ZOMG AMD is crap

[SirKenin]

I've worked on a few systems lately with the latest AMD processors in them, the X2s and Phenoms. What total, absolute crap. Garbage. Dog slow pieces of junk.

What a sorry excuse for a processor/platform. I can't believe people actually buy these things. I built a P4 3.2 GHz system for a client a couple of weeks ago that absolutely destroys that Phenom in common tasks. Slaughters it, not even a contest.

It was disgusting. I told the guy to take the Phenom PC back and get a refund. Unbelievable garbage.

 

[ChrisW92410]

i got a Athlon X2 5600+ never had a issue being slow or being as you put it a POS i guess you can say....had intel for a while and had nothing but trouble...but i guess everyones entitled to their own opinions .

 

[TrainTrackHack]

Talking about the Phenom-based dualies? Pretty much everyone knows that Phenom was largely a flop...performance-wise not a smart choice, but most of the errata has been fixed up (?). Just saying that it's not unheard of that early phenoms suck...

 

[ChrisW92410]

yeah i herd they havent had much good come out of them...thats what happens when you rush something to be released before it should be, could have taken another 6mo-12mo to do more testing and make sure everything was up to par....all companies do that though.

 

[ThatGuy16]

I'll have to disagree.

My old x2 5600+ ran at 3.3ghz for the longest time, and i can tell you the truth. That thing was not slow by any means, to be honest, in windows i couldn't see any performance increase with my E8400 at stock. It may have been better in gaming, not sure.

But for the price, i think they are pretty good. They're build like a rock, and can take voltage like candy

But the phenoms, I'll have to say.. are a rip off.. without using the word garbage

 

[TrainTrackHack]

I think those are the "old" (=working and functional) athlons you(ThatGuy16)'re talking about. However, never Athlons are based on the Phenoms with 2 (defective) cores turned off. Just like newer semprons are phenoms with only 1 working core... for what I know, all CPUs based on Phenoms suck, maybe apart from the latest ones which have plenty of the major bugs fixed.

 

[AcetheGamer]

you've probably hated amd that much to say things like that,................

 

[ThatGuy16]

The athlons are not defective quad cores, the only one we think might be the "defective" quads are the tri core phenoms they were talking about releasing.

Athlons are also 90nm, while the phenoms are 65nm.

The only phenoms based off of a phenom, are the phenoms

 

[AcetheGamer]

phenoms,....yes they're not that perfect yet,...but athlon X2's? They almost beat every pentium d's arse to dust how about comparing p4's to athlon x2's....

 

[hermeslyre]

I have a X2 3800+ @ 2.8ghz. They're not as efficient as C2d's, guh, but they're not utter crap either. I dunno why you had the experience you did (expectations too high, mayhap?) but none of us will pay much mind to what you say if it goes so strikingly against what most non-biased enthusiasts believe; intelligent people by their own right, make no mistake.

Getting technical, the X2 architecture is anyway from 20-30% less efficient than the firstborn Conroe arch. This means thatguys 3.3 might have been equal to a 2.6 c2d and my own chip might hold ground against a 2.2ghz C2d. Things don't stay so concordant in every situation, obviously, variations little enough are expected, large ones less common. If you're seeing "discrepancies" regarding a Phenom and a netburst P4, the latter coming out the victor, I'd say something has gone horribly asunder, and gods help me if I tried blaming the superior processor for said difficulties.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

The athlons are not defective quad cores, the only one we think might be the "defective" quads are the tri core phenoms they were talking about releasing.

Athlons are also 90nm, while the phenoms are 65nm.

The only phenoms based off of a phenom, are the phenoms

The dual core K10 processors will still be named Athlon X2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_(processor)

(Not trying to be anal or anything, but bear with me, sometimes I really come out as one)

According to that wikipedia article, phenoms with 2 defective cores will be marketed as Athlon X2s ("Kuma") and 3 defective cores as semprons/single-core athlons ("Sparta"/"Lima"). Those triple-cores are codenamed "Toliman" (just showing off *cough*my*cough* knowledge here!). This makes sense, too, since even if the CPUs got three defetive cores, it can still be sold for sweet, tasty profit AMD really needs right now.

P.S. I do *not* hate AMD!

 

[SirKenin]

I can be a bit more specific..

I think there's something the fanboys don't mention.. They like looking at fake, synthetic benchmark numbers and throwing those around, but there is something else I've noticed about them.. Disk access. Loading times.. Terrible. Horrible. Aggravating. Consistently bad. Every single one of them that I've seen have had this problem.

So yeah.. Performance of them is crappy (unless you overclock them maybe.. but should you really have to push it out of spec to have it perform like it should?) and data i/o is crap.

Yup. Hate them. Crap. Junk.

By the way, that guy's Phenom was three weeks old. That's why I told him to go get a refund.

