Processor Comparison Table

Given how much Core2s can be overclocked, compared to the limits
of the Athlon64 X2 (3.25GHz is about the max usually), I don't
see any compelling case for these 7000 series CPUs. I bought
a 6000+ because it was the very week AMD halved its prices, thus
the price was very attractive compared to the Core2s available
at the time (April 2007), but it's a very different situation
today. For those considering an upgrade, given the minimal speed
gains shown by the 7000 chips, a 6000+ makes more sense, or
better still just bite the bullet and get a Core2 and new mbd.

I like my 6000+ system a lot (I run it at 3.225GHz with an U120):

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/mysystemsummary2.txt
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/ASUS_M2N32-WS-Pro.jpg
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/Gig [...] Zalman.jpg

but the 7000s CPUs offer nothing new IMO. I wish it were
otherwise, but this is the truth. The charts show again
and again that the 6400+ is better than the new 7000 series,
so what's the point? And then compare to an oc'd Core2 such
as an E8400 or similar? Ouch...

Atm, my next system will be an i7 920 by the looks of it.

Ian.

Why does every other website reviewing the 7000 series show considerably better results often with Intel trailing, have you made a mistake?

spuddyt, you're right.

I had a look around. Other sites either don't compare to the 6000+
or 6400+, don't bother listing Intel dual-cores like the E5200
or E8400, don't show results from an oc'd Intel dual-core, use
stupid graphs that begin at a non-zero value which makes the
AMD chips look better, or compare the 7K Black Edition to a
pointless CPU like the 5000+.

I see no evidence that other sites show better results with the
7K chips at all, and I don't believe you could find a single
test where the 7K Black Edition would beat an E8400 with a simple
air overclock (indeed, most of the time an E8400 will be faster
just at stock speed). Other sites that did bother comparing to
the 6000+ show it to match the 7K B.E. almost exactly, which
means the 6400+ would beat it no problem, as it does in the toms
review.

Despite this, article conclusions on other sites always sing
the praises of these new CPUs, which I don't understand.

One site showed the 7K B.E. consistently losing out to an E5200,
which is really lame. Now consider the E5200 oc'd and well, the
7K is left in the dust.

I would love to read news of a good AMD dual-core that
significantly beats the 6000+, but there just isn't one, period.
Right now, for someone thinking of upgrading, switching to an
Intel board with an E8400 or somesuch makes way more sense.

Ian.

On these figures, not much incentive to replace my Athlon 64 X2 5200+.

Intel Core 2

400MHz quad-pumped = 1.6GB/s
x8
=12.8GB/s

Sorry for the error (caught up in the Christmas rush).

I'd be interested in of these products if it were sold at the right price. Perhaps 7000 will be clocked down and actually replace most of it's predecessors - less power under load, faster Hyper-transport and the latest SIMD support. It's just a pity AMD couldn't have clocked it a bit higher, since the L3 cache doesn't seem to have much impact on dual-cores as it does with quads, unless under specific testing. I'd Be interested to see some heavy multi-tasking benchmarks.

Also, looking at the overall chart positions..I think AMD does do a decent job competing with Intel, even if one has to run at higher core clock speeds.

AMD only competes on price. It's absolutely nowhere when it comes
to performance. I wish it were otherwise, but the numbers are
clear. AMD appears to have a real problem getting past 3GHz.
The faster HT speed doesn't seem to help much either.

Just look at the video encoding results (my own field of interest);
Intel wins hands down, without any oc'ing, and most of the time
the 6400+ is faster than the 7K Black (when the 7K Black is
faster, the margin is not significant). Now take into account
how easy it is to oc the E8200, E8400, etc. and it's pretty
obvious the 7Ks offer nothing compelling at all.

The situation for the 7Ks is even worse with the gaming results,
often losing out to much older AMD dual-cores, while Intel's
result go through the roof. Indeed, most of the time the 7K Black
can't even beat a mere 5600+! The Supreme Commander scores are
particularly grim, with the 7Ks slower than a 4600+.

Believe me, I really want AMD to be in this game (my own system
is a 6000+), but right now they're nowhere except on price. As
Intel's performance levels increase, even the pricing argument
for AMD starts to fade since Intel wins on price/performance by
a large margin, making it worth any extra cost to get a Core2
or i7.

