• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Intel's 2008 Roadmap: a definite dis to AMD

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Audioaficionado

Sparkomatic Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2002
No new duallies on the horizon either.

Sounds really bad for the "lower" end with no improvements planned at all.
 
Unfortunately, it's not a surprise, many of us have seen this coming. Like Bama said, it looks like it's back to getting the cheapy cpu and clocking the bejesus out of it... wait, don't most of us do that anyway? :santa:

I really, REALLY wish AMD would get back into the game to keep intel in check just a little :bang head
 
Well, they may slow down on the innovation but i'm looking forward to Q2/Q3 2008, $90ish quad cores! Go folding!
 
Are we looking at the same chart?

Wolfdale 3m is a dualcore, as are the e4xxx
Should have stated new duallies. We all know wolfdale's coming...and then nothing.

Plus that doesn't change the fact that the entire bottem part of the chart is unchanged.
 
no price cuts not much in new products from intel o well AMD FTW :)
this is bad considering the performance increase there is from a OC 9500 @ 2.7Ghz phenom on a AM2 mobo and a flaky bios to a Q9650, 500 cpu point difference in 3dmark06 with almost a $800 price difference. sure the intel chip uses less power but that dosent account for its huge price tag.
 
Last edited:
sure there is always that but i'm talking new stuff, the q6600 is nice and clocks well but i wouldn't spend my money on it, simply put i hate intel, and a pure blooded amd fanboy plus there is not much future proofing with intel setups. as seen with the mountain load of new chipsets they keep releasing not to mention the chipset alone for the x48 is $70. cost wise and future proofing i would recommend amd as for the best performance for your cash i would recommend intel. being a system builder thats how i see things. unless i see major price cuts on the Q9650 i doubt i will recommend it. as the same performance can be achieved from a chip costing 1/3 as much with a nice O/C. those days are coming back again were u want the performance of a >$1000 chip u buy a cheaper one and O/C it.
 
i hate intel, and a pure blooded amd fanboy.

Then your post makes sense but unlike you most people read the intel part as well and are aware how far that QX can be pushed.
As I recall the time when AMD was still competing they sold FXes (now they call them black edition) as well for similar price the only thing what changed that you can't make those 300$ AMD procs as fast as the Intel 1000$ these days.
I have no idea how much chipsets cost but bought myself a 45nm compatible mobo which does 525FSB for less than what any new 7XX AMD mobo would cost except that not so promising ECS board.

AMD as future proof recommendation is a joke, just wait and see how many mobos will be quad compatible in the end, not mentioning 45nm.

In the end I wouldn't recommend quad anyway and with Kuma sometime Q2 08 C2D all the way.
 
That's intentional I think, couldn't really see the benfit of the higher and higher FSB unless you count the lower multis which is good for Intel to separate the processors.
 
I can see 2 q9450 on this chart, one called bloomfield. Do u guys have any idea whats the difference between these 2?

Concerning what OP said, I think we had way to much tech advance already in 2007 time to chill out a bit. Maybe this wil make both amd and intel systems more futureproof, regarding the high prices Intel has announced for the next gen and that software has to comply somehow not with the latest hardware but with the latest affordable hardware. Then there is Crysis... but I think that a P4 user could do better with a 8800 ultra than a qx9650 if all he wanted to do is play crysis.

just my 2 cents.
 
Back