Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Phenom II Available To Distributors This Week

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the making-my-computers-feel-even-slower dept.

AMD 114

jdb2 writes "Fudzilla reports that AMD's Phenom II is already available to distributors, and will be available to sell to consumers in the week of the 29th of December. The Phenom II is AMD's consumer version of its 'Shanghai' 45 nanometer SOI process Quad-core Opteron chip and will reportedly ship in 3 and 2.8 gigahertz flavors corresponding to the model numbers '940' and '920' respectively. This first release will be packaged as a Socket AM2+ part which only supports DDR2 memory. The following month AMD is reportedly going to release a new '9x5' series of Socket AM3 versions which support DDR3 memory — these will be backward compatible with Socket AM2+ . This may be an inflection point for AMD if the Shanghai architecture lives up to the performance numbers from preliminary reports and if so it will no doubt also be a welcome belated Christmas present for the already salivating hordes of Tech Junkies."

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (2, Funny)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246169)

Using new AMD processor.

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246221)

Using new Pentium II processor

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246281)

Using new Cyrix MII proce...*crash

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246489)

Frist post from Afhanistan on a Commodore 64.

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246725)

VIC-20 Rules!

Re:First Post (1)

HiggsBison (678319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247077)

SORD M223! So, there!

It will come down to clock speed. (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246197)

You can get a good AM2+ motherboard for under $100. DDR2 is cheap, and the price point for these CPUS is looking pretty good.
I doubt that they will beat an I7 but they may offer a great bang for the buck. Even before these came out AMD offered the best value in the good enough category.
You would be hard pressed to find a better value than one of the BE X2s on a 780G motherboard for an average user.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246285)

It will also drive the prices of their older CPUs down. Everybody wins!

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (4, Informative)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246407)

You can get a good AM2+ motherboard for under $100. DDR2 is cheap, and the price point for these CPUS is looking pretty good.

My primary home machine is an AM2+ Phenom 9950 BE overclocked to 3.0GHz. The Phenoms are easily overclocked using stock cooling - I spent only $900 on this machine including a 9800 GTX GPU, 2GHz 1066mhz RAM, and a WD Raptor HDD - and this box hauls ass. It easily smokes most Intel quad boxes I've seen that cost several hundred more.

I'll always run Intel on servers and what not - but for a workstation/desktop you can't go wrong with AMD. Hell, now that I think about it - I've had more stability problems with Intel than I've had with AMD. I guess it's time to re-think my server platforms.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247897)

"It easily smokes most Intel quad boxes I've seen that cost several hundred more."

Except, it doesn't smoke any Intel Quad, at all. That CPU is about the same speed as the *2 year old* Q6600 at stock speed (couple hundred extra MHz but less cache). Both overclock VERY similarly too. Almost no differences in benches all-around. Unless you were comparing your OC'ed CPU to a stock Intel, which is just as true as saying a Q6600 (once OC'ed) smokes every Phenom out there at any price point (at stock speed). In fact, it's more like your box gets smoked by an Intel that costs one hundred more...

The only real difference here, is that your new CPU uses significantly more power. The $20 you saved, you'll pay 10x back in extra power used.

It's kinda sad to see AMD's latest best offering that's 2 months old barely managing to compete with a 2 year old chip...

"I'll always run Intel on servers and what not - but for a workstation/desktop you can't go wrong with AMD."

Actually, it's EXACTLY the inverse! Opterons have always been much nicer: HT bus, NUMA architecture and everything else, up until now, with Intel's QPI bus. The funny thing is, now that it's going to start not sucking (Xeons), you're switching away from it? And on the desktop, Core 2 is just much better. You got it all COMPLETELY backwards!

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252297)

Except, it doesn't smoke any Intel Quad, at all.

Actually, it does. The i7 way outperforms the Phenoms - but I'm talking the old "Core" quad line.

You see, with the i7's - Intel actually got around to doing it right: true monolithic cores, and integrated memory controllers. AMD has been doing this for a while now. When you look at overall performance including memory access and peripheral/bus access - the Phenoms were ahead of the old Intel quads (which were just hacked-together dual core CPUs).

Unless you were comparing your OC'ed CPU to a stock Intel

I was.

It's kinda sad to see AMD's latest best offering that's 2 months old barely managing to compete with a 2 year old chip...

It's kind of sad to see a giant such as Intel following in AMD's architectural footsteps. Like I and others have said: "Intel works harder, AMD works smarter"

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254755)

When you look at overall performance including memory access and peripheral/bus access - the Phenoms were ahead of the old Intel quads (which were just hacked-together dual core CPUs).

So what when they still owned AMD cpus in any application/game benchmark (sure you may find a single one for some database server or whatever where AMD took the lead but there will be few scenarios. Fact is Intel perform better stock, waste less energy and overclock better.)

I was.

Why? Compare stock 9950 vs Q6600 or overclocked 9950 vs Q6600.

Intel works harder, AMD works smarter

Or maybe take a look at the PPC970?

Smarter indeed but who gives a fuck when it can't deliver? :D

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253527)

Well preliminary reports of the Phenom II look pretty promising. An OC'd Phenom II 940 at 3.85 GHz scored a 5,086 on 3DMark06[1]. While a Core i7 Extreme 965 CPU OC'd at 3.8 GHz scored a 6,608[2]. Now consider the Phenom II 940 is a AM2+ chip without a DDR3 controller which requires no motherboard upgrade for alot of people. Also the Phenom II 940 has been price ranged about ~$300[3] while the i7 965E costs $1,012.99[4] plus the motherboard/memory upgrade.

Just on 3DMark06/CPU cost ratio alone you get:

AMD 16.953 points per dollar
Intel 6.523 points per dollar

Looks like AMD is back.

[1]http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/23/amd-phenom-ii-processor-bought-benchmarked-coveted/
[2]http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/02/intels-core-i7-purchased-overclocked-benchmarked/
[3]http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2008/12/24/24idg-Retailers-beat.html
[4]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115200

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254779)

Looks like AMD is back.

