome news, it seems for professional apps the AMD is actually a better value (well duh), I think the Opteron line will be in high demand, and it will probably be very competitive.

    Finally, something that is nearly clock-for-clock competitive with Intel. Now if AMD can only get Dual-core models out in 45nm, then they might be able to compete on level ground in the mainstream segment.

    I just don't know which to buy, I hope that the promised AM2 compatibility will finally be here, if not there will be a lot of unhappy motherboard owners (my DFI Infinity M2 sorely needs one of these.)
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    umm, they aren't really clock-for-clock competitive, and no one said they were. Depending on pricing they may be price competitive, but the Q9300 seems to hold a decent performance advantage over the 9850 in most tests shown. Reply
  • mczak - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    What was the stepping of the Q6600 core used here? IIRC G0 had significantly lower idle power consumption, and somewhat lower load power consumption than B3. Reply
  • ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    What!!!! How darest though speak such blasphemy!

    AMD is your king! Bow to PHENOM!!! :) LOL


    sorry feeling a little silly today.
    Reply
  • hvypetals - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Why are the Intel core 2 duo's outperforming the intel quad core cpus?

    Is it because the games cant see beyond a dual core?


    Reply
  • ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Thats why I got the E8400 and clocked it to 3.6 ghz, it was cheap and it does very well for gamers.... Reply
  • ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Oh wait I could have saved 20 bucks and got a much slower AMD. Crap... Reply
  • ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Then I would have had an AWESOME slow CPU instead of a CRAPPY much faster CPU.... Reply
  • Roy2001 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link

    Wow, that's superb logic! Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Most games can't "see beyond" one core, much less two, three, or four. Reply
  • nycromes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    This is what I expected from AMD and from all of you here making comments. It has always astounded me that people will act like these chips are the equivalent of a 500mhz chip compared to Intel's chips. Its like saying my car has 375hp and yours only has 370, my car is soo much better than yours. The difference is there, but for most people, the difference is quite negligable.

    The differences amount to almost nothing depending on application. Sure there are better parts out there, but competition drives markets to innovate and will bring down prices. Oh how awful. The intel fanboys can ride their high horses still, but AMD releasing better products benefits us all. Try taking your heads out of that little box and looking at the big picture.

    I like to see AMD working on new products and hopefully they can get more competitive. We all need to be hoping for this so we don't see slowdowns in development and skyrocketing chip prices. I mean, look at the GPU industry compared to a few years ago and tell me that the situation is great for consumers. More competition = happier consumers. nuf said.
    Reply
  • ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    you are right, and you obviously dont game. Intel=FPS=FTW Reply
  • mark3450 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    What a complete strawman. Look at the data, the best Phenom chip is getting beated by the q6600 by 20% in real world performance, not the 1% in your idotic horsepower strawman attack.

    Yes everyone understands that the lack of competion isn't good. The reason people bitch at AMD is that they want AMD to have a competative offereing, but that data clear says they don't. They know because of that there isn't going to be any competition in the CPU market for a long time. Yes that isn't good, but sticking your head in the sand and denying the reality of the situation doesn't help.
    Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    I kinda agree with the others about this being a massive fluff piece. The following take on clock speeds really emphasizes the bias built into this article, about Phenom's clock speeds and potential performance:

    quote:

    AMD told some members of the press that there was nothing special about these 3.0GHz Phenoms that were demoed, which begs the question - what happened?

    There's nothing particularly magical about the 3.0GHz number, but the problem is this:


    and on the very next page:

    quote:

    We aimed for 3.0GHz and while we could get into Windows and run some benchmarks, we couldn't get it 100% stable. In our opinion it's highly unlikely we'll see AMD release a 3.0GHz Phenom on 65nm this year. It may be possible on 45nm but it's still too early to tell if that'll be this year or not.