Right now, AMD has absolutely nothing that can match such an
effective combination as an E8200/E8400 with a Xigmatek
HDT-S1283 Heatpipe, oc the sucker to 4GHz, leave the 7K Black
in the dust.

Come on AMD, produce something that's worth buying! Phenom was
bad enough, often offering no gain over the previous 6000+ (in
some cases slower), but this is crazy. The market needs proper
competition, otherwise Intel will slow down its release schedule
purely because it doesn't have to release products as fast in
order to stay ahead, which is bad news for customers.

Ian.

as I understood an article in custom pc these chips are aimed at oem suppliers , whilst I agree that it would have made sense to see one of em clocked at 3gigs or over ,I think this is a smart move
custom pc says "AMD is marketing the new chips as a part of its ‘Cartwheel’ platform, which enables system builders to create budget systems from AMD components. A Cartwheel system will feature an AMD Athlon X2 7000-series CPU, along with an AMD 780G motherboard chipset with integrated Radeon HD 3200 graphics.

So is that all AMD cares about now? Budget systems? Dash of
sarcasm there obviously (I'm sure AMD doesn't want to be
uncompetitive in the performance market), but atm AMD just seems
to be so far behind. It's sad, and not healthy for competition.

Ian.

ok, firstly I rarely comment on these articles, and I'm neither pro intel or amd. However, firstly you have to remember that Intel spend more on RnD then AMD makes in revenue. Secondly I agree with what other people have said that the AMD 6000/6400 and the new 7750 have done better on other sites, am still wondering if tomshardware has become in the pay of intel/nvidia. (I hope not since I've come to toms for years for reviews and the useful forums) the new 7750 is the first in the line of 7 series 65nm AMD's. The first core 2 duos weren't great, it wasn't till the e6 and e8 serious (with E0 stepping and the q6600 that people REALLY wanted the core2s. AMD are behind yes, but they are a lot cheaper. Lets not forget the other stuff, M3A79-T mobo £123, DDR2 memory, and 7750 £58 And will take the phenom II cpu's). I7 sytem £150 mobo (cheapest) DDR3 mem and £220 for the i7 920. Also, a 65nm cpu means less heat when o/c and less power. The new 7750 competes with the E8200 which is nearly twice the price (go to guru.com) which isn't bad. and before u say build an e8400 system, next year intel will stop supporting the 775 socket, so it has no longevity. AMD's aren't amazing, but they aren't cheap and more than competent. and why have toms not used the 790FX with a SB750 mobo? and done some overclocking tests? give the new kuma core some time, and i bet AMD will launch some 3GHz+ cpus in the coming months to take on the E84/5/600. (also dont be so pro intel, least ye forget AMD killed intel's P4 when intel desperately just kept increasing frequency and got no gains. Also that they learned from AMD to use a single silicon base, hence you have a more effiecient, smaller phenom we call the i7).

Say I'm pro-Intel is ridiculous. As I say, when I bought my own
upgrads, I went for a 6000+ because it easily won on price.

And what site reviews are you referring to? Specifics please.
I checked a bunch of reviews and found no evidence that other
sites were getting significantly better results. I still see
nothing offered in these 7K CPUs which isn't already available
with the 6000+ or similar CPUs. Other sites also showed in some
cases the 7K chips being slower than really old CPUs. It's not
being pro-Intel to point out the truth. If the 2 companies had
two totally identical products re performance and price, I'd
choose AMD.

Ian.

I think they are doin what they have to and targeting segments of the market , and tbh I have an old 939 skt with a x2 3600 and I can play all the current games no prob , my point is , most people dont need a souped up system , and budget systems = volume oem = AMD at least keeping afloat , lets face it it's better than just throwin away all those duff phenoms innit , amd have to play to THEIR strong points

That's true enough I guess; if the 7Ks are cheaper and use less
power than the older series, then those with older systems who
do want to upgrade have a better option for the time being.

