• 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.

PhII X4 to hit 3.5 Ghz this year

They probably need it, something they can charge a bit more for. I doubt it will have much if any more head room for us overclockers. But it'll be a great part for them to sell in the OEM space as they can price it higher.
 
Funny, I just finished upgrading, and my Phenom II is running 3.5GHz at stock voltage already...
 
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Nobody even wants to hear my comments....


yawn.....
Click to expand...

Lemme see, you would have mention F@H in some context, wouldn't you? 🙂
Click to expand...

No, but I offered to bench something else, and nobody even came back with something (other than games). So I have to go with what I know.

Go ahead, make my day, give me something I CAN bench...(as in I can download and run)
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Nobody even wants to hear my comments....


yawn.....
Click to expand...

Lemme see, you would have mention F@H in some context, wouldn't you? 🙂
Click to expand...

No, but I offered to bench something else, and nobody even came back with something (other than games). So I have to go with what I know.

Go ahead, make my day, give me something I CAN bench...(as in I can download and run)
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm not much of a gamer anymore, so those benchies don't interest me. I do trust the benchies from AT & TR, but so many of them are truly abstract to me; I mean, if Processor A takes 25 seconds to apply a series of Photoshop filters, and Processor B takes 20 seconds, it just doesn't impact me in a meaningful way.

Frankly, for what I do - web surfing, photo-editing, music/video playing, occasional gaming - any modern cpu seems almost decadently powerful.
 
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Nobody even wants to hear my comments....


yawn.....
Click to expand...

Lemme see, you would have mention F@H in some context, wouldn't you? 🙂
Click to expand...

No, but I offered to bench something else, and nobody even came back with something (other than games). So I have to go with what I know.

Go ahead, make my day, give me something I CAN bench...(as in I can download and run)
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm not much of a gamer anymore, so those benchies don't interest me. I do trust the benchies from AT & TR, but so many of them are truly abstract to me; I mean, if Processor A takes 25 seconds to apply a series of Photoshop filters, and Processor B takes 20 seconds, it just doesn't impact me in a meaningful way.

Frankly, for what I do - web surfing, photo-editing, music/video playing, occasional gaming - any modern cpu seems almost decadently powerful.
Click to expand...

For those, yes. For encoding ? for 3d ? for rendering ? for (not to mention...) Where people NEED horsepower ?

I do have a 2350BE@2440 that could go higher to drive a couple of video cards for (not to mention...)

Anyay, other than games, if you want a bench, let me know.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Nobody even wants to hear my comments....


yawn.....
Click to expand...

Lemme see, you would have mention F@H in some context, wouldn't you? 🙂
Click to expand...

No, but I offered to bench something else, and nobody even came back with something (other than games). So I have to go with what I know.

Go ahead, make my day, give me something I CAN bench...(as in I can download and run)
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm not much of a gamer anymore, so those benchies don't interest me. I do trust the benchies from AT & TR, but so many of them are truly abstract to me; I mean, if Processor A takes 25 seconds to apply a series of Photoshop filters, and Processor B takes 20 seconds, it just doesn't impact me in a meaningful way.

Frankly, for what I do - web surfing, photo-editing, music/video playing, occasional gaming - any modern cpu seems almost decadently powerful.
Click to expand...

For those, yes. For encoding ? for 3d ? for rendering ? for (not to mention...) Where people NEED horsepower ?

I do have a 2350BE@2440 that could go higher to drive a couple of video cards for (not to mention...)

Anyay, other than games, if you want a bench, let me know.
Click to expand...

I totally agree - CPU power is very beneficial. But from where I began - an Atari 800xl, followed by an Amiga 500 - the amount of CPU power today is dazzling. For example, on my Amiga I had an image-editing program called ImageFX. To apply a filter to a VGA-res picture could take anywhere from a minute to an hours. With a modern multi-core CPU, you can apply the same filter to a 10MP photo in a matter of seconds.

I don't typically have a huge workload or workflow, so I don't gain maximum benefit from even my relatively humble Phenom 9850.
 
Well, slightly OT, My $38 2350 BE 2.1@2.4 dual core is a better deal than my $40 Celeron 420 1.6@3.0. The Intel overclocks better, but the AMD is cheaper and has 2 cores. Thats about the only example I know of where AMD currently is winning bang/buck, at least that I can see.

And for those that don;t know, 2 years ago, I had 12 AMD boxes, mostly X2's, and a pair of dual Opteron 248's on a server motherboard, so I am nobody's fanboy.

And those are not in my sig, as I have too many procs to list, just the major ones.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Nobody even wants to hear my comments....


yawn.....
Click to expand...

Hahahahaa let me guess: loses at FAH, nobody should buy.

Actually I imagine it would be slower at encoding, too (no SSE4).
Most things that use SSE4, time does not matter to me, or my current CPU is already fast enough. That's why all of us only care about games, I think. I don't photoshop, but I've done some instant-stitching with hugin and it's already so fast I don't need anything more. Whether or not the Phenom 2 is 15% slower or not at something that takes 2 seconds or 2 hours does not matter to me-- what I care about is where response really matters-- like in keeping a graphics card fed. That's about the only future CPUs have (games), from what I see. Everything else, the current quad cores are more than enough for (for the next 10 years at least barring some major must-have development in software).
 
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Yay. One step closer to Intel's flagship chip from uh...a generation ago.
Click to expand...

The thing is the quads from a generation ago are so fast that being able to match Intel's current gen isn't important IMO.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Yay. One step closer to Intel's flagship chip from uh...a generation ago.
Click to expand...