As long as you ignore that they have no processor which get even close to the Intel offering or decide to compare the AMD chip to the price of a Intel chip with the same performance ...

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26255415)

As long as you ignore that they have no processor which get even close to the Intel offering or decide to compare the AMD chip to the price of a Intel chip with the same performance ...

Well assume the Phenom II 940 has similar performance to the i7 920 which cost around the same price ~$300. Again the i7 requires a new mb/ram which increases the real upgrade price to around $600. AMD still has them beat. But we'll have to see...

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

CoolGopher (142933) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254211)

"I'll always run Intel on servers and what not - but for a workstation/desktop you can't go wrong with AMD."

Actually, it's EXACTLY the inverse! Opterons have always been much nicer: HT bus, NUMA architecture and everything else, up until now, with Intel's QPI bus.

Indeed. I work for a high-endish network appliance shop, and the AMD Opterons have been the clear choice for us - having per-CPU memory controllers is such a massive performance gain when you're running memory I/O bound processes. We would've loved the extra CPU cycles from the current-gen Intels, but they're nowhere near enough to make up for the number of cycles we'd lose due to waiting for memory fetches. Now with Intel's i7 around the corner, we're looking at a very possible/probable shift over to Intel CPUs - those chips seem to seriously rock out and combine the best things from AMD with the best things from Intel.

On the home front I've been an AMD fan for the last however many years - after the P3 it's been all AMD. That is, up until the last system I assembled, where I ended up going for an Intel Q9450, since there really was no way I could justify sticking with AMD from a cost/performance view.

All I can say is that right now Intel is looking frighteningly good, and I hope it's not going to knock AMD over - I'm not keen on seeing Intel regain a monopoly position.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (2, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253863)

I run AMD on my highest demand boxes because the Hypertransport bus kicks the everloving crap out of a slow FSB for memory sharing between processors. I'm in good company, the NYSE runs much of their infrastructure on HP DL585's running linux. For high throughput processing on commodity hardware it's hard to beat. Intel might catch up around 2H'09 when they bring out the multiprocessor version of the i7.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254695)

Yeah go smoke that Q9550 ..

Or eventually even the Q6600..

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26255039)

Unfortunately there's no way to verify reading comprehension prior to comment submittal.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246445)

Posting as AC not to undo moderation. What motherboards were you thinking of, because I certainly can't think of any.

The cheapest AMD motherboard I found that doesn't come with garbage onboard video is either the Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 or the ASUS M3A79-T Deluxe ($150 and $190 last I checked). For that much money, you can get a REALLY nice board with an Intel P45 chipset, SATA RAID (ICH10R), heatpipes and everything else.

In fact, despite of their Phenoms having poor single core performance (and no better than a Q6600 for the most part), I think motherboard choice is their primary issue: the lack of any decent choice, at any price.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (2, Informative)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246495)

These [newegg.com] are pretty good choices, with solid capacitors in the power supply section. 128M sideport memory is optional.

Bottom line, you want a 790GX northbridge and a 750 southbridge.

Or, to get significantly cheaper and still really quite decent, you can go with one of these [newegg.com] . 780GX northbridge, 700 southbridge. Way south of $100.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246629)

Good choices indeed, if I want something with garbage onboard video. Like I said, there's nothing under $150 that doesn't come with that scrap onboard. Nice try though.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246799)

you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

onboard video is always going to be mediocre at best; Intel chipsets are no different. and actually the 790GX has much faster onboard video than anything Intel has to offer--including the more expensive G45. the P45 doesn't even come with integrated graphics.

FAR better option than anything AMD has to offer: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246823)

You clearly lack reding comprehension skills. I *NEVER* mentionned Intel onboard video ANYWHERE. Of course P45 doesn't come with garbage onboard video -- I call that a FEATURE (not coming with garbage is hardly a bad thing).

Anyways, I had a look at his fanciest AMD board, and I wonder how's that any better than an Intel board:

For about $20 more, you can get a ASUS P5Q-E, which has polymer caps thoughout as well, and 2x PCI-e 2.0 x16 with crossfirex too, but:
-FAR better brand than biostar, which just could be worth the extra $20 in the first place
-FAR, FAR better build quality (nice hotpipes too), that alone being worth the $20 extra for sure
-as far as I've seen, FAR nicer BIOS options & better support (be it for RMA or BIOS updates), again, easily worth $20 extra
-doesn't have ghetto onboard video (i.e. I would actually want to buy it)
-dual bios (no risks at all when flashing)
-2 more SATA ports
-has RAID (using the nice ICH10R)
-has toslink and spdif digital outputs (for sound)
-2 more USB ports
-has dual Gigabit ethernet
-has eSATA
-has firewire (1394a)
-one extra PCI-e slot (x4 too)
-better accessories bundled (three times as many SATA cables, and a dual SATA power adapter cable instead of a single)
-supports even faster DDR2
-*great* overclocker
-various small features, like the q-connector

Why would anyone want to cheap out and go with the ghetto AMD board instead is beyond me... In fact, I'm only seeing n00bs building AMD boxes these days, everybody else seems to go for the Core 2's.

Re:FAR better option than anything AMD has to offe (1, Insightful)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246917)

You clearly lack reding comprehension skills.

Mod parent "+1 Ironic"

Re:FAR better option than anything AMD has to offe (2, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246979)

um, if you don't want integrated graphics, you can just get the 790X--it's cheaper.

you might want to get a clue first before ranting off incoherently.

Re:FAR better option than anything AMD has to offe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247029)

Finally, someone with almost a clue!

newegg has exactly *ONE* motherboard with 790X: GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-DS4, and it's NOT actually cheaper than the boards he listed -- far from it, and it's only $10 less than the still nicer ASUS P5Q-E (more SATA, heatpipes, etc).

As of a matter of fact, I was already aware of that board. It just happens to be the *ONLY* AMD board somewhat close to "worth buying".

Nice try though. You all might start to see the light soon. AMD just DOESN'T have a nice board selection, much less a "cheap and good" one.

