Read more.Quote:
AMD rolls out its quad-core Phenom processor and new 7-series chipset to do battle with Intel's year-old Core 2 Quad. Who wins?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
AMD rolls out its quad-core Phenom processor and new 7-series chipset to do battle with Intel's year-old Core 2 Quad. Who wins?
Shame I was hoping AMD would at least beat Intel in the low end Quads, if only for more competition between the two. Looks like C2Q will be king for a while to come.
theres a rumour already about, with some credibility, that a cpu microcode fault akin to that Intel had not long ago, is cause for some system freezing when getting above 2.4Ghz which resulted in the part being delayed. if its just going to use b3 fixed cores for everything 2.4ghz up to 3Ghz shortly after xmas thats not bad.
but also has to be said, £145 for the 100mhz slower 9500 would be the chip that will sell most. almost no one is stupid enough to pay, probably in the £200-250 region for a 9700 at 2.4Ghz, when you can get a 9500 for £145 at 2.2Ghz.
the only real thing we need to know is, how do they overclock. as nice an idea as quads are, about the best game to use them, supreme commander, dual to quad core is 1-2% faster, completely not noticeable. Crysis barely loads dual cores effectively, let along quad cores and thats likely to be the most cpu/gpu taxing game for a year.
frankly, if you can get a quad to hit 3Ghz theres nothing you're lacking really in any area. single core games/old games and software a 3Ghz will be more than enough. newer dual core games, 3Ghz will be enough for the next year or two, at which point quad core might be used a little better, and you'll have 2 spare cores.
frankly, for 99% of users you won't see a difference in games on any dual/quad once you pass 2.4Ghz.
we've also seen a few phenoms around that hit 3Ghz(9500's), and some that can run stock and with ok overclocks at 0.95v. it would be interesting to know how much power a 0.95v cpu was using.
there does need to be a "killer" app for the chip though. one that optimises single core performance for old software, one that could all but turn off 3 cores and leave one ticking over night at half speed and very little power. one thats just for max performance, one for max dual core performance. 4 buttons where you can test to find the best settings then simply click a button in the task bar before opening up a game.
Disapointed with the power draw considering I thought that was one area where it could beat Intel.
Also a shame that it does not seem to reach the IPC of Intel's old 65nm process, never mind the new 45nm process which is 5% or so better. The power draw on that is lower too.
Mid table mediocrity unfortunately.
yes and no, i haven't really seen any numbers on the 790 range of chipsets, it might be using quite a bit of power.
but the real power numbers will only be seen a bit later. will a phenom system in low power mode at very low speed voltage be better than intels idle power? i don't know what the lowest multiplier the overdrive app will give, or if you can literally turn one core off, but i'm sure i've seen 2 or 3x in pics of that app, which means when used theres definately the ability to run lower voltage and power than any intel board i've seen.
but also for full power gaming, will two cores on the phenom even overclocked a lot with two cores down at lowest power run a game better with lower power than a Q6600 overclocked to similar speeds but without the ability to turn the voltage/speed down on spare cores.
but as with all things, in Q1, hopefully by feb we should be seeing a range of 2.2-3Ghz quads from amd, on a b3 stepping, which could overclock as well as intels . but like now with circa 3Ghz intel quads, the q6600 is the only chip selling. If amd's b3 step 2.2Ghz chips are £20 cheaper and just as overclockable as intels q6600 then why pay more.
but theres a range of 790fx boards already cheaper than x38 boards, let alone x48. the ability for 4x cheapo 3850 512mb cards. the good thing will be the serious range of combinations we'll be able to have. you can sli two 3850 512's for £240 or so, compared to £340 for gt's. you can go for a 2 slot 790 board for a lot cheaper than a similar spec x38/48 board.
amd do keep bumbling through launches at the moment, and coming later than they should, often making the wrong decisions.
but it all seems to me at the moment they are simply putting effort into the next core which isn't slated for too long away in the grand scheme of things. with a fairly different take, multi core, specialised cores, small gpu's on die. which would hopefully account for the lacklustre products coming out.
but for the budget amongst us, a £70 790 board, with a £145 quad that (i think we will see) can do 3Ghz + easily) with a couple of 3850's in for cheap will make for a very good gaming rig for a lot cheaper than we've seen in recent years.
there are several things to consider, intel won't drop prices largely on the newer penryn's as despite dropping manu size, the extra cache is going to make for a massive core so yields per waifer aren't going up a lot, amd might be suffering on performance due to lack of cache but yeild wise more cache = less chips per waifer = less profits and less ability to compete on price. they are still the massive underdog with a lot less money to throw at chip design. in general given the companies backgrounds amd SHOULD be slower, but cheaper, as they were till they got a little big for their boots.
its been said their chips increase in performance a lot at higher speeds. if the core is balanced to just work a little better at higher clocks, thats perfectly possible. IE a 2.4Ghz phenom might be 15% off a 2.4Ghz q6600, but a 2.8Ghz phenom might be 5% behind a 2.8Ghz kentsfield, we'll have to see about that at later dates.
but also bear in mind that benchmarks aren't the be all end all. remember the gaming benchies were low res, the difference in fps between chips at high res(or whatever res you are using thats gpu limited) will be not noticeable.
Dissappointing - I knew they'd be behind, but not that much behind.
Not surprising at all, more confirming what leaked benchmarks told already. People are Hoping that AMD manage to get 3.0ghz Chips out imagine the TDP on these chips. At that speed they should give Intel some real worries, but then then the Intel's are Overclocking like dreams. It's Intel round this time i can't see this AMD chip going past 3.4 in it's whole life time.
