mana la tau.. kot2 dah tkluaq kat US sana nunnn...

Eagerly anticipating as that should be almost time already.
Btw, still no official news, so still 50:50.

The naming and codings of the procs seem rather confusing...

haih...november so late ah.. this makes me wait longer...
planning to get a core 2...but this makes me think twice...

prefer to wait for a year plus or more after the launch
kena once last time, bought P4 when it was newly launched, freakin expensive, and it was socket 423 using RDRAM. a year later the RAM/Mainboard spoilt, and no shop carrying RDRAM nor Socket 423 Mainboard nemore, ended up changing the whole mainboard,ram, and processor to AMD platform

same here...
Im still using a P4

I don't see anything that indicates that it'll kick ass

True.

yeah. i don't see how the article even deserves a thread here. i'm really tempted to close it.

and seriously - save up money for the processor? that's probably the dumbest thing to do - planning to buy something that's so uncertain of how it'll perform.

from my POV - save up to take advantage of price slashes.

I won't wait. Agena is precisely what I WANT.
Multiple cores, better calculations, and most importantly does not cook hotdogs like current QXes do.

And screw DDR3 still. I don't want to wait until it gets mainstream and replaced swiftly by then DDR4.

Better calculations? Please elaborate.
And the parts running closer to 2.8ghz should be around 100W.

Definitely wrong wording, sorry. Meant clock to clock performance. AMD can die if they only par C2Q's clock performance. I'm estimating 15-20% which IMO is still a little pessimistic considering it's a generational gap (unlike Yorkfield, which preproduction testing says about 5-10% per clock over C2Q)
I'm taking the TDP values from Dailytech (WikiPee's Phenom article)


2.8 might be around 100W, but then Core 2 Quad's offerings would go around 115-125W then. I *think* Intel would just push Yorkfield exclusively to the mid/high end with the current C2Qs to cope with the low end, so there won't be much decrease in TDPs.

I won't even consider anything above 100W, so Intel has nothing to sell to me in terms of Quads. Quads are much better for digital content creation stuff possible. (Imagine After Effects AND Maya rendering at the same time= . It's toture on my Barton.)

Heck, I would pay AMD a premium if they'd just keep Q6700/Q6800 performance with the current 89W TDP.

And the sorry end of the story is by the time Phenom's out, we're gonna see 45nm Core 2 Whatever's. For C2D TDP is still rated about 65W but guess what for Core 2 Quad? 95W's so I'd suggest you consider rephrasing your arguments since you say Intel has nothing to offer to you in terms of performance/watt

QFT'ed: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070...ger-caches.html

This post has been edited by almostthere: Jun 23 2007, 06:33 PM

Sadly its still HyperTransport 1.0:cry: Maybe thats the reason it cant ouperform Intel V8 machine

So the answer is, Phenom:

I'm practically not buying yet so I'm not committed to anything, Penryn has me stoked a bit (especially for the 95W bit at 3+Ghz) but I'll still have to see consumer-product benchies, or even details first. There's a big possibility that they'll just push older QXes to low prices and keep the nice new ones on top (that cleared out Netburst stock rather fast), considering refresh specs are rather godly (lol).

AMD could do this too, leaving Phenom X2 for the consumer, but Intel's July (And probably another one in Q4) cuts will have to make them respond otherwise. If they both run cheap on consumer-grade, I'll give up and buy nothing for the fifth year.

What puzzles me is that C2Q's TDP has always been 2X the TDP of C2D. If this was logic applied, that's a double dosage of a mobile core. Which is even more puzzling when there's rumours on a mobile Penryn quad core for desktop replacements. Unless Penryn duo itself has gone back to 45W, a value that I could even give up quad-core for, as SSE4 should help media stuff up.

IIRC intel already has low power quad cores at 50W and 80W for servers. The TDP for the quad core chips doesnt have to be double of the dual core ones. They can just bin the better chips for use in the quad cores. Going for lower power reduces yields, especially on smaller processes due to increased leakage variability so i guess they are leaving it at 65W max for the regular dual core desktop chips to maximize yields.

But how come there's no news or articles about how good it will perform? I believe Conroe have last time, right?

And I'm freakin' hoping that Kuma will be at least on par with Conroe. Like 1.9GHz can go up to 3.4~3.6GHz maybe. If it does, that's a relief. If not, I'm pretty sure most ppl will opt to Intel instead and AMD is for budget oriented user, just like now

i dont know if amd quad will b able to compete with intel quad....since its not release yet and when the time it is released intel already slash their prices

I dont think with current stepping(B2) can oc that high coz they are struggling even at 2.8GHz. But hope new stepping(probably next year) will increase ocbility.

Roadmap for a$$ kicking phenom