AMD Phenom & Spider vs Intel QX9770 (What a joke AMD is)

[NosBoost300]

hey i didnt say it was changing anytime soon..

cuz honestly.. i don't think amd has anything going for them to overtake within the next year or two...

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by maroon1

it have its own memory controller, 8MB shared L3 cache, 2 threads per core, and the FSB will be replaced by Intel QuickPath Interconnect

Change the last 3 words to "HyperTransport" and you have where they got it from.

Intel has finally woke up and smelled the coffee, that's for sure. You are definitely right that NetBurst was a screw up from the start.

Even if AMD never regains the performance crown, we need them to stay in the game. If Intel was the only chip maker/supplier, they could sit back and let things trickle along instead of actually working to make things better.

[charles_scott]

Sounds like they are now taking another idea that AMD used, integrating the memory controller into the CPU instead of the northbridge. Wonder how hard it will be for Intel to actually get that right...

[hmammen]

I dont care how great intel is, or how behind AMD is. I will always stick with AMD no matter what. I have never owned an intel chip and i dont plan on it.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by hmammen

I dont care how great intel is, or how behind AMD is. I will always stick with AMD no matter what. I have never owned an intel chip and i dont plan on it.

-Flogs Hmammen-

[hmammen]

hahah....o well. AMD has got to have atleast one customer right? lol.

Sure intel chips are better overclockers, and look better on paper, but in the grand scheme of things, as in gaming and applications, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference.

[BennyV04988]

Originally Posted by hmammen

hahah....o well. AMD has got to have atleast one customer right? lol.

Sure intel chips are better overclockers, and look better on paper, but in the grand scheme of things, as in gaming and applications, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference.

Uhh... for the same price i'd rather have more speed. I mean... why the **** wouldn't someone want more speed for free? Your rational is just illogical. A processor serves to "think" and the faster it thinks the better. This is something to be desired. If you cant tell the difference between 2.0 and 3.0 on the same chip, then you're playing some OLD games, or running into a different bottleneck. If I'm playing crysis, I want my 2.6 C2D, not some 2.8 AMD pos. Every FPS counts...

[gurusan]

Originally Posted by BennyV04988

Uhh... for the same price i'd rather have more speed. I mean... why the **** wouldn't someone want more speed for free? Your rational is just illogical. A processor serves to "think" and the faster it thinks the better. This is something to be desired. If you cant tell the difference between 2.0 and 3.0 on the same chip, then you're playing some OLD games, or running into a different bottleneck. If I'm playing crysis, I want my 2.6 C2D, not some 2.8 AMD pos. Every FPS counts...

tbh I'm sure you wouldn't be able to tell the differenec between a 2.8ghz amd and 2.6ghz c2d. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they performed roughly the same

[BennyV04988]

Originally Posted by gurusan

tbh I'm sure you wouldn't be able to tell the differenec between a 2.8ghz amd and 2.6ghz c2d. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they performed roughly the same

An AMD 2.8 would be roughly a 2.1GHz C2D, nearly 25% slower. That's a big difference.

[gurusan]

Originally Posted by BennyV04988

An AMD 2.8 would be roughly a 2.1GHz C2D, nearly 25% slower. That's a big difference.

Have you owned an amd cpu? I had a 4400x2 @ 3.03ghz and for mostly everything including games I couldn't notice a darned bit of difference between that and my e6300 @ 2.8ghz.

Of course when the e6300 was clocked to 3.2+ghz that's a different story....