AMD Delivers Elite Visual Computing Performance with Latest Desktop Platform

[JATownes]

Nice. I have been waiting for these. It has been ~year since I grabbed this 940...time for another upgrade.

 

[kid41212003]

This will likely make Intel drops price of their entire i7 line, except extreme chips.

 

[Benetanegia]

The chips that cost "about the same", Core i7 860 and Core i7 930, are slower. The faster ones, Core i7 950/960, Core i7 870, are in the >$500 range.

We've seen different reviews then. They are just slightly slower in the ones I've seen and sometimes in some tests faster.

You are not getting my point though. You are always going to find something that does a little less for less money (Core2 right now for example) and of course that a newly introduced product is always going to be better on the perf/price department if they want to compete. But fact is that the 980X is much faster and if it costs so much is because there is a market for that price.

i.e. I'm a freelancer dedicated mainly to CAD/3Dstudio, so my time is $ for myself. Every minute lost is money that I lost. The %50 performance difference might very well pay off the $700 price difference, because of that. Right now there's not a lot of work in my area because of the crisis, so that's not the case right now. That's why I'm still with a Q6600. I don't get enough work to fill a normal 8 hour working day every day, so my time's $ cost is far lower now and a little bit more time spent actually works on my favor. But if I could get more jobs, or if competition was harder (I suspect every freelancer in my area is doing the same) a faster CPU could definately help and a lot. $700? That's nothing compared to what I could have lost when the jobs were so many that I couldn't accept them all...

 

[btarunr]

For the know, Intel will be releasing Core i7 970X sometime soon. It's based on Gulftown, and runs at 3.20 GHz. But knowing its specifications, Intel would probably price it above $500 again.

We've seen different reviews then. They are just slightly slower in the ones I've seen and sometimes in some tests faster.

You are not getting my point though. You are always going to find something that does a little less for less money (Core2 right now for example) and of course that a newly introduced product is always going to be better on the perf/price department if they want to compete. But fact is that the 980X is much faster and if it costs so much is because there is a market for that price.

i.e. I'm a freelancer dedicated mainly to CAD/3Dstudio, so my time is $ for myself. Every minute lost is money that I lost. The %50 performance difference might very well pay off the $700 price difference, because of that. Right now there's not a lot of work in my area because of the crisis, so that's not the case right now. That's why I'm still with a Q6600. I don't get enough work to fill a normal 8 hour working day every day, so my time's $ cost is far lower now and a little bit more time spent actually works on my favor. But if I could get more jobs, or if competition was harder (I suspect every freelancer in my area is doing the same) a faster CPU could definately help and a lot. $700? That's nothing compared to what I could have lost when the jobs were so many that I couldn't accept them all...

I've made a consensus based on the reviews I've read.

Phenom II X4 chips were on par with Nehalem as far as gaming performance went. Nehalam was able to beat Phenom II with multi-tasking thanks to HTT, and core efficiency in general, coupled with 50% higher memory bandwidth. Yet, with Thuban, AMD made up for lack of SMT with two additional cores. Although memory bandwidth is lower, at its price point its faster than chips from Intel.

 

[kid41212003]

And at higher default clock. Still, at $210, it's mad not to get one if you own an AMD board already.

 

[btarunr]

People don't care about "higher clock". People care about what performance they get for what they pay. Yes Phenom II achieves that performance at higher clocks, but it does come with decent overclocking headroom.

"At higher clock", "clock-for-clock", is just academic bs that helps fanboys win flamewars.

 

[kid41212003]

Nah, that's mean when both at peak OC, the one with higher performance per clock will win.

 

[Benetanegia]

I've made a consensus based on the reviews I've read.

Phenom II X4 chips were on par with Nehalem as far as gaming performance went. Nehalam was able to beat Phenom II with multi-tasking thanks to HTT, and core efficiency in general, coupled with 50% higher memory bandwidth. Yet, with Thuban, AMD made up for lack of SMT with two additional cores. Although memory bandwidth is lower, at its price point its faster than chips from Intel.

And they should have made a comparison against those. Instead they compared it to the most expensive Intel one and the intention is clear. Hint: it's not trying to say they are faster on their price point.

Read my first post again. I never said this CPU is not better than Intel ones for the $, but it's certainly not the picture they are trying to paint. Like I said I would pick this six cores over a 4 core anyday (mainly for 3dsmax), but their comparison is just misleading and that was their intention. PR BS.

EDIT: This is not a different AMD than the one that was selling FX line of chips for $1500 or A64 X2 for $800. They are the same, just in a different situation. If they could they would charge more, they are not doing us any favor, they are just trying to sell. And although I wholehartedly want to go AMD again (all AMD until I got the quad, I'm typing from a A64 X2 4800+ in fact, my second PC), I'm never going to defend such misleading PR BS.

 

[btarunr]

And they should have made a comparison against those. Instead they compared it to the most expensive Intel one and the intention is clear. Hint: it's not trying to say they are faster on their price point.

Read my first post again. I never said this CPU is not better than Intel ones for the $, but it's certainly not the picture they are trying to paint. Like I said I would pick this six cores over a 4 core anyday (mainly for 3dsmax), but their comparison is just misleading and that was their intention. PR BS.

It's not PR BS. Their point wasn't factoring performance at all. Their point was that AMD's six-core based rig can be had for the same price as just a six-core chip from Intel. Which indeed is the case.

Yes 980X may be 50% faster, but it's 270% costlier.

 

[Benetanegia]

It's not PR BS. Their point wasn't factoring performance at all.

Yes 980X may be 50% faster, but it's 270% costlier.

It's faster, period. It's highest-end of the high-end. Since when high end is equal in price/perf? Never. FSS I paid 700 euros for this A64 X2 4800+ I'm typing from.

