the Core i7 920 isnt expensive at all.. heck it very competitively priced vs AMD's best. Still even the Core i7 965 dropped in price a bit.

Plus there are still Core 2s that destroy AMD's Phenom II range in the same price range.

Still AMD doesnt need x86. They could switch sockets to ARM. Their Geode processors already support it. It is just that Microsoft doesnt support ARM with the main Windows OS so Windows will need a new version inorder to work. Windows Mobile works on ARM though...

Actually you have that choice for your gaming but I use computers for serious work. The difference at Newegg between the best Phenom and the Core i7 920 is $ 89US. There aren't many things you can do on a computer for $89 that give you double the performance. And it is usually outperformed by Core 2 Duos that actually cost less. The Phenom just isn't that great a chip unfortunately. It sometimes underperforms the AMD 64x2.

I said "Source: Intel" for a reason. Even though the Core i7 920 is only ~$270, Intel only expects 1% of CPUs this year to be Core i7. That second statement is plainly false. The X4 940 is slightly faster and more expensive than the Q9400; same with the X4 920 and the Q8200; and the X3 720 destroys the E8400 at a similar price.

AMD does need x86; not even Intel with all its market power has managed to successfully switch architectures (remember Itanium?). AMD don't have the market power to make the change to an ARM version of Windows because it would break compatibility with all current programs. Plus AMD would lose the R&D on their entire processor line and have to rearchitect from scratch for eventual weaker performance (Geode is EOL for a reason). That would take maybe 3-4 years and be competitive... with the Pentium 4. Meanwhile they could not sell a single chip (as Geode is dead).

No, AMD losing x86 would destroy them.

False. Phenoms are competing well with the quads at their respective price points. Show me a single benchmark where a Phenom II quad is outperformed by an Athlon 64 X2. You're thinking of the original Phenom.

at ssj12

Phenom II X4 940 vs. the QX 9770 vs. the Core i7 965
Hardware Windup Battle of the Titans
By Paul Taylor
Wednesday, 17 December 2008, 10:45

THE UNQUESTIONABLE scoop of the day is at OCW. site has a comparison
review of the Phenom II X4 940 vs. the QX 9770 vs. the Core i7 940. tests show the Phenom II to be very competent and, above all, it doesn't break the bank. In most games it'll equal the Core i7 940, but trail the QX 9770. Overclocking is also very good, as you can get some good overclocks (~800MHz) on air with this Phenom II. Considering it costs half of what costs the i7 and a quarter of a QX 9770, things might be looking up for AMD... we can 'ardly wait for those DDR3 versions of the Phenom II.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/079/1050079/phenom-ii-x4-940-vs-the-qx-9770-vs-the-core-i7-965

if you want to see the comparisons
http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/asrock/ASRock-AOD790G-128M-running-Phenom-II-X4-940-overclocking/Phenom_II_X4-info-1.htm

and yes the core i7 is faster but not buy a lot. is it worth the price?
and yes they compare it to the i7 940 not the 920

You really cant go by benchmarks of the Core i7 because alot of games aren't programmed to handle the QPI properly resulting in abnormal performance changed versus the standard FSB based processors. There is no reason for the Core i7s to have very minimal gaming performance when system and memory benchmarks are through the roof. Its all basedmon the optimization of the games.

As for the article, the inquirer.. really... while their sources are good in the article the site itself isnt at all. Let reviews speak for themselves even though games aren't able to use Core i7's architecture properly yet. You linked 1 review, ill link another.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/1

While I agree that the person you quoted is probably wrong, that statement about the QPI needs a citation, preferably to an Intel source. There is no such thing as optimising for QPI (tell me if you can show otherwise); all QPI does is improve memory bandwidth and memory latency which should only have a positive effect on apps.

The reason why gaming performance is down compared to other apps is mainly due to Hyperthreading. Gaming performance increases by about 10% when HTT is disabled. Intel did this because Nehalem is a server chip so performs optimally at 8 threads with little branching. Games tend to be few threads with high branching.

lol would be funny if ps3 won by default XD

to me the i7 are more powerful but if what you say is true that most games

ssj12 said
aren't programmed to handle the QPI properly resulting in abnormal performance changed versus the standard FSB based processors.

then Wile the i7's are great. 300-1000 dollars isn't worth it just yet and just to wait for prices to go down and games to come out that utilize it more.

that is understandable.

AMD > Intel
Linux > Windows
Nvidia > AMD
Me > Everyone else in the world.

/thread.