Poll: How will the Phenom II do against the competition?

Now that we’ve taken a look at the performance of AMD’s 45nm Opterons, we can better guess how upcoming Phenom II processors will do against Intel’s Core i7 processors—not too well. The dice haven’t been cast yet, however, and AMD could still get Phenom IIs to perform unexpectedly well by raising clock speeds and tapping into fast DDR3 memory.

For our latest poll, we’re asking for your predictions: do you think the Phenom II will manage to match (or somehow beat) Core i7 processors, or do you think it’ll be stuck in the same playing field as Intel’s previous-gen 45nm Core 2 Quad processors? Could it fail to catch up even 45nm Core 2 processors entirely? Feel free to cast your vote either below or on the front page.

The subject of our previous poll was, “At what clock speed does your main PC’s CPU run?” Quite surprisingly, the option that got the most votes (29%) was 3.0-3.49GHz. The second-most popular speed range was 2.0-2.49GHz (with 28% of votes), followed by 2.5-2.99GHz (with 23%). That covers 80% of voters right there. As for the rest, the number of votes seem to decrease almost symmetrically below 2GHz and above 3.49GHz.

Comments closed
    • danny e.
    • 11 years ago

    I just voted “outperform i7” just to fluster Damage some. =)

    • Cannyone
    • 11 years ago

    While I understand that some “informed sources” are saying that the new Phenom IIs will be superior to Core 2s. I’m a skeptic. That’s not to say that I don’t want AMD to succeed. I just don’t trust “predictions”.

    Still this is my bottom line: I really want my next build to be a Phenom II. But here’s the rub… I want the new motherboard to be an AMD chipset, so it can provide Crossfire support. At the moment AMD’s 790FX chipset is ok. However, the SB750 southbridge is barely passable! So I’m hoping when they revise their chipsets for AM3 specs, AMD can at least *[

      • NIKOLAS
      • 11 years ago

      LOL!!!!! What a news source.

    • Chillectric
    • 11 years ago

    I think Phenom II will be of +/- 10% clock for clock against Penryn-based desktop chips (C2Q) in performance… depending on the application.

    The Phenoms seem to do better in well threaded applications that load balance the cores, because of the native quad core design and shared L3 cache. There have been improvements in L3 cache size, main memory latencies, cache latencies, and clock scaling, which will account for most of the performance increase clock for clock vs Phenom I.

    Even though the Phenoms do good in vector-based SSE they still do bad in scalar SSE performance where Intel leads with SSSE3 and SSE4.1. This is what AMD needs to take a look at: instruction execution latencies and execution units themselves. The next instruction set from AMD will be SSE5 which will have a lot of vector-based instructions and some spins off of SSSE3 and SSE4.1. Sadly this is going to be after Intel’s AVX which is likely to be adopted more-so than SSE5.

    • srg86
    • 11 years ago

    If it’s anything like the opteron review, then I’ve voted for it not quite catching up to Penryn. Still AMD have at last surpassed Intel’s 65nm quads.

    • PRIME1
    • 11 years ago

    I’d be fine with AMD slipping back into the bargain CPU bin. I was more than happy to buy K6II/IIIs, XPs, etc. when my budget was too thin for an Intel product.

    Hopefully though they will pull another 64 or X2 out and move the market forward again.

    • Jeff Grant
    • 11 years ago

    AMD is for us cheapskates, (or in my case too much family responsibility). I have a Phenom (65nm one) because it worked in my old nforce 6100 board with a bios update. It ain’t no C2Q but it does my encoding well enough.

    • echo_seven
    • 11 years ago

    I’ll throw in my two cents here and note that:

    -Phenom II lags Core 2 Quad slightly right now

    -but Core 2 Quad is essentially a dead product (no more respins), AMD’s planned respins and tweaks to Phenom II over next six months (DDR3, HT3, etc.) will eventually push them over the top

    -the gap between Phenom II/Core 2 Quad, and Core i7 is probably too big to be crossed with tweaks, and Intel will be working on Core i7 so it’ll be a moving target

    • Joerdgs
    • 11 years ago

    I think AMD needs a HD4xxx series miracle like Ati had.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Are you aware that AMD is ATI?

        • ClickClick5
        • 11 years ago

        Hence my theory. The market was shocked to see the 4000 series…can the PhenomII pull that same level of surprise?