    There isn't anything special about 3GHz, AMD just can't get this hot turd to run that fast, period.
    Reply
  • pomaikai - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Just bought a phenom for an upgrade. It is the old stepping, but the person I got it for will never do virtualization or overclock. I couldnt pass up an OEM Phenom 9600 for $132. Reply
  • Dribble - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    I agree Q9300 is no Q6600 replacement because the whole point of the Q6600 was you could over clock it to get a real high performance part. Because the Q9300 uses the 333 fsb trying to get over clocks similar to even the Q6600 requires a much higher fsb. Particularly as the max fsb for a quad is significantly lower then for dual's, you'll max out most motherboards before you even reach the max possible Q6600 speeds. Reply
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Q9300 is a reaplcement if your not an overclocker it has better stock perfomrance and to most of intel's OEM's it is, so overall it is a better. From both a stock performance and energy consumption standpoint.

    If your trying to overclock you will likely need at least the Q9450.
    Reply
  • 7Enigma - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    I have been waiting to build a system now for a couple months and I really wanted to use the 9450 due to the 12mb cache compared to the Q9300. The newegg out of stock price, however, is listed at $380!!!

    My price sweetspot for a CPU has always been around $300 since I only upgrade systems every 3-4 years so am willing to spend more on the cpu than other components.

    Anand, do you happen to have a comparison between the 9450 and 9300 (preferably at the same clock speed?) to see exactly how much that doubling of L2 cache helps in different situations. I primarily game, but always multitask and have other programs running so would really like to know if that extra 6mb is helpful (especially in the next 3 years).

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • archcommus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    My situation exactly. I was hoping to build a new system first week of May with a 9450, due to wanting a quad-core 45nm part with the best cache/price ratio, but it doesn't look like it will be affordable by that time (I'm willing to pay $316, not more though). So I too am curious if the 9300 will fit the bill (also planning to keep for 3-4 years). Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    AMD still make stinky stinky. Pew! Reply
  • formulav8 - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link

    Grow up. Intel doesn't like you. Reply
  • Proteusza - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Is it all possible for you guys to release the replay which you used to test performance? I want to compare my system to these, because I'm considering upgrading to Phenom. Pity MSI hasnt released a BIOS update for my motherboard that allows it to use Phenom CPUs, so I might be waiting a while (its a K9N SLI Platinum, in future I will just buy Asus).

    Note to anyone who plays Supreme Commander with a multicore CPU - there is a tool that improves performance by allocating threads to CPUs better. It is specific to SupCom, which tends to have one CPU with 100% usage, and the rest with 20%. The tool automatically adjusts the affinity. Go to forums.gaspowered.com and look in around for a thread related to Core Maximizer.
    Reply
  • michal1980 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Ok amd is doing better. The Q6600 has been out for what? over a year now. And its still owning AMD's baby. And to top that off, I though the whole 'pure' quad core technology was supposd to be better then the lets slap 2 dual cores into one package method of Intel.

    Its nice Amd can FINALLY start to play with the big boys... But the way this article was written is just garbage, A year late and a dollar short.

    As for price the q6600 is dropping all over the place... Frys had it for 180 yesterday, Microcenter has it for 200.

    So why is this article written in such postive light for AMD? A nice paycheck for the author. The conclusion is clear... Intel OWNS AMD. The price difference on the market is 0. The ability to overclock the q6600 is as easy as switching the bus to 1333mhz, and the ownage will grow.

    So yes amd made an improvemnt over the crap they had. However their current cream of the crop is owned by the 1+ year old stuff.

    Its like getting into the hotest club right before they close... Wow you got in... But its time to go.
    Reply
  • The Jedi - Monday, April 07, 2008 - link

    I'm pretty much with you, but just to comment on this part:

    "As for price the q6600 is dropping all over the place... Frys had it for 180 yesterday, Microcenter has it for 200."

    It's a common misnomer to see a sale price on something and then get it locked into your head that that price you saw one time is the price you should expect to pay for something from then on. For example if the company that rhymes with hell is advertising a PC with monitor for $299, even if it's THREE DAYS ONLY in the fine print, or like after rebate, people tend to get it stuck in their head that "a new computer" can be had for a mere $300, when a wiser person would know something that cheap would be like 3-year old tech/speed, likely with dead pixels and a 6-bit analog LCD panel, Windows Basic, stuff like that.

