AMD's phenom quad core ~ black edition "bad value for money"

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Somewhat damning....

    "............In the end, we can't really recommend AMD's Phenom 9600
    Black Edition, since the CPU draws more power than Intel's Core 2 Quad
    Q6600 while costing the same, offering less overclocking headroom, and
    thus providing lower performance overall.

    The bottom line is that the Phenom 9600 Black Edition offers bad value
    for money. Based on our benchmark results and the direct comparison with
    Intel's Q6600, AMD's CPU should cost no more than $220, in our
    opinion..........."

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/05/amd_phenom_9600_black_edition/

    ouch

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Feb 7, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thingy

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:49:34 +1300, thingy <>
    wrote:

    >Somewhat damning....
    >
    >"............In the end, we can't really recommend AMD's Phenom 9600
    >Black Edition, since the CPU draws more power than Intel's Core 2 Quad
    >Q6600 while costing the same, offering less overclocking headroom, and
    >thus providing lower performance overall.
    >
    >The bottom line is that the Phenom 9600 Black Edition offers bad value
    >for money. Based on our benchmark results and the direct comparison with
    >Intel's Q6600, AMD's CPU should cost no more than $220, in our
    >opinion..........."
    >
    >http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/05/amd_phenom_9600_black_edition/
    >
    >ouch
    >
    >regards
    >
    >Thing
    >

    I am wondering how far away the tri-cores are. Not everyone needs a
    high-end quad-core and a tri-core would be a good option. They are
    expected to be cheap and offer nearly as much performance as a
    quad-core.

    But, as they have sorted out the bug that was hindering performance,
    things should start to get better. They are expecting big gains with
    the shift to 45nm, where the design should come into its own.
    Nighthawk, Feb 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:49:34 +1300, thingy <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Somewhat damning....
    >>
    >> "............In the end, we can't really recommend AMD's Phenom 9600
    >> Black Edition, since the CPU draws more power than Intel's Core 2 Quad
    >> Q6600 while costing the same, offering less overclocking headroom, and
    >> thus providing lower performance overall.
    >>
    >> The bottom line is that the Phenom 9600 Black Edition offers bad value
    >> for money. Based on our benchmark results and the direct comparison with
    >> Intel's Q6600, AMD's CPU should cost no more than $220, in our
    >> opinion..........."
    >>
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/05/amd_phenom_9600_black_edition/
    >>
    >> ouch
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing
    >>

    > I am wondering how far away the tri-cores are. Not everyone needs a
    > high-end quad-core and a tri-core would be a good option.


    If it is priced right yes, I am waiting for one to upgrade my E4000,
    assuming the motherboard will run it of course and promises on that
    front do not seem to be panning out.

    They are
    > expected to be cheap and offer nearly as much performance as a
    > quad-core.


    The trouble is their (AMDs) mid-range quad core has to compete with the
    Q6600 and it is failing...so scrub AMD's quad core...and also of course
    the Q6600 can be clocked...

    Otherwise I agree, the tri-core is going to be one to look at if the
    price is right and if motherboard compatibility is guaranteed....If I
    have to buy a new motherboard to run this CPU I am walking to Intel....

    > But, as they have sorted out the bug that was hindering performance,
    > things should start to get better.


    I believe the bug was enabled, ie these numbers are while running on
    "risky" ground....

    They are expecting big gains with
    > the shift to 45nm, where the design should come into its own.


    I am highly suspicious, there is little evidence that this will be the
    case. At the moment all I can see that is on firm foundations is AMD's
    offerings are fundamentally inferior and have to compete on price, which
    they are not at present. PR spin and marketing seems to be obscuring
    things....

    If you look at the gains Intel has achieved by reducing manufacturing
    size, it does not look that good for AMD....they have a 2.3Ghz component
    now, a 2.6ghz component soon, maybe and that they have to get to
    3.0~3.2ghz and preferably 4ghz....to get taken seriously....

    I think this black edition is a sign of AMD's desperation....

    All I can see for certain from the move is they will be cheaper to
    produce as there will be more per wafer....however AMD's pricing does
    not reflect this at the moment...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Feb 7, 2008
    #3
  4. thingy

    Enkidu Guest

    thingy wrote:
    >
    > If I have to buy a new motherboard to run this CPU I am walking to
    > Intel....
    >

    Eh? Every time I've upgraded an Intel, all the way from an 80286, I've
    had to upgrade the motherboard!