    • Hattig
    • 11 years ago

    I think it depends on whether Intel will want to release higher Core 2 Quads in the case that Phenom II is faster.

    I think there is a chance that a 3GHz Phenom II could match a 2.66GHz i7, once the i7 consumer boards are out (not the very expensive enthusiast boards that are out now). However this is going to be a tough fight, but I’ll be optimistic unlike all the pessimists here.

    In addition if AMD price them right, and make a margin on the mid-range products, they can succeed with OEM use.

    EPIC FAIL isn’t going to happen unless they cack up another TLB-level bug.

      • sdack
      • 11 years ago

      And: AMD over-clocked a Phenom II to a 6.3GHz while making first steps with a new fabrication process (liquid immersion). This is very good news. Further, for a company, which really is competing at two fronts now do they have fast GPUs, too. Not to mention their Spider platform / 770-790 chip sets. Who thought they could actually get this all working?

      The i7 is without a doubt very strong, but AMD will have done an impressive job as soon as they release their new CPU.

        • Hattig
        • 11 years ago

        I do believe that the overall AMD offering (CPU + Platform + optional GPU) is very strong, and is a different proposition to a question that is only about the CPU. And CPU speed isn’t so important now for purchasers, but let’s leave that as an aside to this poll, which is now merely about where Phenom II will fall, performance-wise. Not cost-wise. Not platform-wise. Not sales-wise.

        The overclocking feat is impressive. But does it mean that AMD can release 3.4GHz to 3.8GHz Phenom IIs quickly in under 120W? If they can, they will press clock speed. If they can’t, they’ll keep the speeds at or under 3GHz to avoid raising Intel’s ire.

    • flip-mode
    • 11 years ago

    Plus is a total minus. LOL, I slay me. Not being serious here folks, just couldn’t resist.

    The dude does spit out some daft nonsense though.

      • sdack
      • 11 years ago

      Aaahhhhhh! 🙁

      *pity*

      • pluscard
      • 11 years ago

      If you read the AMD yahoo message board, it’s completely dominated by Intel employees and paid bashers. They won’t allow a single positive comment regarding AMD to go unchallenged.

      More important – they won’t allow any regular poster to post pro-AMD info without being personally attacked – “shoot the messenger” if you will. The regulars all moved to investorsvillage.com which is a monitored board.

      The intensity is fierce – one has to assume if the yahoo board is that well covered, “they” also have other forums as well as mainstream media covered as well.

      INTC was charged with antitrust in Japan, Korea and the EU. Intel pleaded no contest in Japan, lost in Korea, is in default in the EU proceedings, and is now challenging the EU itself.

      This isn’t small potatos, folks.

        • flip-mode
        • 11 years ago

        Relevance to post replied to?

    • dpaus
    • 11 years ago

    Hmmm, a few thoughts pop into my teeny little mind:

    1.) if the current CPU market is saturated (and I agree it is), then which company can better survive a low-margin price war? AMD, I think; Intel has waaaayyyyyy too much overhead, much of which they can’t shed quickly enough.

    2.) AMD still has a solid architectural advantage in multi-CPU-socket designs – if they want, they could throw out a 2-way or even 4-way Phenom II system that would be faster and less expensive than Intel. Of course, they already had a chance to do this, and they blew it.

    3.) in #1.) above, I was careful to say “the current CPU market”. What if someone changes the rules? Say, by offering a high-clock Phenom II quad-core with a tightly-integrated Radeon 4800-series GPU as a consumer product? At very low power levels? In, say, a lightweight laptop/blu-ray/gaming system?

      • accord1999
      • 11 years ago

      /[<1.) if the current CPU market is saturated (and I agree it is), then which company can better survive a low-margin price war? AMD, I think; Intel has waaaayyyyyy too much overhead, much of which they can't shed quickly enough.<]/ AMD has never done particularly well in price wars in the past without the performance lead. /[<2.) AMD still has a solid architectural advantage in multi-CPU-socket designs - if they want, they could throw out a 2-way or even 4-way Phenom II system that would be faster and less expensive than Intel. Of course, they already had a chance to do this, and they blew it.<]/ 2 Socket and 4 Socket systems are not cheap, and they consume lots of power. Look at the QuadFX, which used huge amounts of power and ended up being beat by slower clocked X2s in many desktop applications. /[<3.) in #1.) above, I was careful to say "the current CPU market". What if someone changes the rules? Say, by offering a high-clock Phenom II quad-core with a tightly-integrated Radeon 4800-series GPU as a consumer product? At very low power levels? In, say, a lightweight laptop/blu-ray/gaming system? <]/ That would be game changer; but so would Kia releasing a new car that has costs $5000, gets 100 mpg, goes from 0-60 in 4s, carries 7 people, hauls two tons and has twenty cup holders. Neither is going to happen.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 11 years ago