Re:FAR better option than anything AMD has to offe (1)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247341)

OK, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I'll bite. All the boards (they're really the same board with minor differences) I mentioned are value boards, not enthusiast boards. So counting cables and mentioning heatpipes is kindof pointless. Biostar is a second-tier brand for sure, but these motherboards seem reasonably well-engineered and reliable. My own intention is to run a linux server, so frankly I don't need much in the way of cute gamer features anyway. I just want support of Phenom II, good performance, support for lots of memory, and reliability. As to why Phenom II, it looks like the best value proposition in a long while. As to why AMD, because I prefer the alternative choice, always have. As to n00bishness, I don't think so. The first general-purpose computer I programmed ran at 1 Mhz. My first laptop ran at 0.6 Mhz. I've been at this racket a little while now.

Re:FAR better option than anything AMD has to offe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247439)

Biostar is a second-tier brand for sure, but these motherboards seem reasonably well-engineered and reliable.

That's an understatement. Even recommending them calls your credibility into question.

As to why AMD, because I prefer the alternative choice, always have.

So you're alternative because there is an alternative. Either you're Mother Theresa donating to the underdog or just an idiot. I'm thinking the latter.

As to n00bishness, I don't think so. The first general-purpose computer I programmed ran at 1 Mhz. My first laptop ran at 0.6 Mhz. I've been at this racket a little while now.

Oh give me a break. You just described half the Slashdot population. I've breadboarded machines from scratch... have you?

Back to the point: Biostar boards are junk. If you value your sanity, time, and data do not use them.

Re:FAR better option than anything AMD has to offe (2, Informative)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247507)

Old Biostar boards were junk. This generation looks much better engineered. But hey, if you don't like the Biostar 790xx, get whatever vendor you like in a 780xx. It still meets your originally-stated requirements. And, as a matter of fact, yes, I have breadboarded machines from scratch. Mine weren't for a grade. You? As to my support for AMD, it is a mix of reasons. Yes, some of it is supporting the underdog. But some of it is, as the underdog, AMD has to offer better value in order to compete against chipzilla. And with the Phenom II, they are moving up into the midrange desktop market again.

Re:FAR better option than anything AMD has to offe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26255845)

Unfortunately some retarded AMD fanboy got mod points, and you were modded down throughout for speaking the truth!

AMD motherboards suck HARD, and their processors can't barely compete with old Core 2 chips. New phenoms won't change any of that.

-1, uncomfortable truth

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246811)

Yes, Mr. Anonymous Uber-Gamer, I'm sure onboard video is not awesome enough for you. You need some add-on card that draws enough power to run an arc furnace. Or maybe a couple of them in SLI/Crossfire mode.

Seriously, for normal computing, onboard video is absolutely just fine. I have a 790GX, and it does absolutely everything I need it to, but then again I use my machine purely for development/engineering/graphics work, and no gaming. For that category, onboard and sub-100 is just fine.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246897)

I'm not a gamer at all, however onboard video still sucks balls:
-most modern OS'es make use of the GPU and its memory to draw Windows, and I don't want that to use my main memory
-new apps are also making use of the said video card, like photoshop CS4, and onboard is worthless here (I'm currently upgrading my vid card for that)
-engineering/CAD apps can also make use of it, i.e. OpenGL
-development? GPGPU or WPF, 'nuff said
-the kids sometimes like to play a game too (imagine that!), and yep, here again it sucks

I do mostly the same things (things you pretend to do anyhow), and onboard sucks hard for all of it. It's not 2001 anymore, we actually need GPUs now. Get a clue.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246963)

-If you are right, buy a card, disable the onboard, and don't whine. Ignore it. And what the hell is your experence? Onboard video can actually be respectable, more so than you give it credit.

That aside:
-Compiz/Aero/whatever indeed use GPU, but even a puny one can handle the load. It has to support certain featuresets, but it can be weak. Current Intel, nVidia, and AMD integrated graphics are well up to the task, though nVidia compiz has memory issues still. In terms of sharing your memory, DDR2 sticks are cheap for one, and for another, basic desktop functions don't mandate compiz/aero. You may disable the feature
-I can't speak to CS4, but I can't help to wonder if you are basing your experience on a really old integrated part, or Unicrome or similar. I suspect 780V/G would perform surprisingly well.
-For engineering apps, by all means buy a card and disable the onboard.
-For development, if your specific target environment will allow for it, by all means add the card.

For all you say we need GPUs, you seem not to realize the onboard parts are still GPUs. I would make the opposite argument, that in 2001 you pretty much required a discrete video card as no good vendors took that seriously and the tech was not advanced, but things have changed a lot. Some current onboard parts could trounce the high-end parts of the GeForce4 days.

BTW, my HTPC has an integrated GeForce 6150. It's no screamer, but it is surprisingly capable. And that is a relic by today's standards.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247779)

"If you are right, buy a card, disable the onboard, and don't whine"

Yes, pay for a board with worthless video you're going to disable, instead of paying the same for a Intel-based board with FAR better features & quality overall [slashdot.org]. Whatever... It's not whining, I'm just saying AMD's offerings SUCK, unless you happen to want onboard video over useful stuff... I really want to buy their stuff, but there's just no motherboard worth buying at the consumer level (there's some VERY nice dual Opteron boards, but too rich for my blood).

And for the record, Vista scores my 1 year old GPU which wasn't a "budget" card either, as the slowest part of my rig by FAR, even on "business graphics". And Photoshop CS4 complains it sucks. Onboard is even worse. And I don't particularly feel like sharing 512MB or more of my system RAM for that (I'm getting a card with 1GB), I don't think that's hard to understand. Nevermind onboard doesn't have dual DVI outs.

Yes, I realize onboard vid is still a GPU, I just got lazy with terminology :) But anyways. Back in 2001, XP didn't use the GPU to display stuff, there was no compiz fusion, photoshop didn't use a GPU, my existing CAD apps of the time didn't use OpenGL, we weren't decoding 1080p H.264, and pretty much everything was using plain old VGA connectors... My crappy Intel onboard video with a few MBs of shared RAM sufficed back then, but needs have changed a LOT since then. Onboard just doesn't cut it anymore.

