AMD, doesn't suck. Right?

63083

New Member
Overpriced? Where? At least here in Australia I can get a Phenom Quad for around $200 (the ecenomy currently being the way it is that's a steal), whereas the cheapest Intel quad (Q6600) costs anywhere from $300 up to $400 in more expensive shops, Q9xxx series CPUs usually start from around $400. In general, all the Phenoms I've seen are more reasonably priced than their Intel equivalents. I haven't kept up with the US/newegg prices but last time I checked, AMD CPUs very were reasonably priced, especially in the budget sector.

Performance-wise Phenom II won't beat Core i7, that's for sure, performance/price is the name of the game here. However, Denebs do outperform Yorkfields, so that's some great progress they're making there regardless.

On newegg.com the Q6600 is about $20 bucks more than the Phenom 9950. And from what I have read, the Q6600 is far better than any AMD Phenom so far released and it doesn't cost that much more here in the good old US of A. However the budget Athlons are quite a steal.

Even the Core i7 920 (not overclocked) is reportedly ourperforming the Yorkfield Quads that are overclocked. So if the Phenoms IIs are as good as people say, they should be about as good as the Core i7's. Oh, by the way. I find it interesting that the new Core i7 920 is currently $25 cheaper than the Q9550 Yorkfield and It is said to be sooooooo muxh faster. I guess it's just the way tech flows.
 

TrainTrackHack

VIP Member
On newegg.com the Q6600 is about $20 bucks more than the Phenom 9950. And from what I have read, the Q6600 is far better than any AMD Phenom so far released and it doesn't cost that much more here in the good old US of A. However the budget Athlons are quite a steal.
Q6600 and 9950 are pretty much equal in terms of performance, and the newer Q6600s OC about as good as the 9950s (with good cooling) so the only advantage of the Q6600 is the lower TDP (90 versus 125/140)... yea and of course lower TDP=better OC unless you want to shell out the money for a better cooler. $20 less for equal performance while being more power-hungry sounds about right to me...

Even the Core i7 920 (not overclocked) is reportedly ourperforming the Yorkfield Quads that are overclocked. So if the Phenoms IIs are as good as people say, they should be about as good as the Core i7's.
In some apps, i7 has been reported to beat Core2 by up to 30% clock-for-clock, and when multithreading it gets even better... however, I don't know what you've heard but (according to my sources) Phenom II has been rumored to perform around 15%-20% better than Phenom I clock-for-clock, which does put them slightly ahead of Core2 (Yorkfield) but nowhere near i7 in terms of raw power.
 

Irishwhistle

New Member
Simple answer to the "question" is no... I've had very good experience with an AMD Sempron... only thing good about the eMachine it was in. :p
 

Twist86

Active Member
I love AMD....but I think they screwed up on the Phenom line and so I use Intel currently.

But I want both AMD and Intel to be neck and neck...they fight and we win on prices/performance.
 

zer0_c00l

Active Member
What made you come back to the dark side? :D

well they are cheaper ofcourse and i really couldnt tell the differnce in my gaming and normal use... Intel did have the plus in overclocking but those damn thermal sensors are so screwed on the e8400 didnt like messing with it
 

nvysel24

banned
it all depends wat ur doin w/ the processor the amd is better for data processing b/c they took out some of the old commands like the 8 bit crap seriously who uses 2 4 and 8 bit applications ? and if u have that in there it slows it down. so they took that out which amd is better for data processing and mathmatical functinos and the phenoms are actually true quad core because they are 4 actual cores compared to intel 2 dual core stuck on top of each other intel has those old 4 and 8 bit command which slow it down so if they would actually take those out they would be a much better processor. im not saying that intel is not good because they are i have 4 quad cores with lots of amds also :D
 
Last edited:

TrainTrackHack

VIP Member
amd is better for data processing
Data processing as in what? All CPUs do is basically process data, so that's a rather absurd statement.

b/c they took out some of the old commands like the 8 bit crap seriously who uses 2 4 and 8 bit applications ? and if u have that in there it slows it down.
While these instructions are not present in 64-bit mode, AMD CPUs still support the very old 8-and-so-on-bit instructions in legacy mode. I don't know how Intel CPUs do this, but ATM they outperform AMD offerings and that's a fact...

