<div align="center">was boring so i made a replica of my new pc i just bought the new phenom quad core AMD and its so fast </div>
willing to bet my dual core c2d will outdo the phenom on 90% of the things a typical desktop user would do... and about 60% of the stuff a server type would so... under most circumstances it shows dual core c2ds beating quad phenoms.. true most of the reviews are centric on tri core phenoms(I copy/pasted a list from around 1 week ago) but they all include quad core phenoms for reference. And I'll admit it I'm a raging c2d fanboy now. I used to think people were stupid for buying pentium Ds when athlons were cheaper and did 10-20% better. now c2ds are priced more or less the same and do as much as 70% better and use less energy to boot. for desktop use, phenoms are so slow they're pitted against intels dual core parts and the quads are left on their whole own level... just look at pricing... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(.ZERO]I'd rather stick with my 3.2 dual until they up the speeds on the phenoms[/b][/quote] won't happen until k10.5 which is a 45nm part and may have a fair bit of core reworking. Ideally k10.5 would be a fair bit faster per clock and would scale better. k10 is great for the server space where you have 10,000 chips ina single config and bus performance matters, but desktop side it's sad. horrendously sad. AMD got a bit too ambitious. THey should have made a dual core part and MCMed it. Yields on k10 are horrible and I'm willing to bet there are a lot fo phenoms which have 3 cores that are good for 3.2-3.5Ghz and then one other core which is good for like 2.6Ghz and for overclocks it's a PITA. That and the slow l3 cache which cripples overclocking past ~230HTT in a majority of things, the q9770 is faster. heck in a majority of things the budget q6600 is faster. both have around 40-60% headroom as far as overclocking goes. scaling with a quad core phenom doesn't do too well past 3Ghz with the tri core phenoms and not much past 2.7Ghz with a quad core phenom.
you wasted your money... the phenom sucks. AMD hasn't had a good processor in like 2 years. don't get me wrong, I really like AMD. I wish they'd release something that wasn't crap. they're just so far behind intel. u_u
it's a good CPU don't get me wrong. and it's great in the ultra highend server space where you've got a ton of CPUs on an interlinked bus. but desktop use it's not as ideal. barcelonis a server CPU first and a desktop CPU second, just like hammer. The difference here however is that unlike hammer which went against the failure which is known as itanium in servers and the epic failure known as prescott... conroe is just really good. K10 has the edge in virtualization performance, that's really important to server people who want to save on software licensing(software costs more than hardware) and reduce the number of machines needed(electricity and cooling also costs more than hardware). I don't run 50 VMs. Most people don't know what VMs are. Virtualization will take the world of software by storm... just not this year. plus being a monolithic design doesn't mean anything especially when upper level people in AMD are saying they regret not going the MCM route. I better you that if phenom was half the size it is(and thus easier to make) it's be cheaper faster and more power efficient. Phenom has 450 million transistors in it and a die size of about 288 mm^2. Compare to penryn in which each chip has around 400 million transistors and a die size of around 107mm^2. It's just really hard to make large chips. The bigger the chip the more likely it is to have a defect. the more defects the shorter a chips life/the less stable it is/the lower it clocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_(processor) that said most of everything with a phenom is either end user limited(you can't type in word any faster, you can't work any faster in photoshop, you can't make a PowerPoint any faster) or else it's predominantly video card limited. A few things might open a bit more slowly but it's not going to be anything hyper critical. CPUs just aren't as important as they used to be. Now I'd say general use is mostly dependent on your harddrive/SSD configuration and gaming is mostly video card bound.