Good post BTW. That was definitely the best in all the replies, and a pleasure to read :)

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26255187)

Uhm, except the GX-ones was even cheaper than X-ones. I doubt you pay a fortune for the integrated graphics ..

Regarding make use of the GPU OS X is pretty good at that so Apple makes sure to go back to integrated graphics and low VRAM just in case something better would actually be useful ..
But of course on a mac you can't fix that, with a 790GX atleast you can get a decent graphics card later on.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247391)

most modern OS'es make use of the GPU and its memory to draw Windows, and I don't want that to use my main memory

Actually, a good point. Which is specifically why I mentioned the optional sideport memory. As far as onboard video "sucking for games", that's getting less and less true, particularly with AMD's 780/790 GX. It really is a contender for casual gamers. In any case, my favorite game uses DirectX 6, so its kindof moot to me.

It will come down to Intel fanboys. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247929)

I actually am using the 796GX video.* It's not a discrete solution but it works well enough. As for why having it when one will disable it? How about for when your video card's being RMAd and you need to use your machine? Another is as someone indicated, HTPCs. Last occasionally a server will need video.

*Jetway MB. ASRocks nice too. Foxconn makes AMD boards and Foxconn is the company that makes boards for Intel. So the Intel Fan boys may just want to be quiet.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248089)

Wait... What? Graphics work? Uhh... Doesn't graphics work usually require some sort of processing power that a discrete solution provides? Oh, wait, I get it! You're working with MS paint to draw stick figures!

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246863)

So what's the problem with disabling the on-board video and installing your own card? I don't get it.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246913)

Why pay for complete trash you're going to disable when you can have MUCH nicer for the same price, i.e. your money (and space on the PCB board) going towards stuff that's actually useful instead?

See this comment [slashdot.org] for a quick comparison.

AMD is no cheaper in the end, and their hardware selection sucks REAL hard these days :(

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (2, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247011)

OK, but the AC above (you?) was complaining that (s)he couldn't find an MB for less than a hundred dollars. The linked one fits.

Why pay for complete trash you're going to disable when you can have MUCH nicer for the same price ....

Because the AC wanted proof that there was a motherboard available for under a hundred dollars to build the machine he was talking about. If you want a discreet graphic card, nothing is stopping you from using one.

AMD motherboards have always been more expensive than Intel ones. Sometimes the CPU+MB price comes out less, some years it doesn't.

Yeah, I read the linked post. You're still just wrong and argumentative. Some might even suggest trolling.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247215)

Me indeed. And no, I didn't just say under $100, there's plenty of garbage (for both AMD and Intel) under $100. Any idiot can find one in 30 seconds on newegg.

The point was, $100 or less, and *WITHOUT* the onboard video shit. Like I said:

"Good choices indeed, if I want something with garbage onboard video."

and:

"The cheapest AMD motherboard I found that doesn't come with garbage onboard video"

I thought that was pretty clear. I'm not wrong at all, but hey, you keep thinking that.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (3, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247333)

You were clear, just not lucid. On-board video doesn't make a difference if you're not going to use it. Other people have told you the same.

You don't have to use the RAID on your board either. It sucks, too. Would you refuse to buy a board simply because it had the option of using RAID? Do you want an MB with just the number of PCI or RAM slots you plan to use, too? What if it has PS2 and a serial port you don't want?

You're just being argumentative. Get a life.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247503)

Because the onboard video *REPLACES* other features that actually ARE useful, and I'd rather pay for those instead (yes, silly me, wanting to spend my money on USEFUL stuff instead of junk!)

And no, onboard RAID doesn't suck for levels 0 or 1 (it's just not great for RAID 5 or such as it uses the CPU to do the XOR'ing). Serial? Actually, I wish it had it: it's actually useful, unlike onboard video, but then again, when you have onboard video, there's no place for that connector on the back panel (yes, I know, that's hard for you to grasp).

Onboard video = less space for SPDIF, TOSLINK, USB2 ports, serial and parallel, eSATA, Firewire, ethernet and everything else that I WILL actually use. Even without onboard video, they often have to resort to putting some ports on brackets.

Yes, that means many extra nice features and onboard video are *MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE*.

Would you buy a car that sacrifices all the nicer features for one pointless feature you're clearly NEVER going to use, don't want of, and are going to disable first thing? You wouldn't mind your dollars going to waste on that either, instead of the useful stuff? You wouldn't mind the extra weight of lugging it around for no reason? Especially when it doesn't even save you any money? Exactly.

You call it "being argumentative", I like to call it "getting my money's worth" or "not spending my money on crap I don't want of when you can get nicer for the same price". Or perhaps it's just that you don't care what you spend your money on.

Clearly, you were wrong all along, but are refusing to admit it :)

But hey, you keep thinking you're right :) Onboard video still makes a big difference.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (2, Informative)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247563)

So, the problem for you comes down to space on the ATX I/O shield? Well, if that's your biggest gripe, yeah, sure, onboard video takes up a lot of backplate real estate. But it seems rather a silly complaint to me. I figure someone like you would already have a drive bay faceplate with all the desired connections. They are more convenient there than on the back of the computer anyway. As far as "getting what you pay for", basically AMD has priced their chipsets to where the onboard video is essentially free at retail. So it doesn't really cost you extra. That's why there are so few non-integrated options out there. There is no economic reason to build them.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26255559)

Onboard video = less space for SPDIF, TOSLINK, USB2 ports, serial and parallel, eSATA, Firewire, ethernet and everything else that I WILL actually use. Even without onboard video, they often have to resort to putting some ports on brackets.

Onboard video is just not that big a deal. Yes, it takes up some space on the I/O shield, but who really cares?

The standard motherboard I buy for my AMD systems is an ASUS, and it comes with a serial port header on the motherboard. You can hook that up to something and have a serial port. I have lots of unused card slots anyway, and I could always mod my case and put the serial port on the case itself if I was really worried about card slots.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247371)

The onboard video is a freebie dumbass. Unless you have difficulty understanding which plug to hook your monitor up to, you shouldn't have an issue just plugging in your lvl9000 UBAR CARD.

