where are the benchmarks that show this and the costs of each processor to perform a
priceerformance ratio analysis?
Maybe the production costs for each phenon is higher? That will keep the high losses because of even lower margins.
The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]
- Thread starter overclocked_enthusiasm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
- Status
Maybe the production costs for each phenon is higher? That will keep the high losses because of even lower margins.
What does this have to do with Phenom being a good value to consumers?
Nothing. It's just that this is the AMD excecution thread.
The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy
Newcomer
Most fitting would be crossfired HD3870's or at least a 8800GTX, something which is not going to be GPU bound and so invalidate the test.
Just trying to bring some light into the gloom
It would be bad for everyone (but Intel) if Phenom were to flop and immediately slip to the value market.
Wouldn't that like adding the same quantity to both sides of the equation?
AMD Phenom 9500 2.2GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9500WCGDBOX $279.99
AMD Phenom 9600 2.3GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9600WCGDBOX $319.99
AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9700XAGDBOX $329.99
http://www.isorm.com/index.php?cPath=91_97_235&osCsid=250753f0ea11efbaacb201a0bfd5bbf6
AND
Lowest priced Yorkfield, Q9300 to sell for $270
Q9300, 2.50GHz with 6MB of memory
Last Friday we mentioned that the lowest priced Core 2 Quad Q9450, 12MB quad core processor will sell for $319. Core 2 Quad Q9450 works at 4x2.66 and Intel plans to sell its Core 2 Quad Q9300 clocked at 2.50GHz with memory cut down to 6MB for $270.
This is the CPU that should replace Q6600 with its 2.40GHz clock and 8MB cache memory, with FSB 1066MHz that is currently priced at about $270. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is a 45nanometre CPU and will have the memory size cut down from 12MB to 6MB but this should not affect most of the task CPU does.
The Core 2 Quad Q9300 processor also comes with faster FSB 1333MHz and we believe that it should end up significantly faster than the current sweet spot Q6600.
Intel will launch Q9300 and Q9450 in January.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4025&Itemid=35
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
AMD Phenom 9600 2.3GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9600WCGDBOX $319.99
AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9700XAGDBOX $329.99
http://www.isorm.com/index.php?cPath=91_97_235&osCsid=250753f0ea11efbaacb201a0bfd5bbf6
AND
Lowest priced Yorkfield, Q9300 to sell for $270
Q9300, 2.50GHz with 6MB of memory
Last Friday we mentioned that the lowest priced Core 2 Quad Q9450, 12MB quad core processor will sell for $319. Core 2 Quad Q9450 works at 4x2.66 and Intel plans to sell its Core 2 Quad Q9300 clocked at 2.50GHz with memory cut down to 6MB for $270.
This is the CPU that should replace Q6600 with its 2.40GHz clock and 8MB cache memory, with FSB 1066MHz that is currently priced at about $270. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is a 45nanometre CPU and will have the memory size cut down from 12MB to 6MB but this should not affect most of the task CPU does.
The Core 2 Quad Q9300 processor also comes with faster FSB 1333MHz and we believe that it should end up significantly faster than the current sweet spot Q6600.
Intel will launch Q9300 and Q9450 in January.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4025&Itemid=35
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a bit excessive, isn't it? Phenom comes out on Nov 19th, so for nearly two months its competitor is the Q6600, not the Q9300.
I agree this doesn't seem to be massively competitive pricing if true, however. On the plus side of things, it can still change, and Intel doesn't seem very aggressive with Penryn pricing either: I doubt the Q9300 will be significantly faster than the Q6600, so the improvement in perf/$ is minimal IMO.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/04/phenom-pricing-outed
Though I do wonder what need there is for three CPUs with 100MHz speed differences between them. That is less than 4.5%. I can somewhat understand low-clocked Barcelonas as there 100MHz makes a bigger difference.
That seems to show much lower prices compared to Isorm.
Though I do wonder what need there is for three CPUs with 100MHz speed differences between them. That is less than 4.5%. I can somewhat understand low-clocked Barcelonas as there 100MHz makes a bigger difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the large overclock capacity of Phenons, why just give 0.1 GHZ of difference between them? Anyone dare to explain that?
Any information about that? All I know is AMD showed couple of 3GHz CPUs months ago but cannot release anything near that speed for quite some time. Kind of makes me doubt the OC capacity.
You sure? Back in the day I had an AXP with a maxed out FSB and low latency memory and it was beating s754 A64's clock for clock in 3dmark06's cpu test. (and that was about the only test it would win in) Then again, that could be an atypical example as the axps were unusually bandwidth limited and latency dependent, probably the reason for a lot of the changes made to the a64.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3998&Itemid=35
What do you think? It´s not a rummor, screencaps with an overclocker program were already taken.
Accord1999
Newcomer
For 3DMark06, the CPU tests have changed. Here, a single 3GHz Clovertown beats a 2.93GHz Kentsfield, despite running on a workstation board and paired with slower FB-DIMMs:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-v8/3dmark-2.png
You know, here is one aspect of AMD that I find fascinating. The company has been in business for 38 years. Through almost 4 decades of existence, their lifetime cumulative net profit is ... -$1.3 Billion dollars as of last quarter. If you take out the brutal last year when they lost over $2B, their lifetime commutative profits will be $863 million. That's about a bad quarter's worth of profits for Intel. To put it in another perspective, they lost over two times more money over the last 4 quarters then they made over the preceding 145+. During their "best ever" stretch of four consecutive quarters (which incidently more then doubled their lifetime net profits up to that point), AMD made $505 million. Over the last 4 quarters, Nvidia made $576 million.
Barcelona BA hits retail
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4046&Itemid=35
Next week, Phan(t)om console.
What is the meaning of this?
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/06/dirk-meyer-joins-mob
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4046&Itemid=35
Next week, Phan(t)om console.
What is the meaning of this?
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/06/dirk-meyer-joins-mob
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what happens when you compete against a monopolistic 800 lb gorilla.
It certainly is hard to compete against someone much bigger than yourself. Things went quite well for as long as Intel was still doing its old Netbursts. Too bad that AMD not-that-good 65nm K8, late and mediocre K10 and big spending fell to the same time when Intel finally managed to produce something good. I'm not sure if I'd say that monopoly caused the happenings of the past year and a half.
Geeforcer was discussing earnings over the entire history of AMD. My response was that the low earnings (net negative) are pretty much par-for-the-course considering Intel's monopoly and anti-competitive practices. Recent history (the last 18 months) don't really account for much over the entire life of the company (purely from a cumulative earnings perspective), although they may lead to the demise of AMD.
- Status
