• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD Phenom X4 Compared to Intel Core 2 Duo in Crysis

Whats the stock fsb/multi on the phenom? in one of the pics,you can see its a amd es chip.I guess it means they're running it at a differant setting to get the 3ghz.The mem on the phenom was at 375mhz cpu/8 ratio.

Crysis_k10.jpg
 
ok... this is useless... lets just wait for a bit more reliable reviews, Phenom isn't released yet, so what the hurry?
 
tigger69 said:
well if them benches are true(and theres no reason to think there is) its gonna be hard for amd to keep up.

I just read up on the link and that was on an amd 790 chipset for the amd and p35 for the intel.

EDIT-some better pics here-http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29/1193590532d6599.html
Click to expand...


I see in that bottom pic that the amd had 1.53v on the core according to cpu-z. It could well be wrong but that is a shit load. Especially with a quad!!!!

Lets hope these things shine in other areas or there could be trouble. :shadedshu
 
Well wont this chip be a heck of a lot cheaper than those high-end Intel Quads?

AMD just seems to be releasing mid- and hi-end stuff, but fails to offer competition to Intel's Extreme editions.

Price to performance, I feel AMD is doing a great job. Financially they're just doing awful because in the computer world, most will care about pure power more than overall value. Now me, I'm a value kinda guy :)
 
DanTheBanjoman said:
What does having the fastest CPU have to do with the finances of the company?
Click to expand...

Well, I figured that since the A64 series was the fastest processor out there for a while, and they were able to get away with charging $1200 for an FX-59, that they should have made quite a profit off of that :).


I could certainly be mistaken, I haven't really cared about the fiscal earnings of AMD until they started losing money. Funny how that works :laugh:.
 
zekrahminator said:
Well, I figured that since the A64 series was the fastest processor out there for a while, and they were able to get away with charging $1200 for an FX-59, that they should have made quite a profit off of that :).


I could certainly be mistaken, I haven't really cared about the fiscal earnings of AMD until they started losing money. Funny how that works :laugh:.
Click to expand...

They really never were rich. And charging $1200 for a CPU is nice, but how many people do you think buy these chips? The money mostly is in the lower segments of the market. AMD never made that much profit, Intel has dominated the market sales wise all this time, unfortunately that's what AMD fans keep forgetting. Intel never really lost money like AMD has and does.
 
i could be talking out my a$$ here but it seems like it would be hard to do r&d for so many products.

amd has cpu's,gpu's, and motherboards to develope and market. where intel only has cpu's and motherboards.
 
rangerone766 said:
i could be talking out my a$$ here but it seems like it would be hard to do r&d for so many products.

amd has cpu's,gpu's, and motherboards to develope and market. where intel only has cpu's and motherboards.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, Intel has the biggest peace of GPUs on the market.
 
AMD doesn't have to directly develop GPU's - that's what they bought ATi for . . .

although I'm not an AMD fan, I have to say I hope to see them do somewhat better simply because I don't want to see ATI get sucked down the drain with them . . .


I wonder how much R&D funding AMD is cutting from ATI at this point, becuase it's even seemed that ATI is slowly starting the descent now that AMD owns them . . . :(
 
all the post here make a good point. why spend x amount on an intel CPU that can go a bit faster where u can can get an AMD CPU that does a high speed for alot less

lets be honest can you REALLY tell the difference between 2.0GHz and 2.16GHz (for example)
 
damn i have to many things to answer...

if no one notice this the stepping was a 2 meaning about a 5-6 months before...

again something else there was only 2 mb l3 ???:wtf::wtf: i though it must be 3??:shadedshu
...

amd you dont know the price or the model of the phenom .... it isn't a phenom fx to comparer it with the others nor the price/speed opponent ???

thats for amd defence

for answers well amd r&d in 4-5 different things rv670/rd7xx/spider/phenom/bulldozer it haves money but the main problem of amd is the unhealth competion even if the phenom will come out it will be harder to find than a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq...
 
Interesting naming of the pic there.

Well this def doesn't look good for K10 :mad:
 
DrunkenMafia said:
I see in that bottom pic that the amd had 1.53v on the core according to cpu-z. It could well be wrong but that is a shit load. Especially with a quad!!!!

Lets hope these things shine in other areas or there could be trouble. :shadedshu
Click to expand...

1.5V is a shitload these days then? That beast is running 4 cores at a fantastic speed; I have to use 1.65V on a 2500 XP-M @2.34GHz ffs and this Phenom has 4 cores with each running over 150% of the 462 chip. :rockout:

They've come a LONG way in the past couple of years and these chips are gonna be SERIOUS bang per buck. Who cares about playing crysis at 47 fps instead of 50 really? :slap:
 
Who cares, they come pretty damn close to intels quads. Face it, Intel took a page from AMD and are doing damn well with it. What are we fanbois gonna say when intel does the integrated memory controller? We will be screwed royally. As someone said, 5fps less isnt a deal breaker. You dont have to have the absolute fastest. This things does pretty damn good and its a quadcore. Im sure a new stepping or revision will put it on par with Intel.
 
I kinda looked at it this way...

How pissed must intel be that all their money and investment yielded 5fps over the poorer AMD who is currently on a major catchup and bleeding money at an unpleasant rate :roll::roll:

(well... just taking 3ghz v 3ghz anyway)
 
Wait... is this X4 the lower end one or higher end one...
 
mandelore said:
I kinda looked at it this way...

How pissed must intel be that all their money and investment yielded 5fps over the poorer AMD who is currently on a major catchup and bleeding money at an unpleasant rate :roll::roll:

(well... just taking 3ghz v 3ghz anyway)
Click to expand...

2nd that :)
 
The problem is as well,when amd release phenom,whatever price its at,intel just need to drop their prices,which they can do been flush an all,to put amd in the doo doo again.
 
Look at those numbers properly people, Phenom is on a crap 200MHz FSB, vs 333 from intel. Crank that FSB up and Phenom could well do some serious stomping.
 
Ketxxx said:
Look at those numbers properly people, Phenom is on a crap 200MHz FSB, vs 333 from intel. Crank that FSB up and Phenom could well do some serious stomping.
Click to expand...

? Remember Amd uses HTT. Their "rated fsb" at 1000 mhz is basically equal to Intel's at 2000 mhz. Now I'm not doubting that raising the fsb would raise performance, but it's not going to be a huge jump or anything....probably not 5 fps.
 
HTT has little to do with performance, I've written a paper on it with all the details etc etc blablabla. Long story short high FSB will give massive performance gains, even if you just use settings that give you stock CPU and RAM speeds, but at a much higher FSB.
 
The problem is as well,when amd release phenom,whatever price its at,intel just need to drop their prices,which they can do been flush an all,to put amd in the doo doo again.
Click to expand...

true, unless Intel goes and gets all snuggly and complacent in their lead over the competition like they did years ago . . . and lets not forget, the Nehalem isn't even out yet, either, and we've all got a good idea of what kind of a bitchslap that CPU family is going to deliver, followed quickly by the Westmere and Sandy Bridge CPU's.

Now, if AMD gets to market with a multicore CPU/GPU desktop processor (like their planned "Fusion" mobile CPU) before Intel, though (which I think highly possible with their ownership of ATI), they'll have a definite hands up on Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top