I just want to see AMD get back into the game. I've been very
happy with my 6000+ system, but my next build, though limited to
some extent by budget constraints, is very much focused on
performance, which right now steers me towards an i7 920 setup,
assuming prices are a tad more sensible by summer/09.

Ian.

another point to remember is that the 77550 is only 2.7Ghz, the 6000 is 3.1ghz, and most of the games are boosted purely by clock frequency. I think its too early to tell if the new 7series will be a flop or a success. And I agree with pete3867, AMD cant compete with the i7's but then again, why force a way to try when that market segment will be tiny with all the overheads of goin to a i7 board, mem, cpu set up. the main stream system market is a much better option for AMD, they have the price performance ratio, and a larger segment. Yes it would be nice to have AMD on top or competing like the first athlons did, but its not the end of the world, and they still have the HD4800's giving nvidia a bloody nose. So i think in the long run, AMD staying a float and making new products is better than nothing, at least it may force intel to lower its rediculous price tags on the new i7's. and thats better for everyone all round.

When it comes to performance, the 7Ks can't even compete with
a simple Intel dual-core, never mind the i7. Heck, much of the
time the 7Ks are slower than AMD's own older dual cores at lower
clocks!

And there comes a point where the extra cost is worthwhile. I'm
not saying that's now, but I'm sure there will be cheaper i7
mbds available within a few months. Until then, a Core2 is still
a better choice than a 7K IMO.

As for the 7Ks as an upgrade, I still don't see the point. You've
just said 'most' games are boosted purely by clock frequency;
thus, why bother with a 7750 for 63 UKP when a 3.1GHz 6000+ is
60 UKP and faster in almost every case? Once again, I don't see
the point of these new 7K CPUs. They're not remotely the best
choice for a new system build, and they're slower than a cheaper
6000+.

Pricing from lambda-tek.com (NB: they have the 3.2GHz 6000+ for
67.64).

People keep saying here that a 7K looks like a good idea, but
have still not provided any evidence of this, on either price
or performance.

My previous post included a caveat of the 7K being cheaper. It's
not. Are you really saying you would recommend a 2.7GHz 7750 for
63 UKP as an upgrade instead of a 3.1GHz 6000+ for 60 UKP?

If AMD don't produce something better, it certainly will not
force Intel to lower its prices, not when AMD doesn't have a
competing product.

Ian.

i admit the 6000 or 6400 is a better buy, now. then again the 7750 is a BE, much easier to overclock. and for AMD upgrade, what i mean is that u can buy a mobo with 790fx/sb750 and u can keep it for a few years and get phenom 2...etc, but the core2duo will be obsolete next year and u'll have to scrap it all (mem, mobo, cpu) to get the i7 skt 1336. and yes there are core i5's coming out soon, but given that the i7 920 is on a par with most decent core2duos in real world there's not point in them for the expense. Look at the market as it stands now, the mainstream will become a much more lucrative market, as people wont spend £1000+ on a new build which u need for a decent i7 rig. No the K7750 is not going to force a reaction from intel, but as i said, its the first kuma cpu, give the series a few months and I suspect there will be more attractive AMD's that beat their older cpus and take on the core 2's and at a lower price, and with more longevity.
as for the benchmarks,
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd- [...] -review/11
e8200 is performing at the same level and that cpu is twice the price as the 7750. (ebuyer, e8200 £122+vat)

If we're talking overclocking, AMD loses again by a huge margin.

I don't know what you mean by obsolete; a system with such a CPU
will still take future gfx card products for a long time and
that's surely what matters in this context.

And I was thinking of the E7200, not the E8200. It's more
expensive than a 6000+ or 7750, but faster, and once the oc
potential is factored in, much faster.

For me it's a simple equation. If someone is thinking of
upgrading an older AMD system, the 6000+ makes more sense.
If they're thinking of a new build, then the extra cost of
an Intel is more than worth it.

Guru3D is annoyingly using plugins for its results (I don't
have the relevant plugin installed so I can't see the data),
but tom's own article shows how a cheaper E7200 can be oc'd
to an enormous degree.

I'm not an Intel fan by any means (I have dozens of computers,
only 2 of them are Intel), but it seems to me many people are
desparately trying to convince themselves that these 7K chips
are better than they really are.

Ian.