so they took that out which amd is better for data processing and mathmatical functinos
The removal of legacy functions has nothing to do with this, it's a known fact that AMD destroys Core2 in FPU-intensive applications but that's due to other architectural differences (can't remember the exact details but I read an article a while back on this).

are actually true quad core because they are 4 actual cores compared to intel 2 dual core stuck on top of each other
The native quad-core design helps in data sharing between the cores and makes power management more efficient, but Core2 CPUs have shared L2 anyways so in general they are able of sharing data between cores much faster unless the data resides on the L2 of the other CPU in which case it has to travel through the FSB, but in benchmarks Intel still wins AMDs as far as data sharing is concerned (Athlons are bad at this because all the data has go through the HT link, while Phenoms are a lot better at sharing data between the cores it's shared through the L3 cache which has higher latency when compared to L2 so it's still generally slower than Intel's solution with Core2). Also, Core2 CPUs in general have lower wattages when compared to similarly-powered AMD offerings, so power saving ain't one of their stronger sides ATM (the 45nm Phenom II is supposed to change this).

intel has those old 4 and 8 bit command which slow it down so if they would actually take those out they would be a much better processor.
ATM Intel already is better performance-wise (Core2 beats Athlons up to 25%-35% clock-for-clock and Phenoms around 5%-10% clock-for-clock), also refer to my statement regarding legacy instructions - those are still present in AMD CPUs unless you have the CPU in 64-bit mode (=run a 64-bit OS).
 

Intel_man

VIP Member
Q6600 and 9950 are pretty much equal in terms of performance, and the newer Q6600s OC about as good as the 9950s (with good cooling) so the only advantage of the Q6600 is the lower TDP (90 versus 125/140)... yea and of course lower TDP=better OC unless you want to shell out the money for a better cooler. $20 less for equal performance while being more power-hungry sounds about right to me...

In some apps, i7 has been reported to beat Core2 by up to 30% clock-for-clock, and when multithreading it gets even better... however, I don't know what you've heard but (according to my sources) Phenom II has been rumored to perform around 15%-20% better than Phenom I clock-for-clock, which does put them slightly ahead of Core2 (Yorkfield) but nowhere near i7 in terms of raw power.
Sounds like AMD's targeting the cheaper field of play again...
 

N3crosis

New Member
Sounds like AMD's targeting the cheaper field of play again...

It's just a rumour, but it is probably true. But who knows with AMD anymore. The HD 4870 X2 is the best video card on the market, and ATi/AMD dished that out. Maybe AMD is planning the same thing :rolleyes:
 

Dystopia

Active Member
oh my GOD! I can't freakin beleive this thread is still goin. I'll bet that the starter aint even readin this anymore!!!!!! We ALL (or so I thought till I read AUTOBOOT2000's posts) know that Intel is better then AMD but AMD still does not SUCK! now please end the freakin thread! sheesh!
 

Kornowski

VIP Member
oh my GOD! I can't freakin beleive this thread is still goin. I'll bet that the starter aint even readin this anymore!!!!!! We ALL (or so I thought till I read AUTOBOOT2000's posts) know that Intel is better then AMD but AMD still does not SUCK! now please end the freakin thread! sheesh!

What he said.
 

Twist86

Active Member
oh my GOD! I can't freakin beleive this thread is still goin. I'll bet that the starter aint even readin this anymore!!!!!! We ALL (or so I thought till I read AUTOBOOT2000's posts) know that Intel is better then AMD but AMD still does not SUCK! now please end the freakin thread! sheesh!

pfft we can't let that happen...I mean the Deneb is coming out and then we can argue even more. :cool:
 

Geoff

VIP Member
The Core i7 pretty much fixes anything that AMD was better at. Intel now has a true quad core, integrated memory controller, HT, etc.
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
Allways thought it was pretty strange the way the two companies CPU development went from the Athlon 64 all the way to the Phenom. By there budgets (which Intel completely destorys AMD) you would think that Intel would have beat AMD to the Onboard Memory Controller/ Hypertransport/Monolith Quad by a long shot. Especially the Memory Controller that AMD has had for years. Seems the small guy gets there first everytime, which never happens in any other hardware.
 
Top