What is the tech reason that the new quad chips are so weak and not much better than the dual cores. Why so far behind intel now? 1 year ago they where ahead. They must of screwed up the quad core design! The last i read they said they had a better idea for quad core and it was a true 4 core chip.They said Intel had a 2 core chip that was branched some how and claimed it was a 4 core chip. I think they where wrong!
As for quads being slower is quite simple to understand. The fastest dual core comes @ 3.2Ghz while the Phenom 9900 runs @ 2.6Ghz. The Phenom has 4 cores, but most applications/games are still designed to run single threaded, thus using just one core. And if a game has dual core support, then it's mostly dual core support and NOT quad core. That's why the benches favor 3.2Ghz over 2.6Ghz. About AMD lagging behind Intel? AMD will always be the underdog, even when they were the king in the P4 vs A64 era. Just buy the damn CPU you desire (AMD or Intel) and stop moaning.
Now its AMD and ATI , they may be spread to thin ... New leadership , they must be one fine group of A$$H0LES !!!!!
Is unmistakable that amd is lagging behind, but intel lagged behind a lot of time and they came with a killer cpu. The idea on phenom is very brave and forward thinking, that's why it's so difficult, take notice that it must have been designed when amd was still in the lead. I hear that this .65 cpus will have a short lifespan and .45 are getting more work. Think that's right because intel is getting a lot of benefits from the more advanced process type.
Are you just dumb? Of course Intel has the performance crown atm, but you haven't read my post do you? My point was..... never mind. I'm not going to repeat it again.
The principale reason why a quad was more powerful, it have more cache (8mb) vs the structure of phenom with 4x512(L2) + 4x128 (L1) + 2mb (L3).
Thank you for looking at my ? and answering it. Unlike alot of others! My ? was why is AMD's 4 core chip not much better than there 2 core chip? Intel has made a big leap from 2 to 4 cores.
They focus on making video card and processor.. and is funny cause Intel > Amd Nvidia > ati. =\ I am waiting till Amd beats Intel to upgrade I just like amd!!!
Haven't you read anything about my post? The fastest X2 (6400) is 3.2Ghz and the fastest Phenom X4 (9900) is 2.6Ghz. Since most applications (even now) are programmed to run on 1 core, the X2 will run better than the X4, due to the clocks running @ 3.2Ghz. As for cache on AMD CPU's, it's not as important in performance as with Intel CPU's, because AMD CPU's has a build-in memory controller. Intel CPU's compensate that with lots of cache. Intel is going to integrate the memory controller as well as of the Nehalem, which is a good move.
whats so funny... hes actually right. AMD are fighting losing battles on two fronts at the moment with Intel and Nvidia. They need to skip a generation and work on some killer chips, processor and graphics wise, otherwise Intel and Nvidia will always be one step ahead, since AMD hasn't actually refreshed its technology since the A64, and their failiure to get anywhere with Phenom. Time to take the lead instead of playing catch up... very poorly.
He's not so wrong. ATI might not have the performance crown atm but who cares? Most money is made in the mid range and OEM market where ATI looks not so bad (see the 3850 for example). I believe that AMD will also gain a good part of the market back with the new Phenom stepping. Higher clocks and cheap quads. That's what I like. To the starters question: AMD had some big problems with the Phenom until now but the new stepping is on its way. It's right that quads are not so much better than dual cores up to now but this goes for Intel too. Most users just can't use four cores (as most programms can't). Btw the native quad core design has some advantages as some (but few) applications that need the cores to havily communicate with each other run faster on Phenom. That's why the Barcelona isn't too bad for a server. And common you guys, AMD should allways loose against Intel as their budget is so much lower but new technologies aren't cheaper for them.
Ok so I'm average guy working an average job with an average family. I have responsibilities in life and money to spend elsewhere besides computers. For $230 AU dollars can you please find me a card from Nvidia that will blow my 3850 out of the water? The last time I checked Nvidia's sells the 8600GT's in that price range and guess what? My 3850 will annihilate any 8600GT and give a stock standard 8800GT a run for its money. Maybe in the land of the rich where I can go all out Nvidia become the best and even with unlimited money ATi can still give Nvidia a good push or 3. We're not all rich and famous that live in the land called Perfect. For the average Joe blow, ATi really are the perfect choice.
AMD certainly suited my budget, I was waiting for the 8800GT 256 to come out before I made up my mind, but at $80 more for a very minor speed advantage (one that might be lost when AMD drivers mature) it simply was not worth it, so 3850 it was, and I'm certainly not disappointed. I would say my 3850 is easily 50% quicker than my 8600GTS that actually cost me more money 6 months ago.
