That is pretty amazing, actually. Prices better be good though Although they have been in the past!Penryn uses less power under maximum load than Conroe does at idle.
AMD are screwed.
i must get a penryn and a 9800 gtx
oh gawd.
Penryn + G92 (PCIe 2) + DDR3 = orgasm in 3D mark.
Think its funny how AMD have had months to make a comeback, and im hearing that Phenom X4 is only slightly faster than Core 2 Quad. They're barely able to keep with Intel's current products, let alone their future ones.
Think its funny how AMD have had months to make a comeback, and im hearing that Phenom X4 is only slightly faster than Core 2 Quad. They're barely able to keep with Intel's current products, let alone their future ones.
Last edited by =Karma-Kills= (2007-08-08 13:50:04)
Core 2 Quad? You mean the Xeon Quad, or did I miss something.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Penryn + G92 (PCIe 2) + DDR3 = orgasm in 3D mark.
Think its funny how AMD have had months to make a comeback, and im hearing that Phenom X4 is only slightly faster than Core 2 Quad. They're barely able to keep with Intel's current products, let alone their future ones.
There are some CPUs called Core 2 Quad...Bernadictus wrote:
Core 2 Quad? You mean the Xeon Quad, or did I miss something.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Penryn + G92 (PCIe 2) + DDR3 = orgasm in 3D mark.
Think its funny how AMD have had months to make a comeback, and im hearing that Phenom X4 is only slightly faster than Core 2 Quad. They're barely able to keep with Intel's current products, let alone their future ones.
I thought Core 2 was : Duo & Extreme.Jenspm wrote:
There are some CPUs called Core 2 Quad...Bernadictus wrote:
Core 2 Quad? You mean the Xeon Quad, or did I miss something.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Penryn + G92 (PCIe 2) + DDR3 = orgasm in 3D mark.
Think its funny how AMD have had months to make a comeback, and im hearing that Phenom X4 is only slightly faster than Core 2 Quad. They're barely able to keep with Intel's current products, let alone their future ones.
Errr, hear of a Q6600
Core 2 Solo,
Core 2 Duo,
Core 2 Quad,
Core 2 Extreme.
Clicky!
Thats the desktop range (plus some old pentium Ds).
Xeon is the server range.
Core 2 Solo,
Core 2 Duo,
Core 2 Quad,
Core 2 Extreme.
Clicky!
Thats the desktop range (plus some old pentium Ds).
Xeon is the server range.
Last edited by =Karma-Kills= (2007-08-08 14:19:35)
Core 2 Duo, Quad, and ExtremeBernadictus wrote:
I thought Core 2 was : Duo & Extreme.Jenspm wrote:
There are some CPUs called Core 2 Quad...Bernadictus wrote:
Core 2 Quad? You mean the Xeon Quad, or did I miss something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2_Quad
I firmly believe it's because they bought ATi. It was a smart move, but bad timing. They have no wheres near the same amount of funds for R&D that Intel does.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Penryn + G92 (PCIe 2) + DDR3 = orgasm in 3D mark.
Think its funny how AMD have had months to make a comeback, and im hearing that Phenom X4 is only slightly faster than Core 2 Quad. They're barely able to keep with Intel's current products, let alone their future ones.
It's sort of disappointing...the king of gaming is slipping away to non-existent. Same with ATi. They've held the battlefield for a long time now, and they're starting to lose their footing.
Oh well, maybe AMD will surprise us and kick Intel in the ass.
Maybe I'm having a brainfart, but isn't Penryn the sequel to Merom? I thought the desktop equivalent was Wolfdale. I guess we can blame sources such as vr-zone and theinquirer for latching onto names early on.
As for Core 2 Quad, I agree that it's a misnomer. Looking at it as an outsider, you'd figure it was an 8-core CPU solution, via multiplication...
As for Core 2 Quad, I agree that it's a misnomer. Looking at it as an outsider, you'd figure it was an 8-core CPU solution, via multiplication...
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-08-08 15:54:02)
It's actually just 'Core Solo' in that case heh=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Core 2 Solo,
Uptimized!!!! ARGH!Conroe clock for clock for most unoptimised applications
If the Penryn cora can perform as good as they say it will, prices on C2D will drop. By a lot. Yayz fo me!
Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2007-08-08 16:08:46)
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Optimised!!!!!!!!Freezer7Pro wrote:
Uptimized!!!! ARGH!Conroe clock for clock for most unoptimised applications
Bloody Americans.
Yes...may I once again suggest to fellow 'Grammar Nazis' to check their dictionaries for alternate spelling before attempting to correct?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Optimised!!!!!!!!Freezer7Pro wrote:
Uptimized!!!! ARGH!Conroe clock for clock for most unoptimised applications
Bloody Americans.
