Submit Your Article Forum Rules FAQ About Us
Search the forums:

Tech Support Team


Hello and Welcome to Tech Support Team! Before you can start posting and answering questions, you'll have to register. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free! Feel free to browse through existing questions by choosing the forum you want to visit below.



Notices

Reply
  #1 (permalink)   Top
Old 2nd December 2007, 02:41 PM
Joe's Avatar
Joe Joe is offline
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Nov 2007, 126 posts.
Reputation: Joe is on a distinguished road
AMD Phenom 9700 Review

Quote:
For

'Native' quad-core design delivers excellent scaling

Underlying Spider platform packs a lot of promise

An extremely simple quad-core upgrade for existing AM2 motherboard users

Against

Launch frequencies not high enough to compete with Intel

Execution core architecture becoming rather dated

Verdict

Combination of poor clockspeeds and conservative architecture adds up to mediocre performance
Click [url=http://www.tech.co.uk/computing/upgrades-and-peripherals/processors/review/amd-phenom-9700:165p0hp5]here[/url:165p0hp5] for full review
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)   Top
Old 2nd December 2007, 03:05 PM
Joshuashawharvey's Avatar
Community Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007, 1,028 posts.
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England
Reputation: Joshuashawharvey is on a distinguished road
Re: AMD Phenom 9700 Review

AMD have messed around for a year to come up with something that Intel already have. They need to be more creative. Up the L2 cache levels and dump that stupid L3 cache. Intel's amount of cache on even their Core 2 Duo's makes the AMD Phenom look a laughing stock. They need to dump that 65nm and make their processors on a 45nm process technology, and allow compatability for DDR3 on their current motherboards instead of still messing around with DDR2. Yeah their prices may soar but that doesn't stop people from buying £600 Intel processors. They are playing around with an out-dated architecture. The compatible AM2+ motherboards are nothing special also. I thought they were also meant to be focussing on power consumption. 125w! thats abysmal, especally compared to my 4 months old Q6600 G0 at 95w with exactly the same clock speeds. Their prices are disappointing also, £160 for the 9500+, a Core 2 Quad Q6600 with more cache and higher clock speeds can be bought for cheaper, although I expect their prices to decrease dramatically in the first 2 months to have any chance whatsoever to compete. In my opinion AMD have really messed up this time and it's going to take a LOT for them to get back on form and actually have something that can compete against Intel.
__________________
"People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented, didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines... There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time, people will come to accept their silicon masters" - Bill Gates
Reply With Quote
Reply

Only registered members can participate in forum threads. You must register or log in to contribute.


Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:46 AM.






Post A Question!
Useful Links
Main Menu
Home
Forum Rules
FAQ
About Us
Welcome Pack
Search the forums
TST Mobile
Contact Us
Send Message

These are the 8 most used thread tags
Tag Cloud
geforce modem monitor no ring response no signal nvidia soft modem win7