    Companies sometimes have a sale on one thing hoping you'll buy items with it, which allows them to make money. Just wanted to throw that out there.
    Reply
  • bigboxes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    How old are you? What's with all this "ownage" crap you are spewing? Do you really tie in your self worth to the cpu you use (feel free to substitute car, house, salary)? Most of us mature individuals who have actually reached adulthood just want the best performance for our dollar, not ownage just to inflate our e-penis.

    Nice article.
    Reply
  • RamarC - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    it's "funny" that anand forgot that the e6750 is $180 (not $266) and that the 3ghz oem e8400 (sans cooler) is in-stock and available for $200. the e8400 would certainly push a couple of phenoms lower on the chart.

    and it's also "funny" that anand's comparing projected phenom prices (since they aren't available yet) with real street prices. wait until you can get street prices before claiming a better price/performance ration.
    Reply
  • Margalus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    apparently you didn't read the article. The amd chip is not as good as intel currently, but they aren't crap.

    And if you read the article you would have seen that they still recommended and intel cpu for a new system, so it definately wasn't written with payola in mind from amd.
    Reply
  • ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    We read it, cmon you didnt see any slant towards AMD? Come on, be honest :)

    And it sounded like they were about to cry when they recommended Intel (plus the long in the tooth comments geez, I mean really, Intels old crap sucks and should die but AMDs latest and greatest ALMOST beats Intels crap wow what logic, LOL). Hey I wish AMD were top dog again. I loved the Athlon XP's & 64's. But facts are facts....
    Reply
  • hooflung - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Well look at it this way. Enthusiasts do not drive the market. System builders and servers do. AMD is able to bring competitive prices to the OEM channels and that will also translate to the server markets for the Phenom Opteron lineup.

    AMD is still largely competitive with Intel at the server level with the Phenom where TLB, the now strong point of the Phenom, is implemented better.

    To keep your servers sponsored with a healthy company, IT departments will purchase desktop parts when refreshing hardware. It would be nice for AMD to be able to boast the crown but their company is still profitable, ie in business, by offering parts that sell well.

    Also, its not wise to accuse Anand to being bribed. He's been saying this for a long time and he's enthusiastic that AMD is finally making good on their goals. Fanboi squat somewhere else.
    Reply
  • michal1980 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    How is this NOT a fluff piece? A 'new' cpu (Thats only new because the first time around it had a bug) thats 4+ months late to the party.

    Is being beaten by processor that was launch over a YEAR ago.

    In gaming the new processor has even been beaten by a X2 6400+!!!.

    Thats CRAP. How old is that cpu?

    and yet we get conclusions that this is more like the "Amd we're used to seing.. a competitive AMD"? Competitive excatly how? I'll grant you this will push intel to release there 45nm cpu's... But its not like intel is sweeting.

    Futhermore, How can you come out and say the Q6600 is long in the tooth, when its better then the new stuff amd has on the market?
    Long in the tooth because 12+ months after being released its faster then a brand new amd chip? long in the tooth because its easy to find one for 250, and on sale for less? Or just long in the tooth because It just beats the AMD right now, and doesn't whoop them by 20%+?

    I'm standing by my claim this article is fluff/ BS . its written in a postive spin for amd.. When the AMD processor has clearly been beaten again/still.
    Reply
  • Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    I love how fanboys like to conveniently "forget" about the few years that AMD was dominating Intel in pretty much every benchmark when it was the Pentium 4 against the Athlon64. Reply
  • VashHT - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    I don't get what you're saying, are you implying that phenom is competitive because A64 dominated the P4? Funny how you can call someone a fanboy when you're bringing up 2 processors that don't matter in the current market. Reply
  • Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    You kind of have to read the previous post wherein the author implies that AMD has never been competitive, which it has been numerous times. My example was merely the latest and had no bearing on the current generation of products. Reply
  • ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Amen brother, I had the Athlon 64 when it ruled, but now i have E8400 since it smokes AMD's best...

