The upcoming Phenom 9100 will be the budget king for Quad Core CPU's. It is expected to cost $100-140 and will certainly get many looks from budget system builders who want to sell quads on thee cheap.

Word has it they will overclock from their 1.8Ghz to about 2.6Ghz.

I wouldn't really trust "word has it", but if it does turn out to be true, it will actually make recommending Phenom's worthwhile for low budget quad systems. Time will tell though, we'll have to see how this roles out, who knows.

$100 - $140 you say? Does AMD wanna go bankrupt? Seriously, they're better off selling X2s at those prices...

Sorry, I find that rather hard to believe.

I could see a 1.8 at around 140, their 2.2 is at 199.99 on newegg. If somehow they can get a 1.8 out their for 100-140 (140 sounds more plausible), and actually have the ability to OC them to around the architectural limit we've seen with phenom (2.6/2.7), than it might be worth it. Still not better than a Q6600, but for 100-140, a great budget quad.

But binning also comes into concern, who knows what these 1.8 ghz processors would be like, we'll have to wait and see. Time will tell.

Well, considering that they will be the B3 revision, hopefully they will have a decent overhead and will hit 2.4-2.6GHz... not too shabby for $140 quad-core.

Id still rather pay $199 for the e8400 which will hit 4ghz.

Obviously a e8400 at 4ghz is sexy. But for those who need a quad for rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding...It's not bad at 140 a pop, and if they hit 2.4-2.6...It'll make it more worth it.

But personally, I'd never go for anything but a q6600....I do media encoding/3d modeling/video editing and much more...lol. But for 140, a great recommendation for those wanting a quad core on a very low budget....That is only if it Oc's to around 2.4-2.6...Than AMD will have their own golden goose, which imo would make them sell quite a lot by the truckload.

so are four AMD cores at 2.6ghz better than 2 Intel cores at 4ghz?

Obviously HELL NO to some. But for 140 bucks? which would always be a dual core? the ability to get a quad? even if it is a phenom, if it can OC to 2.4-2.6...It makes it a very worthy buy for low budget phenoms. Keep in mind that encoding, rendering, media production, folding@home..All benefit and scale with pretty much double the performance if you go from 2 to 4 cores. So still a very valuable buy..IF, they don't mess it up and it can indeed clock that high.

Seems like a winner for people who needs those extra cores. Otherwise the E8400 is much, much better.

Intel Dual @ 4 ghz or AMD Quad @ 2.6...........Video editing - AMD, gaming - Intel.

Indeed. That would be a worthy benchmark to see IMO, a 4 ghz e8400 that uses raw horse power to make up for it's lack of 2 additional cores, against a 2.6 phenom in a encoding environment where the more cores you have, the more the time is cut in half. I think it would be quite close...But the Phenom would have the edge. When it comes to tasks that are specifically design for 4 cores, 3d rendering, x264 encoding, folding...Phenom would have the lead...But not by much, and considering if it did cost 140 and was able to hit 2.4-2.6...It'd make it a justified purchase that I would recommend to consumers wanting a budget quad.

All it takes for intel to compete are a few prices drops coupled with introduction of a new top-ender extreme.


You cannot launch much of a fight from the low end and expect to gain significant ground. Worrying times for AMD.

I'd say this is AMD's plan for survival, not for making tons of money.