AMD phenom vs Intel Quad Core

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:58 am

being the underdog lover , i hoped they would whack Intel with their new phenom true-quad core proc..... but, again the whacking was the other way aroud ....

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=570

Post by **stipud** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:02 am

That 80% difference on Photoshop was amazing!

Pity, I loved my Athlon 64...

Post by **fuzzysnuggleduck** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:39 am

I just like to see competition because it fosters innovation.

I was rooting for AMD for a long time around the 64 era but then I was invited to an Intel Non-disclosure meeting sometime before the Core series were released and I was really impressed with Intel that time around, I came out of the meeting thinking "Intel finally GETS IT!".

Previous to that meeting I saw Intel's method of competition simply as ramping up clock speeds but after the meeting I knew they had long ago realized that wouldn't keep working and had product lines coming out that would put that realization into real, kick ass multi-core products.

I was also against Apple going Intel at first (I wished they chose AMD or even didn't go x86) but I also later realized that Intel was the best route for Apple to have the success they wanted and needed.

Either way, gooooooooooooo competition!

Post by **Wakeup** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:01 pm

fuzzysnuggleduck wrote:I just like to see competition because it fosters innovation.

I was rooting for AMD for a long time around the 64 era but then I was invited to an Intel Non-disclosure meeting sometime before the Core series were released and I was really impressed with Intel that time around, I came out of the meeting thinking "Intel finally GETS IT!".

Previous to that meeting I saw Intel's method of competition simply as ramping up clock speeds but after the meeting I knew they had long ago realized that wouldn't keep working and had product lines coming out that would put that realization into real, kick ass multi-core products.

I was also against Apple going Intel at first (I wished they chose AMD or even didn't go x86) but I also later realized that Intel was the best route for Apple to have the success they wanted and needed.

Either way, gooooooooooooo competition!

Ya me too on the AMD, Intel thing. I went to an intel training meeting and agree they had it right finally.

And same as Stipud, I liked the AMD 64 bit processors at first. Especially before the core 2 duo cpu's. And so far AMD has not really been able to get back in the nitch. But time will only tell when they get back into things and such. May be a few years. Seems like the cpu's flip flop back and forth like that.

joyride · Post by **joyride** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:12 pm

good lord, i cant believe the difference in photioshop. i have been looking at the 6600 for a while now, and this just sealed the deal. Seeing as how photoshop is the most used program on my computer, it will apprently work out nicely. You guys know if XP will support quad core?

Post by **Wakeup** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:21 pm

XP Home will support only one processor but the processor can have multiple cores....

XP Pro will handle two processors with multiple cores....

So yes xp will support a quad core cuz it is one cpu.

Post by **VW337** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:06 am

um AMD fanboy here, was I the only one who noticed a lack of info in that read?

Such as:

Drive types
Mobo
Fixed memory size and clock speeds

The test is kinda like saying chevron gas is better than texaco gas, and not saying that one station filled a pinto and the other a moped, but damn that gas performs so well in that vehicle.

eyesofra · Post by **eyesofra** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:42 am

yeah they should have stated those things too, but i just assumed they're using the same memory size/speed and drive type.
lets wait fer more reviews form tomshardware or anandtech, the guys there are more elaborate on their writeup.

check out the tech comparison guys.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro ... 46,00.html

AMD looks really good there , on paper.
Intel haven't stepped into native and and on-die yet, its going to be really interesting when they do that, and they're already reigning without those stuffs in...

joyride · Post by **joyride** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:27 am

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 ... 939,00.asp

They try to compare them using similar setups...and AMD is the loser again (although it didnt seem as bad)

Post by **VW337** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:50 am

joyride wrote:http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 ... 939,00.asp

They try to compare them using similar setups...and AMD is the loser again (although it didnt seem as bad)

System specs are at least given in this review and well matched with the exception of the DDR2 on the AMD and clocked down DDR3 on the Intel.....

Post by **stipud** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:55 am

VW337 wrote:System specs are at least given in this review and well matched with the exception of the DDR2 on the AMD and clocked down DDR3 on the Intel.....

Or that the AMD processor is a clocked down engineering sample, which may have other optimizations that the consumer chip doesn't have.

Fatii · Post by **Fatii** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:05 am

C2D ftw*!!!!! amd sux

... have u checkt the temp on a amd phenom?
and u can´t clock a amd... ! a c2d u can clock aleast the double with air cooling!

*for the win!