    So I guess I am an AMD/Intel Fan BOY!!!

    No offense but this artlicle had a very strong slant towards AMD, even though Intel destroys their newest and best with a 1+ year old chip. Dont you find that the least bit odd....? If anyone is sounding like a "Fanboy" I would say it would have to be you Mr. Crusader for AMD. LOL

    Dude when you get to where I am you will see, it doesnt matter what the fluff is, get the FACTS and decide with your dollars there... Sheesh...
    Reply
  • AssBall - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    I thought it was a very well written article. I didn't get any OMGAMDFTW out of it like you apparently did. Your "Man" would not be up already if AMD wasn't still churning these new procs out. Good luck finding those special Intel prices then. Reply
  • Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    > We get the impression that there are some speed paths that could be optimized on the current B2 and B3 Phenoms that simply aren't because of a very sensible thought process.

    I'm wondering why those speed paths haven't been fixed before the first launch. Certainly it wasn't good for AMD to only introduce them at low clock frequencies.
    Reply
  • Visual - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    It's really disheartening for a "fanboy" like me to see AMD beaten all over the board again.
    I may very well build a system or two with AMD parts because of the 780G chipset and its great budget video performance, but for a full-blown performance system i'll certainly go with Intel now.

    AMD better hurry up with their 45nm tech, its way overdue.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    "AMD better hurry up with their 45nm tech, its way overdue."

    You're right, Intel has been selling 45nm parts for like a year now... oh wait, no they havent.

    If you meant overdue as in they need it to (hopefully) achieve higher clock speeds and lower power consumption in addition to lower production cost, then you got that right.

    If they keep their schedule with 45nm, they will have narrowed the gap between process shrinks vs. intel a bit again - which is good. But things like that dont happen overnight.
    Reply
  • MoonRocket - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Can anyone identify the case on the 3ghz where are you page?

    Looks interesting.
    Reply
  • AmberClad - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    It looks like the CoolerMaster Stacker 830 to me. Reply
  • dnz - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    We musn't forget how great an overclocker the Q6600 is. My system is running at 3.2GHz (8x400) and I'm using cheap DDR2-800 RAM. The Q9300 may have some advantages but overclocking it is going to require some VERY expensive RAM. Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    First you'll need an good mobo that can deliver high FSB for these 45nm quads. RAM is secondary (can always use a divider if needed). Reply
  • ui5200 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link


    Maybe this will cause intel to finally release the latest Dual and Quad core chips (oh like the E8400 that's been 'out of stock' for months)? Or is this another paper launch ?
    Reply
  • Margalus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    intel did not do "paper launch" of the wolfdale. They are just popular. If you can't find one, you aren't looking very hard. I've had an e8400 for over a month now, and have seen them in stock at multiple places since then. Reply
  • The Jedi - Monday, April 07, 2008 - link

    Aside of the E8400 being faster than the E6850, they $#%@ed up the industry by pricing it considerably cheaper, creating massive demand, while being unprepared to fill that demand. The E8400 supplies dried up leading to scalping on eBay.

    Now supplies of the E8400 have returned and the price is around where it ought to be. Hopefully Intel will keep it together.
    Reply
  • stinkyj - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    i see stock for 8400 too, but i see a wide variance in pricing. in stock == inflated price.
    Reply
  • sc3252 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Its nice to see some competition in the quad core arena. AMD isnt the fastest, but it does put out a competitive enough part for now. Hopefully in the next 3-4 months they will release faster cpu's to up the ante. Reply
  • mlau - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    The LDAP guys think the new Phenoms are quite impressive:
    http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191">http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191

    They don't win against Intel on all irrelevant benchmarks (3dmark and
    the other synthetic crap), but fare quite well in server workloads.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now