    The last time AMD changed memory technologies going from DDR PC3200 to DDR2 PC6400 it theoretically doubled available bandwidth but had almost no impact. Sure, that was K8 at the time, but I don’t expect magic this time around either.

    • Krogoth
    • 11 years ago

    Phenom II should at least compete against Wolfedales and Yorkfields while they last.

    There is no way that Phenom II can compete against Core i7.

    I find to be Ironic that Core i7’s biggest competitor is the Core 2 Quad line. XD

    • Thanato
    • 11 years ago

    You should let the group that best guesses the question to have exclusive candidacy to TechReports next give away.

    • Prototyped
    • 11 years ago

    I’m guessing it’ll match but not exceed the Core 2 Quad processors. There’s less memory bandwidth pressure on processors in single-socket systems, eliminating the one big advantage Phenom II has over Core 2 Quad. Per-thread performance seems to be about even or slightly favors Penryn in most cases. And the Core 2 Quad processors are available at a higher clock speed than the Phenom II (3.16 GHz vs 3.00 GHz).

      • NIKOLAS
      • 11 years ago

      Are you thinking of Intel Dual Cores? E8500?

        • bittermann
        • 11 years ago

        If they can beat the Intel 8500/8600 cpu’s they should at least stay competitive as those are monsters for gaming/price performance. I’m not expecting miracles, just good performance for the price.

          • NIKOLAS
          • 11 years ago

          If Phenom II is able to beat the E8500 in gaming and is close in price, I would buy it for sure.

    • Vandyl
    • 11 years ago

    I just like the fact that my MSI board will be able to take an AM3 with a bios update…sawwweeeet!

    • Konstantine
    • 11 years ago

    The new 45nm Opterons are server parts.They are optimized to perform better in specific tasks and situations. Moreover, the Opterons use HT1 and a single channel on board ddr2 667MHz memory controller which may cause some serious limitation in data bandwidths and memory / L3 cache access latencies.So I’d expect the new phenoms to perform better than the 45nm Opterons.

    The question here is: will the new 3GHz phenom have the same / better overall performance than the 3GHz qx 9650.

    I hope it will.For the sake of competition—–> consumer.

    • Silus
    • 11 years ago

    It seems that it may match existing Penryn’ Core 2 Quads, but I’m guessing that it won’t be in all situations. To those that voted that it will beat Core i7, dream on 🙂

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    I voted EPIC FAIL for funsies but it’s probably somewhere between Match and Not Quite Beat the Penryns. That’s on a clock-for-clock basis, the Penryns do oc really well though which is still an unknown for Phenoms. It’s also for the usual apps that individuals would actually use, for multi-socket server situations I’m sure it will at least match if not exceed the Penryn but that’s not exactly the newest competition in that area any more.

      • sdack
      • 11 years ago

      I could never vote for EPIC FAIL! I understand how this can be funny but I always try to see the consequences of an event, too. It would mean the end of AMD, the end of the competition, the end of fair prices and straight back into the Intel monopole hell. Any laughter would make me choke at this point and I would instantly regret having laughed at AMD for their failure. And I do like a life without regrets.

      Betting on the underdog to fail only makes sense when you placed a little bit of money on your bet. Without the risk of losing anything is it at best cowardly. EPIC FAIL? No thanks.

      I am very much surprised to see that so far 9% voted for EPIC FAIL rather than the highly unlikely option of a surprise out-performance with just 4%. Only seeing that the poll had this option made me grin my face off.

        • eitje
        • 11 years ago

        There would still be VIA, and IBM (with their PPC), and all of the ARM manufacturers.

          • sdack
          • 11 years ago

          That was not the point, or do you see any of them producing x86-compatible processors an average computer buyer would actually want to buy?

