And lots of em!
| MysteryByte Computers https://mysterybyte.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Behold...Numbers! https://mysterybyte.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1209 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | CMDR Steve-O [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Behold...Numbers! |
And lots of em!
|
|
| Author: | Monkeydee [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
depending on performance and pricing i may just get myself an X4 920 in the new year. since i already got the board, ram and everything else. |
|
| Author: | CMDR Steve-O [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
'Bout time they started throwing a bunch of cache on em, if only to make it look bigger. |
|
| Author: | Fx [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would like to know how these will compare to the core i7 in terms of performance. Hopefully the larger cache will increase performance. Is the die shrink and large cache the only architectural changes to the phenom? |
|
| Author: | CMDR Steve-O [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think from the techincal jargon I read in the article not much has changed, i don't think HT interconnects go to version 3.0 until much later in '09. |
|
| Author: | Dr_BenD_over [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
But these aren't the really important numbers. |
|
| Author: | Monkeydee [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dr_BenD_over wrote: But these aren't the really important numbers.
quite right. these are at least more consumer friendly numbers than the last ones. |
|
| Author: | skiman [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I see some initial benchmarks are starting to appear for the Phenom II X4 940. |
|
| Author: | Dr_BenD_over [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can't say I was terribly impressed by what I just saw. It still looks like 2 year old Intel tech is faster clock per clock. Awaits reviews... |
|
| Author: | skiman [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dr_BenD_over wrote: I can't say I was terribly impressed by what I just saw. It still looks like 2 year old Intel tech is faster clock per clock. Awaits reviews...
I agree, AMD provided a direct compare against a Q9400 @ 2.66GHz with their 940 at 3Ghz. With these results coming out so close to launch, I still hope this is only a bios optimization issue or driver issue which is responsible for the less than expected difference. Regarding the names, I find it odd they would use use a 900 series numbering system since intel's I7 also use the same ...920, 940, 965...Nothing like trying to confuse the less than savy consumer. |
|
| Author: | CMDR Steve-O [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They've been doing that for a long time. Who wants to buy a processor with a number like 540 when 740 sounds soo much faster. |
|
| Author: | skiman [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
CMDR Steve-O wrote: They've been doing that for a long time. Who wants to buy a processor with a number like 540 when 740 sounds soo much faster.
Under that rational, then why drop Phenom X4 20050 and replace that with a Phenom II X4 900? 20050 sound much more impressive than only 900. 
|
|
| Author: | odis172 [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GILETTE MACH FIVE TURBO SUPER EXTREME NITRO |
|
| Author: | CMDR Steve-O [ Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
|
|
| Author: | Dr_BenD_over [ Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm hoping that graph that's going around comparing the 940 to the 9300/9400 indicates it's price point. It might not be half bad then, once Intel finally EOL's the Q6600 that is. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|