X-bit labs

Started by: 1234 | Date 03/17/08

Comments: 9 | Last Comment:  03/18/08

[1-8]

1. 2.6 GHz isnt even enough to beat a hypothetical Q6400 model...

2. oh..wow... 100 mhz..

9550 (2.20GHz), 9650 (2.30GHz) and 9750 (2.40GHz)

At least intel leaves a few hundred between without the power requriemtns going through the roof.

DAAMMMIIITTTT, you fail.

3. Boring!

4. God, I love the AMD bashing that goes on here. If these Quad-cores from AMD have low prices, hell, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I don't need an ultra-high end Quad-core, just four cores that will get me through multi-tasking and some gaming. Couple this with a 790 series chipset and an midrange 8 series card from nVidia, and I am set to go.

id rather just grab a E4600, a DS3L overclock it ~>3.0, and toss a 8800GS in the mix.

that would pretty much beat a phenom

5. AMD needs more and more GHz to compete :(

But wonder, how the 2.7GHz and over will be named ? x150 or 10150 ?? damn the last is too long and the first is not that good !!

6. Still far too much power draw to interest me

Come back when power draw under load and idle is at least halved

7. Thanks but not interested of shitty processors. If AMD will make a quad that can beat the current Intel solutions then will have the discution again. Until then...

8. That's great, best bang for the buck, gimme gimme a really cheap quad-core

[1-8]