No, you are very right. But i think its the same in that Core was originally designed for notebooks. But year, desktop Penyrn = Wolfdale.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe I'm having a brainfart, but isn't Penryn the sequel to Merom? I thought the desktop equivalent was Wolfdale. I guess we can blame sources such as vr-zone and theinquirer for latching onto names early on.
As for Core 2 Quad, I agree that it's a misnomer. Looking at it as an outsider, you'd figure it was an 8-core CPU solution, via multiplication...
Potato, potato.leetkyle wrote:
It's actually just 'Core Solo' in that case heh=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Core 2 Solo,
Oh wait, that doesnt work over the internet.
Anyways, is Core Solo just for notebooks?
Will Penryn use the LGA 775 port like C2D processors do, or will I need a new mobo? And that brings me to another question; the G92 chips use PCI-E 2.0, right? Will that also require a new mobo?
For some reason, that reminds me of an old knock-down, drag-out verbal confrontation I had with a technologically-challenged buddy who insisted on buying an inferior product because he "did not need anything too powerful." Ironically, his component decision cost more money than better performance would have, due to pricing and availability. He was too proud to admit that I was right. Another common argument I have is with people who absolutely refuse to get a DVD drive with their PC, despite the fact that they cost the same as CD drives, and are in some cases even cheaper.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Anyways, is Core Solo just for notebooks?
It boggles the mind.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-08-08 16:35:54)
***THIS IS PURE GUESTIMATION FROM ME***Havok wrote:
Will Penryn use the LGA 775 port like C2D processors do, or will I need a new mobo? And that brings me to another question; the G92 chips use PCI-E 2.0, right? Will that also require a new mobo?
Im pretty sure Penryn is LGA 775, but not all LGA 775 mobos will be compatible, depends on the chipset (e.g. my mobo has a Pentium D in atm, so is LGA 775, but does not support Core 2).
G92 is PCIe 2, yes. But wasnt there talk of backwards compatibility...? ie running G92 at PCIe 1 speeds?
Please note im tired and this may be me sleep typing... get cryle in here to check.
Well my mobo is a 680i so I think I should be fine if your guestimation is correct. I hope the G92 is backwards compatible because I just got this new comp and I don't want it to be un-upgradable so soon.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
***THIS IS PURE GUESTIMATION FROM ME***Havok wrote:
Will Penryn use the LGA 775 port like C2D processors do, or will I need a new mobo? And that brings me to another question; the G92 chips use PCI-E 2.0, right? Will that also require a new mobo?
Im pretty sure Penryn is LGA 775, but not all LGA 775 mobos will be compatible, depends on the chipset (e.g. my mobo has a Pentium D in atm, so is LGA 775, but does not support Core 2).
G92 is PCIe 2, yes. But wasnt there talk of backwards compatibility...? ie running G92 at PCIe 1 speeds?
Please note im tired and this may be me sleep typing... get cryle in here to check.
Bit of confucious there.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
G92 is PCIe 2, yes. But wasnt there talk of backwards compatibility...? ie running G92 at PCIe 1 speeds?
My understanding was with backward compatibility, you could plug PCIe1 cards into PCIe2, not the other way round.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
P-35 Boards are compatible with the 45 nm processors. Along with DDR3 compatible on certain ones, To give the extra frequency to the processors.Havok wrote:
Well my mobo is a 680i so I think I should be fine if your guestimation is correct. I hope the G92 is backwards compatible because I just got this new comp and I don't want it to be un-upgradable so soon.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
***THIS IS PURE GUESTIMATION FROM ME***Havok wrote:
Will Penryn use the LGA 775 port like C2D processors do, or will I need a new mobo? And that brings me to another question; the G92 chips use PCI-E 2.0, right? Will that also require a new mobo?
Im pretty sure Penryn is LGA 775, but not all LGA 775 mobos will be compatible, depends on the chipset (e.g. my mobo has a Pentium D in atm, so is LGA 775, but does not support Core 2).
G92 is PCIe 2, yes. But wasnt there talk of backwards compatibility...? ie running G92 at PCIe 1 speeds?
Please note im tired and this may be me sleep typing... get cryle in here to check.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6813128048
Is the G92 going to be on a different interface or something? (In other words, It's NOT going to be PCI-E?)
Oh damn... he's right.Cheez wrote:
Bit of confucious there.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
G92 is PCIe 2, yes. But wasnt there talk of backwards compatibility...? ie running G92 at PCIe 1 speeds?
My understanding was with backward compatibility, you could plug PCIe1 cards into PCIe2, not the other way round.