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
    Enkidu, Feb 8, 2008
    #4
  5. On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:46:10 +1300, thingy wrote:

    > If you look at the gains Intel has achieved by reducing manufacturing
    > size, it does not look that good for AMD....they have a 2.3Ghz component
    > now, a 2.6ghz component soon, maybe and that they have to get to
    > 3.0~3.2ghz and preferably 4ghz....to get taken seriously....


    Why?

    Isn't it the actual work done that is important rather than simply the
    clock speed?


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    Franklin D Roosevelt: "We have always known that heedless self-interest
    was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Feb 8, 2008
    #5
  6. thingy

    Rob Simpson Guest

    Re: Any thing that AMD's makes is "bad value for money"

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:17:45 +1300, noone propped his eyelids open with
    toothpicks and wrote:

    Oh Woger, you weally are a wanker.

    --

    Rob
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Linux renders ships. NT is rendering ships useless...
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Rob Simpson, Feb 8, 2008
    #6
  7. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:46:10 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> If you look at the gains Intel has achieved by reducing manufacturing
    >> size, it does not look that good for AMD....they have a 2.3Ghz component
    >> now, a 2.6ghz component soon, maybe and that they have to get to
    >> 3.0~3.2ghz and preferably 4ghz....to get taken seriously....

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Isn't it the actual work done that is important rather than simply the
    > clock speed?
    >
    >


    Yes, however the days of the silly clocks for the P4 v the realistic
    clocks for AMD's chip while it does real work are gone...at the moment
    anyway.

    Intel's cpus do real work clock for clock with AMD and can actually
    touch 4Ghz...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Feb 10, 2008
    #7
  8. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >>
    >> If I have to buy a new motherboard to run this CPU I am walking to
    >> Intel....
    >>

    > Eh? Every time I've upgraded an Intel, all the way from an 80286, I've
    > had to upgrade the motherboard!
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >


    One of the ideas behind AMD's AM2 socket was it can run differing
    generations of CPU, while, yes with Intel a new motherboard is always
    needed...however to get the best out of AMD's new 3/4 core CPU you need
    a motherboard with the later hypertransport...so the Q is, is keeping
    the old m/board that worthwhile?

    I do think Intel is busy churning money via chipset upgrades which is
    obnoxious (so what changes)....but then AMD is no angel either....

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Feb 10, 2008
    #8
  9. On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:40:11 +1300, thingy wrote:

    >>> If you look at the gains Intel has achieved by reducing manufacturing
    >>> size, it does not look that good for AMD....they have a 2.3Ghz
    >>> component now, a 2.6ghz component soon, maybe and that they have to
    >>> get to 3.0~3.2ghz and preferably 4ghz....to get taken seriously....

    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >> Isn't it the actual work done that is important rather than simply the
    >> clock speed?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Yes, however the days of the silly clocks for the P4 v the realistic
    > clocks for AMD's chip while it does real work are gone...at the moment
    > anyway.
    >
    > Intel's cpus do real work clock for clock with AMD and can actually
    > touch 4Ghz...


    Thanks for the reply, thing.

    The reason why I was asking is that I've not really been tracking the
    hardware developments that closely at the moment, as I'm not in the
    market to buy a new PC at the moment.

    My current desktop (AMD64 3200+) is more than good enough for what I
    currently need out of a PC. I'd be more interested in upgrading sooner if
    the newer PCs used considerably less electricity.

    Also, while KDE 4.0 has been released, I'm also happy to wait for 4.1 to
    be released (whenever that may be) as I'd be more interested in seeing
    all of the KDE4, including the stuff that didn't get into 4.0 . :eek:)

    IOW, I expect the current cutting-edge machines to be in the affordable
    category before I go out to buy one - all else being equal.

    I'm very happy to wait - its not like I'm running resource hogs like M$
    Vista or something silly like that. ;o)


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    Franklin D Roosevelt: "We have always known that heedless self-interest
    was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Feb 11, 2008
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Buffalo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    521
    Buffalo
    May 5, 2009
  2. VanguardLH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    520
    VanguardLH
    May 5, 2009
  3. Centre Parting
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    538
    Centre Parting
    May 5, 2009
  4. Tony
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    733
    VanguardLH
    May 5, 2009
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    551
Loading...

Share This Page