            • eitje
            • 11 years ago

            sarcasm.

            • sdack
            • 11 years ago

            With you one never knows.

    • albundy
    • 11 years ago

    if intel can get a cheaper mobos for the i7, then amd should worry. i vote the one above epic fail. that one is reserved for all other cpu’s.

    • pogsnet
    • 11 years ago
    • pluscard
    • 11 years ago

    Phenom will be out – what, next month.

    Core i7 is supposed to be 1% of Intels sales in 2009.

    I think the matchup next year is Core2 vs. PhenomII and Phenom will win that one.

    Regarding the economy – AMD is lean and mean, and comfortable selling at slim margins. INTC is a beast and needs big margins to keep itself fed.

    AMD is better positioned to withstand tough times – they’ve been living it for years.

    Plus

      • accord1999
      • 11 years ago

      /[

        • wabbit
        • 11 years ago

        Why? Considering Shanghai can’t beat Harpertown despite its platform advantages, I’d expect Yorkfield to easily match Phenom II.

        well, HT3 still isn’t enabled on Opterons, I’m sure that’s worth a few percent in performance and they still have some time to tweak it, enable higher memory speeds in IMC, tinker with cache latencies and so on. I also think that Phenom II will beat Core2. The only thing I see as a problem for Phenom II is that semi-buggy southbridge. How hard can it be to make a good one?

          • Rza79
          • 11 years ago

          /[<...and they still have some time to tweak it, enable higher memory speeds in IMC, tinker with cache latencies and so on...<]/ Not really because those things you talk about take at least a year to do. HT3 won't bring any performance. With the current Phenoms the performance difference between HT1 & HT3 is within 1%. The only thing that will be better on the Phenom II is that it uses non-ECC memory. That will give a bit better latency.

      • SubSeven
      • 11 years ago

      Plus, as much as i love AMD and i do get what you are trying to say, to state that “AMD is better positioned to withstand tough times ” when by better you are implying better than Intel, is foolhardy at best. This becomes especially true when you start looking over the balance sheets from intel and AMD.

      • piesquared
      • 11 years ago
        • NIKOLAS
        • 11 years ago

        Of course the adoption rate of the Phenom II will be far greater than the i7.

        One is being launched as a mainstream product and the other as a high end niche.

        Phenom II’s success or failure will be judged against Wolfdale Duals and Penryn Quads.

        • accord1999
        • 11 years ago

        /[<#21, I agree completely here. AMD can operate at MUCH lower margins than Intel. They are near break even now with a chip that is as popular as a cat in a dog kenel.<]/ No they can't. AMD has in the past made money when they got Intel like margins and lost money when they have margins like they have now. It looks like AMD needs at least high 40% to break-even. /[

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        I’m confused, is a cat in a dog kennel supposed to be popular or not? I’d think it would be quite popular since all those doggies would love to chase the cat except that doesn’t seem to be the way your analogy goes, I think.

        I vote option 6 for your analogy 😀

      • Convert
      • 11 years ago

      q[

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        He probably knows something we don’t.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 11 years ago

        Cash in the bank makes you LAZY!

          • Convert
          • 11 years ago

          So?

          How does a lazy company that has consistently done well against its battered competitor from a income standpoint be worse off?

          Forgive me but I think you are basically saying “Yeah well AMD beat up intel’s fist with their face!”

      • Silus
      • 11 years ago

      LOL, you don’t understand that IF that was true, AMD wouldn’t need to fire its workforce every once in a while ?

      In the real world, money making companies need money to survive. Slim margins are not an option in the long term.

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 11 years ago

    EPIC FAIL

    In a few years we’ll have Wintel and Apple-tel. I think they’ll prob tie Intel’s older offerings, but that’s not exactly being competitive.

      • Kurkotain
      • 11 years ago

      lol hahah i get the “wintel” but apple-tel? whats that?

        • sdack
        • 11 years ago

        Not that this thread is worth any further comments but the expression “Wintel” comes from the two words Windows and Intel. So the OP’s “Apple-tel” should come from Apple and Intel. Maybe “Mactel” for MacOS and Intel would have helped. Who knows?