The thing is the quads from a generation ago are so fast that being able to match Intel's current gen isn't important IMO.
Click to expand...

Here's where it's important, though: prestige. You'll get the trickle-down effect, based on reputation. If Intel makes the fastest CPU, then, by default, all Intel CPU's must be better than AMD. It doesn't have to be true, just the perception. We've seen it happen before.
 
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Yay. One step closer to Intel's flagship chip from uh...a generation ago.
Click to expand...

The thing is the quads from a generation ago are so fast that being able to match Intel's current gen isn't important IMO.
Click to expand...

Here's where it's important, though: prestige. You'll get the trickle-down effect, based on reputation. If Intel makes the fastest CPU, then, by default, all Intel CPU's must be better than AMD. It doesn't have to be true, just the perception. We've seen it happen before.
Click to expand...

Thats the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard....
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Yay. One step closer to Intel's flagship chip from uh...a generation ago.
Click to expand...

The thing is the quads from a generation ago are so fast that being able to match Intel's current gen isn't important IMO.
Click to expand...

Here's where it's important, though: prestige. You'll get the trickle-down effect, based on reputation. If Intel makes the fastest CPU, then, by default, all Intel CPU's must be better than AMD. It doesn't have to be true, just the perception. We've seen it happen before.
Click to expand...

Thats the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard....
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? It's happened before, and with all sorts of products.

Even during the Athlon 64's heyday, when ut was the CPU of choice, I had people tell me that they "heard" Intel made the best CPU's.
 
There is a definite halo effect associated with having the performance crown, Mark. I've overheard sales reps making recommendations at stores based on the performance crown effect for Intel. "The general public" listens to sales reps and follows their advice. I've witnessed it at several stores already in the past year or so where the standard recommendation was "Intel makes the best performing CPUs now and that's why this Core 2 Duo powered computer is better than that AMD system." You've definitely heard that one, haven't you?
 
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
There is a definite halo effect associated with having the performance crown, Mark. I've overheard sales reps making recommendations at stores based on the performance crown effect for Intel. "The general public" listens to sales reps and follows their advice. I've witnessed it at several stores already in the past year or so where the standard recommendation was "Intel makes the best performing CPUs now and that's why this Core 2 Duo powered computer is better than that AMD system." You've definitely heard that one, haven't you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a better term for what I'm saying, I think. :thumbsup:
 
Ok, that may be true for the general public. Maybe I have been on this forum too log, but it seems that everyone here talks to other people here, and they are all enthusiasts, not the general public. I assumed we are not as stupid as the general public.

Correct me if I am wrong. Thats the entire reason this forum exists, to educate the people that care to be informed.
 
Wow...there is some news! Meanwhile, Intel is steaming ahead on 32nm.


Hopefully AMD can survive long enough to match C2D, let alone i7 or Sandy Bridge.
 
Isn't that irony.

AMD, whom in past generations had to overcome the "mhz myth", to prove that their lower-clocked A64 chips were faster than Intel's higher-clocked P4 chips, now seems to be engaged in a "mhz race" with Intel, now that they have the lesser-performing per-clock chips.
 
And that's a good thing, although there are many people who still don't understand that clockspeed doesn't matter. There are also new new metrics to judge a processor by: Performance per dollar and, for a lot of people, performance per watt (which to the people who look at this aspect is related to performance per dollar over time, i.e. better performance/watt saves money over time, thus increasing a chip's performance/dollar over time). Of course, none of these metrics matter to some people and just raw performance is important.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Yay. One step closer to Intel's flagship chip from uh...a generation ago.
Click to expand...

The thing is the quads from a generation ago are so fast that being able to match Intel's current gen isn't important IMO.
Click to expand...

Here's where it's important, though: prestige. You'll get the trickle-down effect, based on reputation. If Intel makes the fastest CPU, then, by default, all Intel CPU's must be better than AMD. It doesn't have to be true, just the perception. We've seen it happen before.
Click to expand...

Thats the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard....
Click to expand...

Ok, that may be true for the general public. Maybe I have been on this forum too log, but it seems that everyone here talks to other people here, and they are all enthusiasts, not the general public. I assumed we are not as stupid as the general public. Correct me if I am wrong. Thats the entire reason this forum exists, to educate the people that care to be informed.
Click to expand...

We are not the general public but the general public is. I mean if Nvidia currently has the fastest video card then when I go to Microcenter and ask the dude in the white t-shirt whats video card to buy he is gonna say -"Nvidia makes the fastest cards" and not "How much do you want to spend and at what resolution do you game at?" Of course if he did ask that the person would just reply "Its a Dell...............with Vista........ and a flat screen.......I think I have a mouse too. Who makes the fastest video cards?"


If you want to benchmark something. I wanna know how long it takes to encode and burn a 2hr DVD using Nero Vision. You don't actually have to burn the DVD just report how long it estimates it will take and abort the encode. I freakin encode and burn DVDs all damn day long for people so thats something I have a real interest in. .

Not that its anyone's business but I don't rip/encode/burn any copyrighted material so no lectures.
 
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
ATI Forum.de

If true, at some point this year there will be a PhII to equal the C2Q 9650. I think most of us expected this.
Click to expand...

So AMD will be on par with where Intel was a year ago? Good for them, I think?
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
. It doesn't have to be true, just the perception. We've seen it happen before.
Click to expand...

Thats the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard....
Click to expand...

It's not BS, but it only works for Intel... cue P4 / A64 era where everyone and their brother (except the smart people who actually read reviews) still bought Intel when AMD clearly had the better processor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top