That's really.. disappointing. I mean, I like the Intel chips, but it'd be nice if Intel could get off their high throne and quit strangling us for our money for their CPUs, but that requires AMD to be able to compete.. Which they clearly don't as of now.. :(
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854 That's really.. disappointing. I mean, I like the Intel chips, but it'd be nice if Intel could get off their high throne and quit strangling us for our money for their CPUs..
I don't think you can really moan about the intel pricing at the moment, just look at the Q6600, ~£150 for a good performing quad core processor that can overclock like mad without too much effort.
Originally Posted by Naberius I don't think you can really moan about the intel pricing at the moment, just look at the Q6600, ~£150 for a good performing quad core processor that can overclock like mad without too much effort.
Yep, although as Rich points out... once you get to higher models, the price increases dramatically - double the price for a Q6700, as stated. :(
Its a shame AMD aren't competitive, even if they fix the TLB thing thats causing some 15% performance hit its still not going to look good, I hope they have some top fixes in the pipeline or sort out there process issues as theres not much incentive to go with AMDs CPU or GPUs at the moment and there hasn't been for a while.
I'd hate to go back to the old days when a decent CPU from Intel cost an arm and a leg even at entry level due to there being no viable competition.
Originally Posted by Naberius I don't think you can really moan about the intel pricing at the moment, just look at the Q6600, ~£150 for a good performing quad core processor that can overclock like mad without too much effort.
Yep, although as Rich points out... once you get to higher models, the price increases dramatically - double the price for a Q6700, as stated. :(
I could get a 5 year old to make a q6600 as fast as a q6700
Originally Posted by sandys Its a shame AMD aren't competitive, even if they fix the TLB thing thats causing some 15% performance hit its still not going to look good, I hope they have some top fixes in the pipeline or sort out there process issues as theres not much incentive to go with AMDs CPU or GPUs at the moment and there hasn't been for a while.
Fair enough CPUs, but I don't think you can say they're doing as badly with the GPUs.
This whole thing is getting painful for me. I'd like to upgrade my 3800+ soon (although I have to say, it's not really struggling yet), but I can't possibly go intel! I never -ever- have, lol!
seriosuly though, amd needs nothing short of a miracle chip (and those dont really exist) to be able to compete again. they are loosing against the current c2d's and the new c2d's are comming very soon. phenom doesnt have any headroom clockwise, sure, maybe 100 - 200 mhz plus once tlb is fixed there will be some performance gain, but by far not enough. and amd's roadmaps dont look promising at all, nothing completly new comming till after nehalem.
I don't think the B3 steppings are going to improve performance, all of the Bit-Tech results above are WITHOUT the TLB patch. Hopefully the B3 stepping will improve overclocking though.
Originally Posted by sandys Its a shame AMD aren't competitive, even if they fix the TLB thing thats causing some 15% performance hit its still not going to look good, I hope they have some top fixes in the pipeline or sort out there process issues as theres not much incentive to go with AMDs CPU or GPUs at the moment and there hasn't been for a while.
I'd hate to go back to the old days when a decent CPU from Intel cost an arm and a leg even at entry level due to there being no viable competition.
The TLB was left ON so there was NO performance hit in our testing - that is exactly how a Phenom performs. The turning the TLB off drops the performance a further 2-10%. The only way AMD can compete is if they scale the chips upwards - kind of the point I was trying to achieve with the ocing
i know the likelyhood of this is practically no existant, but IF amd could drop the price to say around £120-130 i think it would make a much more attractive buy, shame really cause amds of old were fantastic! i still use my xp-m 2500+ on a reguular basis for general day to day stuff!
It's a shame, I'm an ex AMD fanboy who really wants to believe again...
Intel have really hit the spot recently with their dual and quad core cpus, I've had my Q6600 for a while now and it rocks (oc'd to 3.2GHz with no effort) and will still out perform any stock CPU out there, not bad for ~£155!!
Comments 1 to 25 of 48
I don't think you can really moan about the intel pricing at the moment, just look at the Q6600, ~£150 for a good performing quad core processor that can overclock like mad without too much effort.
I'd hate to go back to the old days when a decent CPU from Intel cost an arm and a leg even at entry level due to there being no viable competition.
I could get a 5 year old to make a q6600 as fast as a q6700
But you couldn't get that five-year-old to make that 9x multiplier a 10x multiplier. ;)
Fair enough CPUs, but I don't think you can say they're doing as badly with the GPUs.
This whole thing is getting painful for me. I'd like to upgrade my 3800+ soon (although I have to say, it's not really struggling yet), but I can't possibly go intel! I never -ever- have, lol!
seriosuly though, amd needs nothing short of a miracle chip (and those dont really exist) to be able to compete again. they are loosing against the current c2d's and the new c2d's are comming very soon. phenom doesnt have any headroom clockwise, sure, maybe 100 - 200 mhz plus once tlb is fixed there will be some performance gain, but by far not enough. and amd's roadmaps dont look promising at all, nothing completly new comming till after nehalem.
The TLB was left ON so there was NO performance hit in our testing - that is exactly how a Phenom performs. The turning the TLB off drops the performance a further 2-10%. The only way AMD can compete is if they scale the chips upwards - kind of the point I was trying to achieve with the ocing
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2249942,00.asp
I suppose it rules out the "it's just a bad sample" theory...
Well, we have two... so it'd have to be two bad samples.
Still, it's not good for AMD.
Intel have really hit the spot recently with their dual and quad core cpus, I've had my Q6600 for a while now and it rocks (oc'd to 3.2GHz with no effort) and will still out perform any stock CPU out there, not bad for ~£155!!