          • Scrotos
          • 11 years ago

          I think that “mactel” is used in the apple websites/forums to denote the Intel-based Macs as opposed to the PPC and 68k Macs. So it’d probably be a better choice than “Apple-tel” since it’s already being used and has the same meaning.

            • jaisonx12
            • 11 years ago

            I think Apptel rolls off the tongue better than Apple-tel (Hopefully that is’t taken too).

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      Don’t forget Lintel, almost at 1% of all internet-browsing computers. 😆

    • DaveJB
    • 11 years ago

    No way they’ll catch Ci7, they’ve just got too much of a per-clock gap to make up. Matching Penryn might be more achievable, but they’re in a vulnerable position since Intel can slash Penryn prices (bear in mind they’ve had a year’s headstart on the 45nm process) and eliminate any price/performance advantage AMD might have.

    • ecalmosthuman
    • 11 years ago

    They will be good value/performance chips – in classic AMD fashion – that is all. Maybe force Intel to lower some prices…

    Other than that, nothing changes under the sun.

    • casingh
    • 11 years ago

    Based on the Opterons results, AMD might have a hard time keeping up on the desktop.

    • bowman
    • 11 years ago

    It’s just a Phenom with more cache and less power consumption. If they’re lucky, they’ll match Penryns.

    • burntham77
    • 11 years ago

    Yeah, well I’m going to buy TWO Phenom IIs! So there.

    • flip-mode
    • 11 years ago

    Not quite catch the Penryns. But that might just be good enough. Heck, that could still mean faster than the Kentsfields, and that is fast.

    Techreport is going to include a Kentsfield in the test?

    Mobo value is better on the AMD side so that factors in.

    And please, throw in some game tests at real world resolutions – PLEASE….

    • Pachyuromys
    • 11 years ago

    The market is not just saturated, it’s supersaturated. There isn’t a person on the planet in an industrialized country that doesn’t already have a fast-enough computer. Or two. Even if AMD sold its hottest chip for a dollar over cost, they still wouldn’t sell well because the demand is simply not there. This would be true even if the Phenom II thoroughly trounced the Core i7, which, we’ve already seen with Shanghai, it won’t.

    Back in the day, the CPU represented a much greater fraction of total system price. Now, for the mainstream and economy market, it’s almost negligible. You could literally throw in the CPU for free and computer prices would be almost unnoticeably affected, and they would sell little better than they do now.

    Combine those two factors with the fact that, despite being picked up by OEM’s like Dell and HP, AMD still has no advertising presence to speak of, while Intel is almost a household name.

    And if all that wasn’t bad enough, the world-wide economy is collapsing like a corrupt house of cards.

    Epic. Fail.

      • cegras
      • 11 years ago

      Most of the world still uses P4’s. You’d be surprised.

        • jaisonx12
        • 11 years ago

        I have two PCs at home that still use P4s and they still run great. All you need to do is regular maintenance and they can last a long time.

      • Skrying
      • 11 years ago

      That makes no sense. By your reasoning Core i7 is going to be an epic failure, Core 2 should have been an epic failure, and really all consumer electronic companies should already be out of business. I mean everyone in the world already has a DVD player, so why do companies keep making them? Why did Apple keep making new iPods when the majority of the world doesn’t own a music collection big enough to fill up the original.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 11 years ago

        Saying no one will want fast CPUs for LESS money doesn’t make a lot of sense, but he has quite a point about pretty much every current CPU under the sun being plenty for most everyone at this point.

        On the matter of Core i7 being a “failure,” Intel only plans for 2% of its shipped CPUs to be Core i7s until Q3 2009. It may be slightly faster and have various minor improvements, but I wouldn’t call it a runaway success, and Intel knows that well ahead of time.

        Computer hardware in general is getting to be just too much. Unless you run VERY high resolutions on brand new games, there aren’t a lot of things 99.9% of people are going to be doing with a desktop that the cheapest current hardware won’t handle. And I’m not saying that since most people just use Word and surf the web, anything is enough. Even if you’re doing something demanding, the most recent cheap hardware should be able to handle it.

        The majority of the power available with high end graphics cards, SSDs, and fast CPUs goes wasted, even to people who THINK they need it.

        Maybe if Crysis had never come out, people would realize this. Funny how much one poorly designed game managed to skew peoples’ view of reality.