Its part of the AMD southbridge. A board without onboard video would probably indicate that its a piece of crap.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247595)

And shit onboard video means you don't have any place for a decent set of ports on the back panel, dumbass. Sure, if you don't mind not having eSATA, less USB, no firewire and all that, to have shit onboard video you're not going to use instead, by all means!

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248699)

I have 12 USB ports. I could lose half of those and still be quite happy because I'm only using 3 (that's including occasional plug-ins - I only use 1 most of the time, and that's my mouse which could go to PS2 if necessary). I have no firewire or eSATA devices nor do I know anyone that does.

To me this argument looks like: "I want to spend $100 on a board with X set of features that I won't use, but for $100 they'll only sell me a board with Y set of features that I won't use, and they want me to pay $150 if I want to not use X features".

The original point was whether or not you could get a board for $100 - if you're building on a budget then onboard graphics is a useful feature, because it immediately saves you from having to cough up for a stand-alone graphics card. OTOH firewire, eSATA and oodles of USB ports are probably features which you don't want. (And when I say 'you', I don't actually mean you personally; I mean a consumer who isn't being deliberately obtuse)

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254571)

My board actually has all of those, as well as optical audio input and output, and HDMI output. The HDMI came in handy to output to my projector, that way I can get digital video out of my HD 3870 without sacrificing my secondary monitor.

And, spent less than $90 USD on it.

Come to think of it, there is another advantage. I can specify 32mb of ram for the onboard, so I dont loose another 512/1024mb chunk of my 4GB to the 32bit ram tax.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248127)

There's no such thing as "free", especially when it comes to hardware. Companies spent good money developing/testing/building/shipping the onboard video and they aren't about to do all that work for "free". If it was really "free" you'd be able to purchase it without the video and opt-in to have onboard video at no additional cost. So no, it's not a freebie...dumbass.

What are ye, nuts?! (2, Interesting)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247481)

NOOO! Anything but Biostar! Seriously.

If you get one that makes it to the end of the 90 warranty period, count yourself lucky!

This summer I needed a socket 478 (don't ask... broke college student) mobo, so I went down to the computer shop down town. I told the guy I needed a motherboard, any motherboard, cheap and before the end of the day. The guy says, "Well, we've got a few biostar for $50". There was a very awkward silence for about 10 seconds and I finally said, "Ummmm... got anything else?"
"For $90 we've got one MSI left."
"Sold."
"Good choice; those biostar boards always come back to us." (or something to that effect)

Re:What are ye, nuts?! (1)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247609)

Yeah, for that generation, Biostar was in the same league as ECS, i.e. garbage. But the real problem with most of the cheapo boards from that generation (and some of the name brands too, for that matter) was the power regulation capacitors. That is much less likely with the solid capacitors Biostar is using in the power section of the boards I referenced. Modern AMD CPUs and chipsets also consume less power, so the power section is less stressed anyway. Trust me, I had the same feelings about Biostar. But this generation really seems to be different.

Re:What are ye, nuts?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248625)

I don't know what you're talking about. I bought a socket 478 Biostar motherboard so that I could add PCIe to my Pentium 4. It's been going 24/7 for a couple of years now without a single problem.

Re:What are ye, nuts?! (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254393)

Try getting a Biostar main in rebate too. Over a year and still waiting on mine.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247639)

I looked at i7 motherboards a few days ago, and the prices on them are absolutely absurd. Basically, they range from $300 to $500, plus they require DDR3 memory, which is still several times more expensive than DDR2 memory, so you toss in 12G of memory (~$550-$800 for DDR3) and you're already well over $1000... just for the motherboard and RAM!

In comparison, you can grab an AM2 motherboard for anywhere between $70 and $300, and you can drop in 8G of matched DDR2 for a paltry $200. Even ignoring the fact that Phenoms cost less than i7s, you've already saved nearly $1000, though you end up with slightly less RAM.

To be honest, I think you'd have to be crazy to build an i7 system over a Phenom system at the moment, or you just really like spending $1000 for another 10-20% more speed.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249735)

Price/performance can be a slippery thing but is certainly the most relevant item for anyone on a budget, but performance in what regard? A quick comparison of the cpu charts on Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] shows that the newer quad core AMD X4 9950 gives virtually the same FPS performance score on crysis as the dual core 6000+. If you go down the charts point by point, you can easily see where the extra cores come in handy and where they don't. I'm sure a lot of people are mainly interested in gaming performance and I was rather surprised to see the relative lack of FPS improvement in this area for Crysis and other titles.

I read an article a long time ago claiming that people don't really notice a difference until something works about twice as fast as what they're used to. This makes sense from a purely human perspective and gaming enjoyment is certainly human thing. I've found that there isn't really a "wow" unless you simultaneously upgrade the cpu, ram and video card to something rated at roughly twice the power as the old machine. The trick is to wait until the new machine costs the same to build as the old one.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

Deagol (323173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246627)

Hey, maybe you can offer some advice for someone who's been out of the purchasing loop for a while. I'm too busy to bother buying components, and I want to order a half-decent system w/o an OS (I run FreeBSD) that's ready to go. I'm due for an upgrade this year and I think I'll have a decent enough tax return to make it happen.

Currently, I have a AMD64 3200+ (2.0GHz), 4GB, 320GB HD. I usually try to wait until I can quadruple my main specs for a reasonable outlay of cash, and I think the time may be right. I'm partial to AMD, so I'm hoping I can get a Phenom X4 quad 2.5GHz w/ 16GB and a pair of 1TB disks -- in a shuttle case, if that's even possible. Video is pretty much unimportant, as I can't get accelerated 3D in FreeBSD/amd64 anyway. I'm shooting for $1000, give or take a couple hundred. Is this close to the mark, or am I looking at a lot more?

Any pointers on decent vendors? I checked out Dell, and they seem to only do Intel (plus, I felt a bit dirty going to Dell, anyway). Are there any particular motherboards or chipsets to avoid? I have an Asus now, but they seem to be hit or miss with quality anymore (or so I've heard).

