[Softpedia]AMD’s Phenom II Processors to Reach End of Life in December 2012 - Page 7

I would just like to say I love my phenom 1 because it lead to the phenom 2 =)

Everyone is going to say what there opinion is; its the internet, its a web forum and no need for drama llamas.
Edited by Skydragon26 - 7/22/12 at 3:50pm

well that's too bad... the x4's are simply brilliant for their price, love my 955 and will probably keep using it for a few more years it is very good and I don't really see the need to upgrade since everything works perfect maxed out.

yeah a 8 core processor that barely beats the Intel Core 2 Quad is totally good.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=49

Did you take a look at the encoding comparisons? Those where the Bulldozer CPU is about twice as fast. There's stuff for which it's a bad CPU but it also shines in other ways.

You have to remember that BD is in its infancy and has a lot of room for improvement while K10.5 is a dead end.
Before then. It's just a die shrunk Phenom 1 with DDR3 support and more L3.

So much AMD bashing on here... admittedly BD isn't very good at a lot of things - I can't help but wonder why so many fanboys though? If you like Intel and their lineup/pricing is working for you, then keep purchasing from them. Some of us don't have as deep pockets, and nobody can deny that Intel processors and motherboards sell for a premium when compared to AMD processors and motherboards - but in the end an AMD user can do all the same things and Intel user can. My system might not get quite the same FPS in StarCraft II but I can still play competitively on Ultra and the gap between my 960T and your i5 or i7's FPS while playing a majority of games isn't going to be noticeable one bit unless I have fraps open or I'm using a 120 Hz monitor.

I completely understand the need for a PII, a SB or IB, or a BD - Each lineup has a specific use that it shines in. If I could afford it and I didn't hate Intel for some of their business practices, I would say that Intel probably has the better product for your average consumer who may be looking to use his computer for a variety of things - and would have SB in my system.

I cannot, however, stand to read any more Intel fanboys bashing PII's as if they can't keep up in all of the latest games. Somebody said an 1100T would bottleneck a GTX 680 and for that I ask I'm sure it would bottleneck stock, but overclocked I'm not really seeing it - I've yet to see my 670 be choked by my 960T at its current clocks and I don't think a couple hundred extra CUDA cores are going to change that dramatically. I will say that I'm sure the picture would be a lot different if I ran three monitors at a super high resolution, but I'm talking for those of us normal folks who like to game at 1080P with all the eye candy jacked up... those people really have no use for $300+ processors. The only game I ever see my processor noticeably being bashed by IB or SB is in a game like SC2, and we all know that multi-threaded gaming is the future and that few games are likely to follow the SC2 model. I admit, I wouldn't mind an upgrade and PII is rather dated, but it is still perfectly capable for 1080P gaming and those who disagree need a reality check IMO.

^Such a punch in tha face to many, man. Nice argument.

That's really too bad. The Phenom II X4 is the only AMD chip I would use for a workstation. It looks like I'll be using Intel parts until AMD can produce an adequate replacement.

What kind of workstation?

(I wouldn't have been putting AMD in workstations anyways.)

If you can afford a GTX680 (let alone find one) you obviously aren't using a Phenom II.

How true,Phenom II is a die shrink and core tweak from Phenom I,with the addition of more L3 cache.
And the Core architecture is based on Pentium III.
AMD would be better off making a smaller core and spend more while selling more of them,than spending less on a larger & less powerful core and selling very few of them.
Despite Phenom II being "ancient" it's still faster per core than Bulldozer. If AMD were to spend the money shrinking it to 32nm,they would of course improve the memory controller at the least. The sad thing is their breakthrough isn't keeping them relevant at all,did you not see AMD's huge quarterly loss? AMD shouldn't have released essentially what is a beta product on us,then to make matter even worse for them,kill off the CPU series that actually made them money.
Edited by Heavy MG - 7/22/12 at 12:56pm