        There are always the goofballs saying, “You just wait until things start using quad cores!” Anybody looked at how things are going with graphics lately, where processing is supposed to be parallel? You can DOUBLE the amount of processors, and it often has a completely negligible effect, even on brand new games. You don’t need a multiple GPU setup to have the equivalent of a quad-core CPU going. Most of the differences with the real world speed of graphics cards still come down purely to CLOCK FREQUENCY, exactly like with CPUs.

        People are always going to want something “better”, but it has reached a point of SEVERE diminishing returns, where “better” is just more of something for the sake of it, which sits there doing nothing.

        You can already see the computer parts industry turning towards a focus on power efficiency. That’s where the real improvements are going to come now. They have to stop that non-sense before every household computer has a 16-core CPU and a graphics card with thousands of processors, because that’s the direction things are headed, and it’s not going to help anyone.

          • Anomymous Gerbil
          • 11 years ago

          Hmm, home users with low requirements are only a portion of the market for PCs.

          I think you might need to get out more, and think about the other markets for PCs – large chunks of which have ever-(even if slowly)-increasing performance requirements.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 11 years ago

            I wasn’t talking about home users with low requirements. That was exactly my point.

            I can’t think of any markets for ACTUAL PCs that have higher requirements than “enthusiast” video game PCs. I rarely play video games and I need a very fast computer for other reasons entirely, but it still doesn’t call for what people expect for video games. And again, even for video games, lower end parts now are plenty. There are only very specific cases where you’re going to need anything more, and most of us aren’t ever going to encounter those, because we’re not running a huge resolution like 2560×1600.

            Everything else is largely wasted, and unless something radically changes, it’s going to be an increasing amount of waste as things become more powerful.

            There are other types of very common and more powerful computers with all sorts of uses, but they’re not PCs.

          • Skrying
          • 11 years ago

          You’re ignoring the entire history of computing. You’re also just wrong about several things.

          If computing was all about just having enough power to do your tasks then progression would have stopped long ago. Most people don’t purchase a new computer because the old one died, but rather they purchase a new one as an upgrade. When you’re upgrading you do so to be able to run a new program, to complete or take part in a new task, or a variety of reasons. The entire history of computing has shown us that what is common in the high end makes it way downwards as prices lower. Yes, a sub $200 processor is 95% of what a above $1000 processor but it has always been that way. New applications will be created that will make use of this power. The only way you could argue that we already have enough power would be to argue humans are out of ideas, which is most certainly not the case.

          I also just don’t understand why you care about a 40nm onboard chipset with embedded graphics. By your very philosophy a $50 AM2 Athlon X2 coupled with a 780G chipset is enough for your needs.

          Also, what is the problem with a home user having a 16-core processor? If it’s accomplishing tasks not possible with a 4-core then a 16-core seems reasonable. As well you must keep in mind that these cores can only shrink so much, there are other physical limitations that means a processor must literally be big enough to have the proper contacts. Filling it with waste would be wasteful.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        To answer the DVD question in your post – it’s because the cheap p.o.s. ones die in a year so people have to replace it with another low quality p.o.s. :p

          • eitje
          • 11 years ago

          similarly, people buy new computers because their old one ends up filled up with junk software.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      You make good points but that’s a market and economic analysis not a performance one.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      “There isn’t a person on the planet in an industrialized country that doesn’t already have a fast-enough computer. Or two.”

      You’re aware that there are poor people in industrialized countries too, right? I know you made that comment for effect, but it sits wrong with me because I know people who can barely afford to keep a roof over their head let alone afford a computer or have the space for it. Hell, I got several computers (no, they can’t have ’em!) so I don’t fit into that category, but it’s just too much of a broad sweeping generalization for me.

        • Pachyuromys
        • 11 years ago

        The generalization, broad as it is, still applies. People that are too poor to afford even one computer are not going to be buying one anyway, and hence do not increase market demand. The absence of market demand is the whole point of that generalization.

          • Scrotos
          • 11 years ago

          I dunno, you’d think one could make the argument that that segment is what something like a nettop would address. I understand that it doesn’t really relate to a high-performance part or the Phenom 2 in particular, but that market segment that doesn’t currently have 1 or 2 computers might get a cheap portable if the price were low enough.