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246729)

I tend to build my own and I use Linux not BSD. I would look at at a 780G board. I have had good luck with Asus.
The good news is that work on the GPL ATI drivers is comming right along. Hopefully that will help BSD as well

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (2, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247001)

Don't know about affordably getting to 16GB in a single socket board. Most boards in that space have 4 dimm slots and 4 GB dimms are relatively expensive. I don't know about the shuttle cases, I don't require that small a packaging and I have historically found larger cases more convenient for maintenance and thermal management (and expense of repairs, blowing a power supply in a weird form factor sucks). If you get AMD graphics, you may have some 3D capability in BSD (nVidia too maybem but options are more open ended in AMD currently). That said, onboard ATI graphics should be more than enough for light 3d stuff.

I'm personally waiting for Phenom II DDR3 parts to come and evaluating a purchase. I'm dubious of the cost of DDR3, but wanting to see what the market does as Core i7 and AMD both ramp up to using it commonly.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

GPSguy (62002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26250357)

I expect DDR3 to come in real expensive in real sizes. I suspect the original poster for this subthread isn't giving us all the requirements, but I don't see 16GB in a home machine anytime soon (I'm still doing a lot of useful work with servers in 8GB). I'm partial to Linux and have done a lot with the nVidia hardware of late for 3d, recommend that for a solution. With Linux, requires the "tainted" nVidia drivers, but damn, does it scream.

Ehh.. (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26250911)

Depends, if the DDR3 manufacturers ramp up, it could come down to earth. Either way, I wouldn't count on 4GB DIMMs.

On nVidia, I am using it, but my AMD system is now behaving sane (the binary drivers aren't terrible anymore, the open drivers for R500 are 'ok' for compiz and the like. The nVidia drivers on the other hand seem to have been causing me problems (compiz title bar and window corruption at scale I don't see with the ATI/AMD drivers, some weird hiccups on 3D apps).

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247251)

for $1000 get a core i7. no contest.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247425)

With 16 Gb of RAM. Unh Huh. I'd like to see that built with a Core i7 for less than $1k.

You Are Batshit Insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248139)

That's all I need to say. Batshit insane. 16GB of RAM? Are you kidding? Good luck finding cheap 4GB sticks that work.

Re:It will come down to clock speed. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254681)

Even before these came out AMD offered the best value in the good enough category.

No. In the budget category? Yes.

Some people may consider the budget category good enough but in the "best bang for the buck" category Intel leads somewhat.

I want one :) (1)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246207)

I want one :)

Please sign me up!

Me too. [was Re:I want one :)] (1)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246227)

These folks [shopblt.com] look like they are about to start selling them. They have been saying they are due in stock today for a week now. I have no experience with them, so caveat emptor. The guy from Newegg I asked last night couldn't tell me when they would have stock. But I do notice a distinctive downward trend in Phenom X4 9xxx processors here in the last couple of days. Might be a clue.

125 watts! (2, Interesting)

mikedep333 (1432269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246317)

According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_AMD_Phenom_microprocessors [wikipedia.org] It uses 125 Watts of power! The hot & noisy prescott was around 100 watts. I think I'll go with a nice 95 watt core 2 quad, or the upcoming c2q model at 65 watts.

Re:125 watts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246467)

No offense, but how can a processor be noisy?

Re:125 watts! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246517)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

how can a processor be noisy?

By creating enough heat that the fan speeds up.

Re:125 watts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26250195)

Then I would blame the power company for being noisy. They supplied the electricity to heat the CPU.

No wait... lets blame the uranium atom. It starts that power process. So, U is noisy.

No wait, U comes from other sources (God, earth, big bang, name it), so they are noisy.

Such a silly reply. CPUs are not noisy to us. Maybe on some quantum level it is noisy, but definitely not to us.

Re:125 watts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246559)

No offense, but how can a processor be noisy?

Well, the hotter the processor the harder the fan has to work to cool it. The fan can be very noisy.

This is actually why I now use Intel. My old desktop was an Athlon 64 and noisy as hell, as well as heating up the room enough to require a noisy window ac unit to counteract the heat. I replaced it with a ThinkPad with a Core 2 Duo and haven't had to use the window ac since, plus, even when I have both cores stressed out the thing is damn near silent.

My job bought me a HP Pavilion tx2000 tablet with an AMD Turion X2 and even when doing basic tasks you can hear the fan and feel the heat coming from it. When I stress that thing it's louder than my old desktop and almost as hot.

I'd rather support AMD, but they really need to focus on heat and power consumption. Until they do I'm only buying Intel.

Re:125 watts! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26246497)

TDP != power usage. it might draw that (or more even), but its not necessarily drawing that on average.

It's the max expected under normal conditions for thermal dissipation.

Re:125 watts! (4, Informative)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246545)

Let me remind you that the Prescott was 103 Watts (@3.2GHz) for *ONE* *SLOW* core.
Any comparison between that Netburst crap and today's processors from both companies is absurd.
That said, Intel is currently ahead in the game in both max performance and TDP, so Phenom is good for existing AM2+ upgrades or for more "budget conscious" scenarios. For the sake of all of us I hope AMD catches up (I am old enough to remember CPU prices from when Intel had no competiti).
In any case you should be more worried about the current graphics cards that tend to require twice the power of the CPU... :)

Re:125 watts! (5, Informative)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246639)

Always remember AMD measures power consumption differently from Intel, AMD's number is more like a max envelope value while Intel's numbers are a type of average.

These guys [google.com] found that a 45nm engineering Phenom II drew 24W less than a 9600 under load.

We have both Phenoms and C2Qs at work and I don't notice any difference in the noise. Maybe I would at home where it's quieter.

Concur.. (4, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246869)

In fact, we deal with both AMD and Intel servers, and under benchmarking conditions, we allegedly make the Intel parts exceed TDP.

The problem is that TDP became a marketing point and thus Intel abandoned the original intent. It was supposed to allow systems vendors to plan how many CFM and how good a heat sink would be needed to dissipate all the heat in a worst case scenario. To AMD's credit, they have a metric they call 'ACP' to indicate their analogous figure to Intel's TDP. I like that better in theory than just abandoning TDP.

