Originally posted by sammorris:

---

http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/AMDSupportHub.aspx
Jeff: nearly, but not quite the same I don't think. It's difficult to tell, since the newer drivers have cut performance back a tad. Either way, the benchmark tests illustrate it's a bigger problem for some games than others. The fact there is a difference means it is always better (no matter how little better) to have more bandwidth for this generation of cards, let alone the next.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Yet another difficulty though, you have to admit, it being a simple case of plug in, easyflash, update BIOS and done is rather simpler :P

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

the 865 chipset though is so old it's almost going back to the 939 days. We're comparing current tech to current tech. This is all AM2+ and AM3 technology, which is no more than a year and a bit old. All of Intel's boards in that time for 775 have been in the 30 or 40 series, and thus, pretty much all of them apart from obscure ones will take any CPU, it just might need a BIOS flash to show up in windows correctly. For this reason, it takes someone to be quite dumb to get it wrong with an Intel. With an AMD, I'm still not sure I'd get it right even now.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

im sorry russ but i do not recall ever saying that a new chip should have a new socket. i7 needed a new socket, due to its archetecture, IE using a QPI and an IMC in the CPU.

but i do think they are wrogn from brigning in 1156.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

too much tobacco in me.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I remember the post as well, though I don't remember exactly what was said, and it was more an explanation of why it's sensible that a new cpu design should have a socket, not simply that "new tech MUST be new socket". Why the fuss over what was said back then anyway?
So what's the 790X-UD4P being replaced with?

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I know that, but since they said the 790X-UD4P was discontinued, I was asking what Gigabyte were replacing it with, in their model range.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Old news ain't it? This is perhaps more interesting:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19703

Pretty much exactly as expected, where a 955BE matches a Q9550, a 965BE matches a Q9650. Problem is, unlike the other Phenom IIs, it's a genuine 125W chip and eats power at load, and as expected, it still only clocks to the same 3.8-3.9Ghz. Not a chip for the overclocking enthusiast this one.

---

Quote:

---

According to recent Mercury Research numbers, global CPU shipments are recovering, and the market has grown 13.8 percent sequentially in Q1, but year-on-year it's still down 2.9 percent.

Although all CPU makers saw their shipment volumes go up, AMD's market share has gone down. AMD's share dropped from 20.9 to 18.7 percent compared to Q1, while Intel's share went up to 80.5 percent from 78.2 during the same period.

A year ago, in Q2 2008, Intel's share was 80.0 percent, while AMD had 18.8 percent.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

i think there is no place for the 965, a 140wTDP and doesnt overclock more thant the 955.....


btw:

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14948/35/

Quote:

---

According to recent Mercury Research numbers, global CPU shipments are recovering, and the market has grown 13.8 percent sequentially in Q1, but year-on-year it's still down 2.9 percent.

Although all CPU makers saw their shipment volumes go up, AMD's market share has gone down. AMD's share dropped from 20.9 to 18.7 percent compared to Q1, while Intel's share went up to 80.5 percent from 78.2 during the same period.

A year ago, in Q2 2008, Intel's share was 80.0 percent, while AMD had 18.8 percent.

---

That's pure BS! Peter Scott doesn't know his A from his elbow then! First off, Intel has never had 80% of the CPU market, even before the Athlon 64s or the x2s unless you want to go back and count the Licensed AMD/Intel chips as Intels! Intel's current market share as of todays update is 68.5% and AMD's share is 31.5%. According to AMD's 2nd quarter figures to their stockholders, in April, May and June they averaged 30.4% and are still climbing. In fact AMD's 2nd quarter reported figures very closely match CanardPC's figures for those three months. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that Mercury has it's CPU and Chipset figures mixed up! You can't always believe what you read on line!

Intel is also very good at hiding the facts by lumping all their divisions together. Fortunately for Intel, they hold almost a complete monopoly on chipsets for Intel CPUs, and have over 80% of that market, but the CPU division still lost money as well as market share to AMD! Based on the reported figures, and seeing that CanardPC has very closely matched AMD's reported quarterly figures, I'll take their word over Peter Scott and Mercury Research!

By virtue of it's age, the best selling Intel chip still being manufactured, is the venerable Q6600, followed by the E8400 Wolfdale! In contrast, AMD's best sellers are all Phenom/Phenom II based, with their best seller being the Phenom II 940BE, followed by the Athlon 64x2 6000+, by virtue of it's age, just like the Q6600!

Best Regards,
Russ