Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Here's a little Day Brightener for all the AMD fans. Sales of AMD Processors now account for more than 30% of overall sales, for the first time in a long time! Go AMD!!

Best Regards,
Russ

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

not surprised phenom IIs are very very good, esp the new dual cores, which id take over an intel any day. and they can unlock 2 cores!

for a new budget build, be it gaming or not, id take the new 550X2 BE over an E73/400.


i mean unlocking 2 cores, thats amazing. for such a small price aswell.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

wall paper is sexy :D

is yours not an athalon X2? im sure only properly the phenom X2s unlock.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

got ya. how about the PII X2 550BE?

---

Quote:

---

I'll be honest, the new round of CPUs is fabulous. It's been a long time but I can genuinely now say AMD are back in the game. I still don't believe in unlocking cores, it's too board specific, but stock performance wise, to see AMD competing with the high-end Intels, very good news. Quads are still a little bit on the weak side as they use so much damn power and are reluctant to OC, but the Triple-cores are very good value, and I'm loving the 65W 'e' range for AM3.

---

Originally posted by Estuansis:

---

Quote:

---

I'll be honest, the new round of CPUs is fabulous. It's been a long time but I can genuinely now say AMD are back in the game. I still don't believe in unlocking cores, it's too board specific, but stock performance wise, to see AMD competing with the high-end Intels, very good news. Quads are still a little bit on the weak side as they use so much damn power and are reluctant to OC, but the Triple-cores are very good value, and I'm loving the 65W 'e' range for AM3.

---

Haha I'm glad you think so :P

AMD made a mistake with Phenom. Rushed design led to bugs, low OC headroom, and mediocre performance. There were a few decent deals here and there but not much worth considering. Phenom II has seen major strides in performance, stability, efficiency, and OC headroom. They still match maybe the 1st gen Core 2 Duos/Quads(E6750/Q6600) but they also closely match the OC potential. I'm hopeful this can mean further refinements on the architecture.

---

Originally posted by omegaman7:

---

First, let me apologize for asking a question I should probably know by now. I have a rather selective memory LOL! E.g. when I ask the questions, I have a much stronger chance of remembering them. Is this a good score here??? What's a good/recommended program for runnning SuperPI? Funny, I get the feeling i've asked this before LOL!

Oh, something interesting. It took 15 sec, on XP, though there are at least 4-5 more programs running in the background. This was ran via Windows 7 :D

---

Originally posted by omegaman7:

---

Sorry about that. Im new to this particular software :)
Hows this?

---

Originally posted by omegaman7:

---

I didn't run the 32M test. It appeared that it was gonna take longer than I wanted to give it dedicated time LOL! When Im running bench marks, I dont like interfering with the results. I fear of tainting them. I'll run one in the morning, then post again. Although, something tells me its gonna be in the 22 minute range.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Realistically, AMD are doing far better in the dual and triple core markets than quad cores still. Intel pricedropped the Q8 series significantly which renders the X4 940 and X4 920 a bit on the poor side, especially the 920 as it was never price-slashed. The 905e is an awesome CPU, a 65W fully fledged quad core, but is rather expensive. Still, arguably it can be, since its rival, the Q8200S, is more expensive still (Intel really ought to bring that down considering how good value the other S series Quads are)
The 955 is certainly a fast CPU rivalling the Q9550, but with the decrease in cost of the Q9550, performance/£ is about the same, and the 40% overclockable 90W CPU is more attractive than the 20% overclockable 125W CPU.
Because CPUs like the E6750 are old, the AMDs never had a particularly hard time beating them. What's different about this new architecture is that it can take the present Wolfdale CPUs. the 7750 and 7850 could match the E5200 and E5300 budget CPUs but little else and as such, were crazy cheap, but overclocking was pretty much a non-event due to the Phenom I architecture and the less said about power consumption the better.
The new 65W chips are still a lot less efficient than the Intels they rival but it's nowhere near as bad as it was and the performance they offer is comparatively remarkable. The £80 Phenom II 550 is taking on £100 giants like the E7500 and doing very well at it. Overclocking still leaves a bit to be desired, but keep things stock and an AMD system is every bit as worthwhile a purchase as an Intel. Or is it? The rather unfortunate revelation about new CPUs requiring AM3 is a little disappointing. Granted, it is nowhere near as much of a setback as i7 CPUs requiring LGA1366 but it's still a bit of a downer.
There's nothing to stop you putting any AM2+ chip in a £60 board, the MA770-UD3 is quite a nice option for that. AM3 though, it's about a £90 starting point in most places for the full fat 790GX chipset, not to mention the cost of DDR3. That's a shame because a high end architecture like that really has no business being mandatory for cheap £60,£75 dual core CPUs.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I have to ask, why did it take testing to find this out, couldn't AMD have made it clear to start with? :S

---