That said, for Intel and AMD, I wonder what they consider 'typical' loads. In the end, a breakdown of what clock speeds and what percentage of time is in C1 and such would be appreciated to know what to expect. Knowing what the CPU uses at each clock, with about 0% of time in sleep states and near 100% would let me compare a bit better than a single oversimplified number.

Re:Concur.. (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247129)

The real important number that we don't see reported very often, is what does the CPU consume when idle? I just got a 4-core phenom, and it sits at about 120 watts all day long, which is about the same as my athlon x2 which preceded it. Of course, it goes up to 200 watts or so when I'm really stressing the CPU, but as far as the power bill goes that's pretty irrelevant if I'm not crunching numbers all day long.

(I have a strange power supply that I found at a garage sale that's conveniently equipped with an analog watt meter that fits in one of the drive bays in the front of the computer.)

Re:Concur.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248243)

I have found that AMD figures are *much* closer to realized performance that Intel. In fact I just don't trust Intels claims at all. I don't need a cpu to be fast and use less power for some benchmark, i need it to do that with our code. You at least need a intel compiler and yet they still have underperformed from claimed specs.

Motorola were better than both.

ps This is for cluster work with 100% cpu usage's almost 24/7

Re:125 watts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248063)

firstly i have never heard of anyone that can be taken seriously measuring power consumption by the noise level of the computer

secondly since the phenoms came out you have to be careful with amd's reported consumption as they have a secondary metric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_CPU_Power [wikipedia.org]

Re:125 watts! (2, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246715)

I think I'll go with a nice 95 watt core 2 quad, or the upcoming c2q model at 65 watts.

How much power does the off-chip memory controller draw on that 95-watt core 2 quad?

Re:125 watts! (4, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246903)

Though still not perfect, you'd have to compare Intel TDP numbers to AMD 'ACP' numbers. Intel screwed with the point of TDP for marketing purposes and they have the leverage with OEMs to pretty much do as they damn well please, even if it makes OEM life harder.

Secondly, the Core2 isn't comparable in featureset. Notably, it requires a memory controller on motherboard which tends to have a significant amount of power in and of itself. So you'll have to jump to Core i7 parts, which currently advertise a 130W TDP, presumably largely in part due to bringing the controller in.

Thirdly, the current gen phenoms even include 65W parts at reduced clock. I would not doubt that, if not at launch, shortly thereafter lower-wattage parts will come out. Even if not, underclocking may be an option.

All said and done, AMD has something kind of compelling in various ways. I don't think it will take back the performance lead, but Intel is taking some hits in trying to get an equivalent architecture together. Will have to wait for AM3 to have complete apples-to-apples benchmarks for i7 and Phenom II, but I don't think it will be that much closer than it is today.

Re:125 watts! (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26248553)

Considering that the BeagleBoard is fast enough for a lot of casual users and draws 1.8W for the entire system, I really do wonder what the other 100W or so gets you. If I want speed at any cost, POWER6 is more attractive. If I want good performance-per-Watt, the Cortex A8 line is more attractive. Unless you want to run Windows, there doesn't seem to be much attraction in x86 chips anymore.

Re:125 watts! (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254007)

Performance per dollar, duh. POWER6 might be great chip but they go into IBM servers that cost an absolute fortune, we had IBM come in and price out a scalable box for our ERP system and they came in at 3x what the HP/Windows and Sun/Solaris offerings were priced at!

the opterons were already available (1)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246337)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=Shanghai&x=13&y=32 [newegg.com] [newegg.com]

The opterons were already available at much higher prices of course.

Re:the opterons were already available (3, Funny)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246361)

Higher price... Incompatible socket... Lower frequency...
What's not to like?

Re:the opterons were already available (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246955)

Having two of them in my computer right now.

Re:the opterons were already available (1)

metallurge (693631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247619)

Fair enough. ;-)

Re:the opterons were already available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26248145)

Maybe the OP is a fruit lover and enjoys eating both apples and oranges.

Inflection? (3, Funny)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26246891)

This may be an inflection point for AMD...

An inflection is where the 2nd derivative of a function changes sign ie the curvature is zero.

I think the summary meant minima, that's where the first derivative is zero if the curve is smooth. That would mean it changes from going down to going up.

Unless we are talking about AMD's rate of change of growth which could go from shrinking faster and faster to shrinking slower and slower at an inflection. I guess that could be seen as a good thing these days for them.

Slow day I'll go away now.

Re:Inflection? (2, Informative)

jdb2 (800046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26249409)

This may be an inflection point for AMD...

An inflection is where the 2nd derivative of a function changes sign ie the curvature is zero.

I think the summary meant minima, that's where the first derivative is zero if the curve is smooth. That would mean it changes from going down to going up.

Err, no shit sherlock. :) You probably mean no offense, but I've been studying advanced mathematics ( at the graduate/doctoral level now ) for over a decade.

Anyway, I meant inflection point.

If you take AMD's health as a function of time , say , h(t), then for the past year or more the derivative has been negative, and growing more negative. If the Phenom II launch is indeed the catalyst for an AMD "turn around", then naturally the derivative h'(t) will reverse sign and begin to increase. This represents AMD's "putting their gears into reverse" and "stepping on the gas" -- they have to dissipate their accumulated downward momentum in order to eventually gain positive, increasing momentum.

jdb2

Re:Inflection? (2, Funny)

afaiktoit (831835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26251441)

I feel like I've stepped into an XKCD comic.

so wrong (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252763)

I've been studying advanced mathematics ( at the graduate/doctoral level now ) for over a decade.

Most graduate programs I've seen require completion of the degree for which one is a candidate within 5 years, maybe 6. The reader may reasonably infer from your claim that a) you've had enough time to earn such a degree twice over, and b) that you have not done so because having done so would give you an honest claim even greater than the one you've actually made here. I fully realize that the question of having such a degree is orthogonal to the question of possessing competence-- period--, and this illustrates in part why one should never argue from authority.