So what's the point? Having a 6 core even if doesn't make any significant difference? What do we want when we buy things? Performance or number of cores? Have we replaced the "I have more Mhz" by the "I have more cores"? Is that it?

 

[btarunr]

Nah, that's mean when both at peak OC, the one with higher performance per clock will win.

I think the 1090T maxed will be able to beat every Intel chip in its price-range that is maxed out.

It's faster, period. It's highest-end of the high-end. Since when high end is equal in price/perf? Never. FSS I paid 700 euros for this A64 X2 4800+ I'm typing from.

So what's the point? Having a 6 core even if doesn't make any significant difference? What do we want when we buy things? Performance or number of cores?

It's not, but AMD is telling people in the market for a six-core chip that they can have an entire PC based on their chip for the price of a six-core chip from Intel. Performance is not talked about. So it's not bad marketing. Not everyone in the market for a six-core chip is an enthusiast, and the +50% performance for +270% price equation does affect purchases.

 

[Benetanegia]

Not everyone in the market for a six-core chip is an enthusiast.

So it's about that then. Having a six-core. Enlarging your e-peen with more cores. Certainly not with more performance.

 

[btarunr]

So it's about that then. Having a six-core. Enlarging your e-peen with more cores. Certainly not with more performance.

No, it's about people like you who run CAD, scientific applications, Creativity Suite, etc., who buy PCs once every 3~4 years. They would want six-core right about now, if they're in the market for a PC.

 

[naoan]

For home encoding you can't beat this silicon, no way would I pay a grand++ more for 10s speed increase.

You're either a prick or a fanboy (or stockholder) to find fault of this product, not at this price point.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

The price point for this product is definitely amazing. $300 for a six core? Yeah that is pretty good, while Intel is charging MUCH more for theirs. This processor is good for 2 reasons. One, great price per perf ratio. Two, this will bring down the prices of the Intel six core processors. The only fault I see is that it is NOT faster than the Intel, but that is not a huge deal, seeing as the price is so good.

 

[Benetanegia]

No, it's about people like you who run CAD, scientific applications, Creativity Suite, etc., who buy PCs once every 3~4 years. They would want six-core right about now, if they're in the market for a PC.

Yes, but because of the performance, not because of having six cores. And like I said a quad Core i7 or maybe even an i5 is just as fast or almost. Not the ones that cast less? Wait 1 month, Intel price cuts and they will be better, then AMD price cut and so on, which is what is being happening lately. Comparing it to the most expensive CPU is misleading and pure PR BS. LIke I said the same people that you say that would apreciate a 6 core for that price are the same that know very well that the $1000 CPU might greatly pay-off too. They should have compared this 6 core CPU to the ones that they compete with. Especially since they would still win, but what they did is PR BS.

 

[naoan]

I don't understand you... no company in this world would advertise the bad point of their product, PR is all about selective information control.

 

[sunil]

Here you guys it's on Newegg

http://promotions.newegg.com/NEemai...GNEFL042710-_-EMC-042710-Index-_-E0A-_-AMD#IT

 

[Benetanegia]

I don't understand you... no company in this world would advertise the bad point of their product, PR is all about selective information control.

So it's PR BS. Everything coming from Nvidia, Intel, AMD... is PR BS lately. I don't know why this fact is even being discussed. I never said AMD is the only one who makes it, I just thought this one to be remarkable and worth mentioning, that is all.

And you are right about PR being like that, but not always was like that and I'm talking about just 10 years ago. It doesn't have to be like that. IMO just because it's raining shit all the time everywhere, there's no reason to eventually open your mouth and eat it.

EDIT: There's no bad side to this product BTW. Never said so. I have to make it clear, I have nothing aginst the product, it's just the way that AMD chose to present it.

 

[Delta6326]

only $150 at Tiger http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/compare.asp?CatId=4431

 

[btarunr]

Yeah with MIR. MIRs aren't guaranteed to be approved.

 

[Delta6326]

If i knew i could easily sell my ASUS p5q pro Q6600 and 4Gb of ram i would buy one of those and a new mb and ram as long as i don't loss to much $$

 

[naoan]

So it's PR BS. Everything coming from Nvidia, Intel, AMD... is PR BS lately. I don't know why this fact is even being discussed. I never said AMD is the only one who makes it, I just thought this one to be remarkable and worth mentioning, that is all.

And you are right about PR being like that, but not always was like that and I'm talking about just 10 years ago. It doesn't have to be like that. IMO just because it's raining shit all the time everywhere, there's no reason to eventually open your mouth and eat it.

EDIT: There's no bad side to this product BTW. Never said so. I have to make it clear, I have nothing aginst the product, it's just the way that AMD chose to present it.

I've saw product covered with way more shit than this one (killer nic anyone? ) and imo this one is tamer than most, hell i think this is one of better PR out there. They made a valid fact without covering it with lies and even conveniently build you a solid rig as a bonus .

But yeah, most PR is BS. Just live with it or find a perfect world out there.

 

[pjladyfox]

pity none of the board makers have released the BIOS updates for their AM2+ boards....
grrrr.

I've got a 785G here and i asked gigabyte, and they told me they dont know and cant know, because the CPU's arent out retail yet. good one giga, your AM3 boards have support dont they...

Well, you just saved me having the same conversation with them.

I switched over to Gigabyte boards after long-term performance and reliability issues with Asus boards a few years back. This is probably the first time I've seen them totally and completely drop the ball regarding making updated BIOS firmware available for a new chip launch. What I don't get is their CPU support page shows 785 and 790X boards that DO support the new X6's but they're all AM3 socket only.

Personally, if I did not know any better I'd swear they are using this as a quick money grab to try and force early adopters into buying new motherboards.

 

[btarunr]

Some ASUS AM2+ boards do have updates to X6.