 

[StrangleHold]

Oh yea Intel with there Money-R&D-Fabs are the smartest cookie on the block. Lets see, drove Netburst for 4 years (Brain Dead). No onboard Memory Controller-No Hypertransport- No True Dual core to start with, still no true Quad core ( Horse glue Factory). Said they are not needed and a bad design. Oh but wait, there releasing a true Quad Core with a onboard memory controller and there own Hypertransport in the form of CSI. But wait doesnt somebody already have this and had it for 4 years. (Air sucking out of room with foul smell). What can we do, our processors have been slower than AMD for a few years, what to do. I know, we had a good processor in the Pentium Pro and Pentium III. Lets take a good processor we had and rework it. Lets take a design that we knew worked and rework it with the money theses suckers give us for the P4. It took Intel 4 or 5 years to make a processor to beat a AMD clock for clock and I,m suppost to be impressed. With the money and R&D wad they have I think its embarrassing. Oh how quick we forget how long we sat in the closet with the door shut. I think sitting in the closet in the dark for 4 years gives people the ability the forget the past when there hit by day light. Give it time, like the saying somebody said once. If you sit by the river long enough you will see the dead bodies of your enemies float by. Oh how quick people forget!

 

[fortyways]

paragraphs are nice

 

[StrangleHold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_%28processor%29

(Not trying to be anal or anything, but bear with me, sometimes I really come out as one)

According to that wikipedia article, phenoms with 2 defective cores will be marketed as Athlon X2s ("Kuma") and 3 defective cores as semprons/single-core athlons ("Sparta"/"Lima"). Those triple-cores are codenamed "Toliman" (just showing off *cough*my*cough* knowledge here!). This makes sense, too, since even if the CPUs got three defetive cores, it can still be sold for sweet, tasty profit AMD really needs right now.

P.S. I do *not* hate AMD!

Theres going to be 2 new Athlon K10 processors. One with L3, one without L3. But there not just a Quad core with defective cores, true some might be but most will not and will be true Dual Cores based on the Agena core. Same with the Sempron and I dought that any will be 3 bad core Agenas, but some might be a defective Athlon Dual core. Plus there coming out with a Dual core Sempron too. This is old news. AMD and Intel both have been doing this for years. When a processor doesnt meet standards they just kick the specs. down and recall it a lower end processor, nothing new!

 

[_simon_]

Can't complain about my X2 4600+, everything opens quickly and runs smoothly can't really ask for much more than that...

 

[StrangleHold]

paragraphs are nice

Concentrate real hard, same subject line one paragraph. What is it on this board, if you have more than 3 sentences in one paragraph people go brain dead! Memory and concentrating is a wonderful thing.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

I can be a bit more specific..
They like looking at fake, synthetic benchmark numbers and throwing those around, but there is something else I've noticed about them.. Disk access. Loading times.. Terrible. Horrible. Aggravating. Consistently bad. Every single one of them that I've seen have had this problem.

So yeah.. Performance of them is crappy (unless you overclock them maybe.. but should you really have to push it out of spec to have it perform like it should?) and data i/o is crap.

Yup. Hate them. Crap. Junk.

Not trying to start anything, or pretend to be a pro (chances are you're smarter than me in thes stuff, I admit it), but disk access and loading times... don't sound too much of a processor problem (to me, anyways). Unless someone tells me how CPU (significantly) affects disk performance or anything along those lines, I'd probably rather believe that every single AMD chipset you've come across had just been a flop or other piece-of-junk. Got a sempron here, at the time this comp was the cheapest in store, yet it doesn't load any slower than I'd expect any "normal" computer to.

For comparison, I have two exact same CPUs (P3 866mhz coppermines) on different mobos, i810 and some ASUS cheapo. Even though the ASUS comp's got double the memory (512 vs 256, same speed PC133), the i810 totally destroys the ASUS machine in just about any app&game. I still haven't figured out why - played around with memory timings and whatnot to the extent BIOS allows me to. Two old computers hardly do for comparison, but my point is that you can't always blame the CPU...

Even though we've clearly seen what intel can do, I wouldn't spit on AMD since they've done a great job creating something new rather than sticking to what's been around for decades (FSB, onboard memory controllers, whatnot). True, intel destroys AMD and AMDs recent CPUs have been a flop and they just can't seem to put up a decent fight, you might want to say that AMD sucks, is a piece of junk, crap, whatever...even if this was the truth, we owe them something. After all, If AMD didn't exist, we'd probably still have comps with 286s in them and a massive 512KB RAM! Good luck playing Crysis, people! (Help! Help! I'm playing Rogue and only get 0.0013fps...can anyone help me?)

P.S. I am no fanboy!

 

[lovely?]

I can be a bit more specific..

I think there's something the fanboys don't mention.. They like looking at fake, synthetic benchmark numbers and throwing those around, but there is something else I've noticed about them.. Disk access. Loading times.. Terrible. Horrible. Aggravating. Consistently bad. Every single one of them that I've seen have had this problem.

So yeah.. Performance of them is crappy (unless you overclock them maybe.. but should you really have to push it out of spec to have it perform like it should?) and data i/o is crap.

Yup. Hate them. Crap. Junk.

By the way, that guy's Phenom was three weeks old. That's why I told him to go get a refund.

lol my m8 has an athlon x2 overclocked to 2.7GHZ, it was as fast or faster then my e4500 at stock, and that thing had 1mb less cache. i dunno what your talking about, because his computer is solid as a rock.

oh and a dual core phenom... guys you must not know what your talking about if you think a phenom core isnt as good as an athlon core. even with errata, a single athlon core loses miserably to a phenom core.

 

[Gareth]

I can't complain about my AMD PCs, fast, cool, quiet and most importantly, they can game the games I like to play with a decent FPS. Although I considered Intel, I am still very, very happy with AMD.