But we're talking about elementary calculus here, not topology or algebras or anything so rarefied. There's no reason to berate the claim about the [local] minim[um] value of h(t):

...for the past year or more the derivative has been negative, and growing more negative.

(Emphasis mine.)
I disagree: h(t) has units of "performance somehow compared to Intel's performance", and AMD's xx50 series have been competitive at their and profitable at their position in the mid-range market as with the X2s in the low-end market. h'(t) has been negative because overall marketshare loss driven by Intel's aggressive product releases (5200/7200/8x00), but your claim that h''(t) is negative is too strong. But this is all an aside; let's say you're right, for the sake of your argument:

If the Phenom II launch is indeed the catalyst for an AMD "turn around"...

Yes, by definition "turning around" means changing from decreasing to increasing, and not merely decreasing the rate of change of decrease. Therefore, the claim that h(t) will experience a local minimum [that h'(t) = 0 is coming] was true.

It's not very interesting to note that there will be an inflection point before h'(t) goes positive if h''(t) is negative, because even though that "if" is actually *false*, it's the slope of h(t) we're talking about in the first place! Any niggling disagreement about the present nature of h''(t) is irrelevant.

The momentum analogy is predicated on your claim that AMD's suck has been increasing locally, so 1) this is disputed, and 2) either way, the analogy is inapt because momentum changes can exhibit behavior you don't seem to allow: while it is well-understood by this late date that there is "no" [i.e. fanboys only] brand loyalty in computing, whether AMD-Intel or ATI-Nvidia. We're not guaranteed that h(t) is even differentiable for t corresponding to product launches. In your analogy, this is a perfectly elastic 1D collision of a point particle.

Human intuition about momentum is (clearly!) insufficiently general for momentum to make a good analogy for reasoning about non-physical phenomena.

Recapping:
1) the claim you were refuting was correct
2) you used a spurious and non-generalizable argument in your attempt at (1)
3) your claim of expertise in mathematics is likely false, as evidenced by (2)
4) you don't understand the aspect of the computer industry about which you are making a claim here and in the article summary
5) likely due to (3) and (4), your particular claim about the computer industry is trivial, wrong, or both

And using an emoticon-smiley doesn't absolve you of being a jerk about it all above and beyond being right or wrong. The comment to which you were responding should have been modded insightful, not funny. Don't pull punches that need to be thrown, in the first place don't throw punches that shouldn't be thrown.

Re:so wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26255605)

I've been studying advanced mathematics ( at the graduate/doctoral level now ) for over a decade.

Most graduate programs I've seen require completion of the degree for which one is a candidate within 5 years, maybe 6. The reader may reasonably infer from your claim that a) you've had enough time to earn such a degree twice over, and b) that you have not done so

I don't believe he (odds are good it really is a "he") was saying he had been studying math at the doctoral level for ten years. He said he had been studying advanced math for over a decade, at the doctoral level now. If we assume a Bachelor's degree in math, then a Masters degree in math, and assuming you don't have some rule like "no math is advanced below doctoral level", his claim seems possible to me. (If badly worded)

this illustrates in part why one should never argue from authority.

I agree completely that one should never argue from authority. I don't think he was doing so here. He was saying, in essence, "I really do know what I'm talking about" but he didn't stand on that; he went on to explain why he used the terminology he used.

I'm a bit snowed by all this math (calculus was a long time ago for me) but I'll just say: don't get worked up over small stuff. This seems like small stuff to me.

Wait for 95Watt AM# (5, Interesting)

kolbe (320366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26247041)

AMD is standing behind and embracing the AM3 socket, the main feature of which is the addition DDR 3 memory support.

It should be noted that AMD has previously stated that while Socket AM3 processors will work in Socket AM2/AM2+ motherboards, not all AM2/AM2+ processors will be supported by AM3 motherboards. By this time the price of DDR3 RAM might have fallen to a point where itâ(TM)s affordable.

With Intel changing sockets like its going out of style, AMD has done an excellent job making their products extremely compatible between generations. As such, it's kept many "budget" PC builders somewhat loyal, including myself.

If you buy one of the current AM2+ socketed Phenom II CPU's, you have a very good chance that you will be able to throw it in a new AM3 socket motherboard when they come out before March'09.

None the less, I'm a fickle fool and will wait until AM3 is out... what's 2 more months anyway?

Re:Wait for 95Watt AM# (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26250891)

Quote:
AMD has done an excellent job making their products extremely compatible between generations.

Maybe recently, but in the not so distant past socket 754 (or whatever) and socket 939 (remember that? impossible to find now if you need to replace one) was a mess. Upgrading CPU = new motherboard. Maybe AM2/+/3 fixes that - but I doubt it.

Re:Wait for 95Watt AM# (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252711)

Intel is is switching sockets again because they are finally doing what AMD did and integrating the memory controller on chip -> their new bus similar to hyper transport with Nehalem (forget what they call it, but it's been planned for over 2y now, and it's FINALLY coming out).

I expect to see AMD's comparitive performance to drop even further now. AMD is in SORE need of a big idea that gets them some real performance gains at this point, or they're heading the way of Via.

Shop Around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26247267)

newegg newegg newegg that's all I ever hear when people talk about buying IT gear, like they stock EVERYTHING ever made. Living in Australia I'm sick of hearing/seeing the name newegg, I checked them out a few times and the comparison products and prices were shite. Don't get me wrong they DO stock some rather nice and nifty technology BUT.

I've always used staticice, hell I've found google to be better at finding what I want rather than going through some wholesalers or retailers.

Re:Shop Around (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254033)

You might get a better price on an individual component but newegg generally has very competitive prices for a whole PC build and they have an excellent customer service department and pretty fast shipping (generally next business day, second at the latest in my experience). They also tend to not jerk you around unlike many of bottom barrel priced competitors. Towards the end of my system builder days it was worth the extra couple dollars per order to know I would get what I ordered, when I ordered and would be able to get an RMA quickly and without complaint if I ran into a problem with a component.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?