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

AMDzone gives Intel's i5/i7 no love!

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

Krogen

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Location
Underground
I saw a thread about this at xs and it just makes me want to puke.

Especially the person who wants to measure "smoothness". :-/
 

Conumdrum

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Location
Small town Emlenton, PA
Ohh what a piece of news. AMD don't like Intel.

Whats your point? It's like Iran don't like the USA as breaking news.

I hate CD's I loved the smoothness of LP's (thats vinyl records to you young folks). In fact I like the smoothness of my old radar system on the 1967 F-4 Phantom 2 fighter. The computer had NOT ONE chip in it, not one. It was 100% and I mean 100% analog, all tubes and teeny motors to do the calculations for missle guidance. NO memory, not one bit. Weighed 87 lbs and was put on your shoulder to mount in the front of the plane. I'm not kidding.............. In fact it did have one can transistor on our mod version added to auto shut off giudance if you locked on to a IFF freindly. The mod was added in 1974.......

It was really smooth, just like AMD.
 
Last edited:

DVL

Member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Location
Houston, Texas
lol

kaa wrote:"The whole premise of an OC comparison is flawed because one die is the dregs of a production line while the other is the cream of the crop of a production line."



"i don't think its flawed because the platform is being sold at the same pricepoint as the one being compared to, we are trying to see the better purchase for the same money.

just iike buying a low-end mercedes and a "higher end" toyota that cost the same."

:D
 

Bobnova

Senior Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
I think that's about right, the high end toyota will almost certainly last longer and cost less during ownership then the low end mercedes :D
 

DVL

Member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Location
Houston, Texas
I just think that's is funny the best comparison that came come about is comparing AMD's top of the line chip, with Intel's lower end chips.

Man AMD has fallen off lately, what happened?
 
OP
wickedout

wickedout

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
This quote is the one that made me laugh. Writen by Mr. Abinstein. The guy is a total fool. Lmao!

"In any rate, I think we can all agree that Phenom II 965BE at $188 is a MUCH BETTER DEAL than any Core i5 or i7. You pay less to get better quality processors with AMD. If AMD set the price points like this, I trust them that they know what they are doing, and they will be responsible of their stock prices (which, apparently, is not going to $1 as you suggested)."
 

freeagent

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Location
Winnipeg!
Im not sure if they are a better deal.. but to get a quad, that can do a bunchof stuff for what, 200 bux? Thats pretty good.. I remember paying around 500 for an x2 4400 that would barely do 2700mhz lol.

But it still stomped what Intel had out at the time, so it was worth it :)

I used to be such an AMD fanboy at one time, I kind of giggle about it now when I think back on it. I had such a good time ocing their stuffs. My biggest gripe with them, and the reason why I went to Intel was because their mobos were unreliable. When they worked, they were awsome, but then they would die. From the highend, to the low end, I killed alotta nforce 2+4 boards :(
 

Bobnova

Senior Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
AMD failed (partly, but not entirely, because intel illegally blocked them) to take advantage of their massive performance/price victory over intel in the Athlon/P4 era.
AMD won that era hugely, but failed to pour the money back into research, while also not making nearly as much money as they should have due to intel having illegal deals with PC manufacturers.
The result is that AMD R&D stagnated while Intel was desperately refreshing the P3 into the Core/Core2.

Once core2 came out and stomped AMD horribly, AMD kicked it up a notch and released the Phenom, which failed to do much except overclock very poorly and have an embarrassing hardware bug. After that came the Phenom II, which is on par with Core2 and should have been released three years ago, and would have if AMD had been smart.

Now AMD is playing catchup, and while they are gaining it isn't a fast process.
Their recent success (and nvidia's failure) in the GPU market will help speed the CPU development along, but they still have some catching up to do (like, the 10-20% they lose to i7 clock for clock).
 

fire2havoc

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Location
California
This quote is the one that made me laugh. Writen by Mr. Abinstein. The guy is a total fool. Lmao!

"In any rate, I think we can all agree that Phenom II 965BE at $188 is a MUCH BETTER DEAL than any Core i5 or i7. You pay less to get better quality processors with AMD. If AMD set the price points like this, I trust them that they know what they are doing, and they will be responsible of their stock prices (which, apparently, is not going to $1 as you suggested)."

Hilarious. Of course the Phenom II is better than my i7 920. There's no contest...

...Until I pierce the guy's imaginary bubble!
 

Kuroimaho

Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Location
Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
The whole website is a joke. Their 6400 BE included OC results but the highest OC missed the 3Dmark result, which is quite prone to crash on unstable OCs, they included it anyway not that it had a chance.

That's just the front, in the forum it only gets worse.

After that came the Phenom II, which is on par with Core2 and should have been released three years ago, and would have if AMD had been smart.

Their 65nm process was like TMSCs 40nm. the first stepping of Brisbanes had higher latency cache than windsor but half the size. it indicates they planned to use more cache on it but as BB clocked low it did not worth it.

So as long as they were on 65nm there was nothing they could do.
And with SOI only fabs and processors rather unpopular the fabs had nothing to do.
This is what I consider their real fault, they went from 100% fab capacity to idling fabs, if they had the ability to do vgas for ATI and NV the fabs could still be theirs, but not anymore and this will cut into their margins.

Now AMD is playing catchup, and while they are gaining it isn't a fast process.
Their recent success (and nvidia's failure) in the GPU market will help speed the CPU development along, but they still have some catching up to do (like, the 10-20% they lose to i7 clock for clock).

We will see when Intel's lineup is finished in January whether they gain next year or it becomes 2008 again.
 
OP
wickedout

wickedout

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
AMDzone is a joke and they know it and they'll never admit they're wrong about the entire concept of the i5 or any of the Intel CPU's. It makes me sick.

I have nothing against AMD! I just don't like people thinking this is better then that. I wish AMD the best but right now Intel is more then a few steps ahead of them.

Let's see how AMD does in 2010? FTW Intel!
 
OP
wickedout

wickedout

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
AMDzoner hits the wall with his i5. Lmao!

by scientia on Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:47 pm:

I seem to be hitting a wall around 3.4 Ghz with my i5-750 where I have to increase the voltage much more for a small increase in clock. I'm open to suggestion.

My suggestion to this man is to stop using Intel CPU's! He's clueless! The guy doesn't know how to overclock. I'm dying laughing over here. The hits just keep on coming.
 

CharlieCS

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Im not sure if they are a better deal.. but to get a quad, that can do a bunchof stuff for what, 200 bux? Thats pretty good.. I remember paying around 500 for an x2 4400 that would barely do 2700mhz lol.

But it still stomped what Intel had out at the time, so it was worth it :)

I used to be such an AMD fanboy at one time, I kind of giggle about it now when I think back on it. I had such a good time ocing their stuffs. My biggest gripe with them, and the reason why I went to Intel was because their mobos were unreliable. When they worked, they were awsome, but then they would die. From the highend, to the low end, I killed alotta nforce 2+4 boards :(

They key word here is n-force , it's nvidia , there were plenty of intel boards that were dying for same reason , they had crappy Nvidia chipsets .

And what do you expect the site is called AMDzone .Also i want to add , AMD platform if fully competitive with intel platform right now , it might not have been the case in PHI era but it is now .
 

glussier

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
AMD platform if fully competitive with intel platform right now , it might not have been the case in PHI era but it is now .

Fully competitive to what? It competes well with Intel's 2 year old technology, but their high end only matches the low end I5. If you are talking price, this is another story.