| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 48
|
|
| Author |
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Sek hence the wait for the Phenom
----------------------------------------95W four cores flat out crunching Get a passively cooled Mobo (Just the one fan on the CPU) Get a passively cooled graphics maybe even DX10 get a nice 86% efficiency Seasonic PSU 12GFlops+ result (or should that be results) ![]() |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
---------------------------------------- ![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Another article on Phenom: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=1
Not getting the greatest of reviews by the looks of it, and sadly nothing much that is going to worry Intel Final Words If you were looking for a changing of the guard today it's just not going to happen. Phenom is, clock for clock, slower than Core 2 and the chips aren't yet yielding well enough to boost clock speeds above what Intel is capable of. While AMD just introduced its first 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz quad-core CPUs today, Intel previewed its first 3.2GHz quad-core chips. We were expecting Intel to retain the high end performance crown, but also expected AMD to chip away at the lower end of the quad-core market - today's launch confirms that Intel is still the king of the quad-core market. Inevitably some of these Phenoms will sell, even though Intel is currently faster and offers better overall price-performance (does anyone else feel weird reading that?). Honestly the only reason we can see to purchase a Phenom is if you currently own a Socket-AM2 motherboard; you may not get the same performance as a Core 2 Quad, but it won't cost as much since you should be able to just drop in a Phenom if you have BIOS support. To make the CPU more attractive AMD desperately needs to drop the price, and from what we've heard, that will happen in Q1. From what we've seen, AMD needs to be at least 200MHz ahead of Intel in order to remain competitive - that means bringing out a Phenom 9900 that's cheaper than the Q6600, at least. If AMD can do that, it's quite possible that in early 2008 we'll have the first sub-$200 quad-core part as the 9500 drops in price. Here's what really frightens us: the way AMD has priced Phenom leaves Intel with a great opportunity to increase prices with Penryn without losing the leadership position. Intel could very well introduce the Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.33GHz) at $269 and still remain quite competitive with Phenom, moving the Q9450 into more expensive waters. Intel has't announced what it's doing with Penryn pricing in Q1, but our fear is that a weak showing from Phenom could result in an upward trend in processor prices. And this is exactly why we needed AMD to be more competitive with Phenom. We really need AMD to get this right for all our sakes to bring prices down - but it seems at the moment that isn't going to happen. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I had ordered a AMD dual 5000 to update my older computer. I got the CPU but, surprise surprise, you have to buy your own CPU fan. Returned the AMD 5000 and ordered an Intel quad, at least Intel isn't chintzy about providing CPU fans.
|
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Give it time
----------------------------------------what hurts it most is the core clock speed So in single threaded apps the 3Ghz+ of the Intel will win out But if I ever get enough pennies together to get the Phenom I will be buying it for Crunching on all cores with only the FPU's performance to consider then re-ask the question How am I going to get 12Gflops for just 95W TDP and it isn't going to be Intel ![]() ![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Unfortunately Dave, if they keep taking as long as they are to sort these out - then by then it might be Intel
![]() |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
![]() ![]() |
||
|
|
crooks_uk
Veteran Cruncher England Joined: Nov 25, 2004 Post Count: 1013 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I think that I will be staying with Intel for the foreseeable future, I think that both the C2D and C2Q offer excellent performance and value. I have spent more on Pentium 4 processors in the past than what I am paying currently for my C2D chips.
----------------------------------------I would like to see a strong presense in the market, because I think this is the reason why we are getting such good performance and value from intel. If it was left to intel, we would all be running single core pentium 4s for twice the price.
Be a part of the largest UK team:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/team/viewTeamInfo.do?teamId=L721SPD4BN1 |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
7th December they are available
----------------------------------------95W TDP (23.75 W/core) producing more crunching per core than my old 76.8 W 3200+ Barton It has to be the way forward ![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
7th December they are available 95W TDP (23.75 W/core) producing more crunching per core than my old 76.8 W 3200+ Barton It has to be the way forward The 9500 is already available HERE Dave ![]() |
||
|
|
|