• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another Phenom Review w/ Poll

and when i first told everyone on this forum that phenoms were going to be crap, i got flamed.

When reviews came out with phenom being crap, people blamed bad sample, or bad chip.

You can never win against a fanboy. You either have to accept the person is a fanboy and therefore let him be in his own little bubble, or show massive amounts of proof's and have him try the other competition rig.

Realistically unless you majorly encode, fold, crunch, i dont see the need of a computer faster then 3.2ghz on a quad AMD or Intel. Unfortunately AMD has a problem getting 3.2ghz.

Everything else is just for epenis.


I say 3.2 because thats 400fsbx8 which isnt truely that much slower then 400fsbx9 which is 3.6
 
What happened to Phenom 'coming alive' or 'supercharging' as the clock speed increased? If anything, it looks like 3ghz Phenom ramps more weakly than C2D/C2Q?
 
I personally was really hoping for a fast Phenom for the sake of competition to promote price cuts. Also, I just wanted AMD to have something go right for them.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
What happened to Phenom 'coming alive' or 'supercharging' as the clock speed increased? If anything, it looks like 3ghz Phenom ramps more weakly than C2D/C2Q?
Click to expand...

That was because they hoped the L3 and memory controller would scale with it, but then they decided to keep those at 2GHz which actually means there'll be worse diminishing returns because of bandwidth.

That move fucked them over more than people think.
 
The only thing that get's supercharged is the power consumption, based on reviews like Hardocp and Neo Seeker with overclocked Phenoms, at 3GHz it must consuming well over 200W.
 
Ouch...

Not only is the 3 GHz Phenom slower than the 2.4 GHz C2Q, the power consumption is far worse on all the Phenoms as well...
 
Sorry about that, saw the 9900 and assumed 3 ghz, even though...

I know this came up a long time ago, but what in the hell is AMD going to do when the release something faster than 2.6 ghz (9900) for naming? Or do they plan using that as an excuse to change the phenom name?
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
What happened to Phenom 'coming alive' or 'supercharging' as the clock speed increased? If anything, it looks like 3ghz Phenom ramps more weakly than C2D/C2Q?
Click to expand...

Oh you remember the post saying that too huh? 😛
 
Originally posted by: bfdd
Oh you remember the post saying that too huh? 😛
Click to expand...

I remember it too. IIRC, it was something along the lines of "They start to come alive at 2.5 Ghz." Maybe he meant in power consumption.:laugh:
 
If you ask my opinion that article shows me a couple of things....

1) It shows how quad cores or 4 cores in general is a waste with most software....

2) Imagine if you took the average overclock of G0 stepping chip.....comparing oc'd phenom versus stock chips and yet still only garner 1 or 2 wins is a bit pathetic....When the 45nm parts hit the street..."game over man".....

3) It shows me the phenoms are not even decent overclockers.....old steppings of c2D's hit 3.2-3.4ghz on every chip I have ever owned....and I have had 5 of them....not aggressively oc'd either
 
I think the time has come for AMD to stop trying to be "cute" with their designs. I admire what they've accomplished from a technical standpoint but if in practice there is no benefit to consumers then it's kinda wasted effort. AMD is on the mat now and now isn't the time to try "finesse" moves on Intel. Now is the time to go all out no matter what "ugly" moves you have to perform. From my limited knowledge what I would do is either fix the phenom OR take what they ALREADY have which is the .65nm brisbane core dual core and do what Intel does.....attach 2 brisbanes and call it a quad core. Maybe add some more cache if possible. Make it highly energy efficient as standard not "special" model. Then they'd have a fast quadcore which is probably a hell of alot easier to produce than phenom and also energy efficient and of course CHEAP! Like $140.00 maybe. This might buy them some time so they can really produce something marvelous for their next chip. Just some ideas from a tech laymen...
 
Also these talks about AMD future proofing is really getting old. What is the point when your future is bleaker than your competitor's past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top