          That way even if they have to move from place to place, the computer would be small and easy to transport. Hell, I helped arrange for an old PowerBook to go to a bloke in Kenya so that he could keep in touch with his family because his job kept him away from them for many months at a time. Not sure if he’s still alive after the recent meltdown they had there, though. I think he was in the “wrong” ethnic group at the time.

          For him, the price was “free”. I don’t disagree that the market is (or SHOULD be) saturated for most middle class blokes who have one or two PCs that do most things just fine. However, I do think that even in bad economic times, you can find new markets for stuff like computers.

          Is there any good numbers on nettop sales? Are they just accessories for yuppies or are they actually being bought by the downtrodden? Anyone know?

    • AMDisDEC
    • 11 years ago

    Missed a vital poll option:

    Will win most design-ins on lower price/discounts ____

    • sdack
    • 11 years ago

    I voted for *[

      • blerb
      • 11 years ago

      wow. just wow. I really cannot believe that you think that. PLEASE tell me you are being sarcastic.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 11 years ago

        AMD has no choice. Either match Intel’s performance or continue bleeding more cash.

          • pluscard
          • 11 years ago

          “…continue bleeding more cash.”
          ——————————————
          Actually, AMD posted an operating profit in both the graphics and cpu divisions for the most recent quarter.

        • sdack
        • 11 years ago

        No, I am absolutely 100% dead serious.

    • indeego
    • 11 years ago

    EPIC FAIL would indicate complete lack of investor confi— *[

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 11 years ago

      Duh.

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 11 years ago

      …followed by a NVM.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 11 years ago

    lol I thought this poll was retarded and pointless until I saw the “EPIC FAIL” option. That gave me a chuckle.

    I think this is hard to quantify. The Opterons seemed to have higher performance per watt than the standard Xeons, but they were also not clocked as high as ANY of the first desktop models will be. That suggests there’s a lot of extra headroom in there, at least for desktop use.

    Clock to clock, they don’t even seem to be on the same page as Core 2s (comparing Opterons to Xeons, at least), and basically any current Core 2s will overclock a huge amount, but if the Phenom IIs overclock well, if nothing else, maybe they’ll get you to the same place, with both a lower price tag and electric bill.

    CPUs in general are pretty much overkill now. There are plenty of sub-$200 quad cores, and you can get $80 dual cores that go 4 GHz. So which is the absolute fastest doesn’t really concern me. The price for the performance is the important part.

    Even if we knew the actual performance ahead of time, we’ll still have to wait for prices to know if it’s worthwhile.

    What I am most interested in is AM3 boards that may have new 40nm integrated GPUs, which could finally be enough to make me not use a graphics card at all. It would be tough to beat the value of an affordable CPU, an affordable motherboard, and no graphics card required, while it’s all very easy on your electricity bill.

      • Voldenuit
      • 11 years ago

      Remember that the Xeons are “crippled” by FB-DIMMs – causing higher latency and much higher power consumption.

      On the desktop, there is no reason to believe that Phenom II will pose any credible threat to Core2Quads, let alone Corei7.

      Shanghai will do well in database type workloads, but for workstation and desktop performance, it is not even close.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 11 years ago

        Obviously it’s slower and has no real advantage, but the very first ones will go up to 3 GHz. That’s still going to be plenty as it is for the vast majority of people. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that a 3 GHz Phenom II with 6MB of L3 cache will compare to a Q9400.

        As long as the price is right, they could be more than worth it. Intel keeps their quad core prices pretty high, so I don’t think that will be too tough for AMD.

        Where AMD will be in trouble is if the mainstream Nehalems sink into the sub $200 price range, but Intel seems pretty intent on avoiding that.

        • shank15217
        • 11 years ago

        And opterons are crippled by registered ECC dimms..

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 11 years ago

          NUMA sucks for typical desktop apps, too.

    • donkeycrock
    • 11 years ago

    i see a fail, only becuase they are taking so long to rehash an old product

    • DrDillyBar
    • 11 years ago

    They are compelling processors for some segments of the market, but they will not outperform the Penryn Quads.

    • BoBzeBuilder
    • 11 years ago

    It will most definitely not match the Penryn quads, in both performance and power consumption. Its still a phenom, and still phail.

    • ClickClick5
    • 11 years ago

    I see some good coming from this.
    I see a slight surprise coming out.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This