Im using a 5200x2 right now...

but thinking about going quad core... anyone using one ?

is there a noticeable difference ?

means new m/b for me too... which is a pita for me with the tightly packed water cooling gear in there :-o

Its not out yet.

First 2 models....

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/12/13/amd_phenom_9500_9600_9700_and_9900/1

QuoteThe bottom line is that AMDs Phenom processors are currently too expensive and dont perform well enough to offer serious competition for Intels quad-core processors. With the low clock speeds, AMD needs applications that make use of multiple cores to show off the benefits but, as most real consumer applications are single threaded (or maybe occasionally dual-core optimised), there arent any real benefits to Phenom in its current state.

In a choice of Core 2 over Quad core I would honestly take the dual core solution say when both were running at 2.66Ghz.  In real world applications the quad cores are not outperforming their dual core counterparts in most test by any signiificant amount.

they must be out.... or tekheads has a time machine !

http://www.tekheads.co.uk/s/department?department=2&sort=0&filterId=7&filterValue=Socket%20AM2%20Plus


think Ill just stick with the X2 for now then

edit: after a quick read.... it looks like my AMD fanboy days are comming to an end... it was nice while it lasted

AFAIK There is a bug on the early CPUs that needs a patch, this cuts machine speed by 10%

Add in that very few things will actually use CPUs 3 and 4 so you need to have lots running at the same time for it to be worthwhile, at least until the market catches up with programming for them.

Short advice, dont bother until you notice your present system suffering a slowdown or they are selling the CPUs off cheap to move on to the next generation.

Similar to above, Id wait at least until they fix the hardware bug in the new AMDs. Apart from working properly, theyll be faster and might actually have a chance of being worth the money.

as said above, just wait.  AMD have found a bug in the hardware, and they arent as as a result supplying them where they can avoid it.  At least they have admitted they have an issue, and know that just releasing it they will have even bigger problems than just telling people to wait.  Intel have huge errata lists on their CPUs, yet they released them anyway.  

Its not looking good for AMD on the quad core front tbh.

The Core 2 Quad Q6600 which is a 65nm 4x2.4GHz chip with 8Mb of cache is a great performer, you can overclock it easily between 3-4GHz and its only £160.

To make matters worse, the Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 are coming out in January. They all have slightly faster clocks, built in 45nm, better instruction sets, 12Mb cache and look to be great overclockers as well. Theyre all going to be pretty reasonably priced as well.

Personally Im looking to go for a Q9450 in January.

Was hoping AMD would pulled one out the bag with Barcelona but it really didnt happen. Theyll need to slash prices to compete with the performance the current chips are giving.

Quote from: KunalTo make matters worse, the Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 are coming out in January. They all have slightly faster clocks, built in 45nm, better instruction sets, 12Mb cache and look to be great overclockers as well. Theyre all going to be pretty reasonably priced as well.

except Intel have delayed release for a few months due to unspecified reasons.  

QuoteWas hoping AMD would pulled one out the bag with Barcelona but it really didnt happen. Theyll need to slash prices to compete with the performance the current chips are giving.

thing is, the AMDs are "real" Quad core chips, while the Intel are just 2 dual cores on one die.  AMD could have done that and probably been in the situation Intel are now.  

Im holding back from a postmortem until AMDs high-end stuff is released.  The present crop of CPus are aimed at the mainstream and upgraders.  Also IIRC the next crop of Intels arent compatible witht he present chipsets.  Thatll be fun, rather than a releatively cheap upgrade of the CPU itll mean buying a board as well.  Im sure that will go down well.  

Quote from: Beakerthing is, the AMDs are "real" Quad core chips, while the Intel are just 2 dual cores on one die.  AMD could have done that and probably been in the situation Intel are now.

Im all for a proper quad core chip, but end of the day if it doesnt perform better than Intels two dual core dies in a sinlge package then it doesnt.

It fails on cost & performance.

I really wanted AMD to pull another K8/Opteron launch out the bag - I run a dual Opteron dual core system and its an amazing piece of kit, but credit to Intel where its due even with a two dies on a single package approach theyre still ahead of the game. Core 2 platform is exceptional. A proper Core 3 quad core with a single package will be something well worth waiting for.

Quote from: Kunal

Quote from: Beakerthing is, the AMDs are "real" Quad core chips, while the Intel are just 2 dual cores on one die.  AMD could have done that and probably been in the situation Intel are now.

Im all for a proper quad core chip, but end of the day if it doesnt perform better than Intels two dual core dies in a sinlge package then it doesnt.

It fails on cost & performance.

I really wanted AMD to pull another K8/Opteron launch out the bag - I run a dual Opteron dual core system and its an amazing piece of kit, but credit to Intel where its due even with a two dies on a single package approach theyre still ahead of the game. Core 2 platform is exceptional. A proper Core 3 quad core with a single package will be something well worth waiting for.

Ive said elsethread that the present crop of AMD chips arent worth the extra money.  though to be fair they are the "Mainstream" CPUs not the high-end.  The high-end stuff was due early next year, thatll probably be put back a few months.  Another thing to remember is that AMD are still using an old platform for the great majority of their CPUs.  Only the 9500 & 9600 are really K10 based in the desktop market segment.  

Long Term AMDs offering has much more potential.  Intel will have to go the same route at some point, and will have the same issues AMD do at present.  Little note, the same issue that AMD are holding the chips back for, is present in the list of errata for the present crop of C2D chips.  It seems Intel really dont care about their customers one single bit.  I mean, it cant only cause issues with similar tasks flying down the pipelines and ending up in the chache at the same time.   That doesnt happen very often, only during things like ripping audio.