You do get the impression that there are some pre-production issues with the board/bios (and maybe CPU too), but you still can't see it getting much closer to the Q6600, let alone matching or beating it. A real shame.
It was only around about 18 months ago that AMD/ATi had a massive lead over Intel in the high-end desktop and server CPU arena, and a very noticeable one in the high-end graphics one too. I've no doubt they'll be back up front at some point, and when they are, they could get one hell of a head of steam going if both graphics and CPU are fastest together. I just hope they don't get as complacent when that happens.
going to wait for the B3 chips myself and better bios revs to make a choice...
AMD delays Phenom 2.4 GHz due to TLB errata - The INQUIRER
(yes I know its the inq...)
I've been following AMDs release of lacklustre products now for over a year... I think it's time I got out of this "OOH I CANT WAIT FOR AMD TO RELEASE THIS" and move over to the side which always produces results. I hate this C2D that I have, but in terms of performance i can't fault it! Seems AMD/ATI can't seem to get anything right these days... Whatever happened to the release a better product after the competition does rule? Instead we have "release a rubbish replacement at a time almost long enough that it doesn't matter that it was released so that the competition can respond with their improved version of the product that beats your just released product that came out last year". Utter rubbish! Don't believe the K8 proves better in some cases, that is honestly pathetic.
Not happy right now.
i bet you i could get a cpu today- next week, whever they appear and get 3.2Ghz, maybe 3.4, maybe higher, i've no fear of hitting 3Ghz though. its more for me to play with, i've got a Q6600 that is happy stable at 3.8Ghz, can go higher but not without a bump in voltage thats a touch extreme. but i can say that the q6600 feels exactly the same in speed from 2.4Ghz up to 3.8Ghz in games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmage
At £145 its the cheapest way to get a quad core and it will run any game fine for the next couple years. we aren't at cpu limits when it comes to games, we're at a code complexity vs time to make game crossroads. until coding gets a big boost, or we get some kind of standard for physics/.level design that speeds up game making then time to write code is limiting the scope of games and the amount of cpu power they need.
£100 for the msi platinum board, as i've hinted in the 3870 release thread, ocuk are selling this board at £135, dabs in stock at £99 inc vat. i might be hinting that OCUK are trying their best to artifically raise prices in the uk. with the gigabyte at £170 on ocuk, £155 on tekheads who clearly can't buy in the bulk/price ocuk can. They are way above normal amd/nvidia(amd chipset) boards have come out at, which has always been a decent amount lower than intel board pricing.
you can get a £145 quad and a top spec 4 way crossfire capable board for £100, thats something intel can't offer at all, they can't offer the best dual crossfire boards at £100. amd is the cheaper alternative that offers same gaming speed which is what 99% of home users do.
as for the dells/hp's of the world. being able to get a quad core into a £20 cheaper computer is better for marketing, even the £6 cheaper 9600 is better for dell. they'd sell more to enthusiasts if they were more in line of £125 for the 9500 and £145 for the 9600.
but it seems amd will offer a upwards multiplier unlocked black edition 9600 for THE SAME PRICE as the normal 9600, very soon aswell. which is a very nice touch for the enthusiast. despite the fact i haven't used a higher multiplier on air/water cooling in 5 years, only lower.
remember, intel moved the Q6600 to the price point its at now just to screw with AMD. ATi's 2900xt top end card significantly cheaper than the GTX< if slower, and their 2400/2600 range outspecing intels low/mid end so much moved Nvidia to stop mid end sales going to ATI by releasing the 8800GT. AMD stated before the 2900XT release that they wanted to bring high end parts to mid end prices, to produce them in larger quantities and sell more so they can be cheaper. Nvidia has suddenly decided mid range card prices with higher performance was good.
AMD/ATI are helping push prices down very well, while not really getting top end performance. but £240 for 2x3850 512's, on a £70 top spec'd 790 board, with a £145 quad core, twice the value we were getting with last gen gfx cards and intel mobo's. Spend £100 on the 790fx and you have the chance to just add more gpu's for relatively cheaply for more performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceededGoku
errm, amd have only really had one release, in the k8 that was better than intel. nvidia release a 5800/5900 that wasn't really better than ati's. there is always releases that aren't as good as competitors. but remember intel, have 3/4 times the market share amd have, they have way more than 3/4 times the money, they simply drop prices to kill amd numbers whenever they want. the q6600 could lose money, may well be losing money and intel couldn't care less as it makes amd have to sell at lower prices to sell numbers, which means they can't make the profits they need, which makes it even harder to put money into the next gen.
amd be all rights should have gone under decades ago, they've got an incredibly competitive product that probably cost, i don't even know, 100's of mils less to develope, with 100's less technicians.
but, as this and other reviews show, its giving away 30fps in hl2 when at really low res, but its 150 instead of 180fps, in crysis, its giving even while more cpu limited, much much more competitive numbers. older less complex code is much easier to fill out the c2d's 4 issue core, but in more complex code where waiting for code and more complex numbers are used c2d isn't able to fill up the core as well and the phenom significantly closes the gap. but do we care that in a little less complex code it's not got the pure brute force power it needs to go from 150fps to 180fps, or that its got enough power to keep up in heavily loaded situations where the core 2 duo isn't able to use all its raw power.
just occured to me, i wonder if they might be freaking nice to us and make the 9600 black edition for enthusiasts a b3 stepping, letting those who really want a b3 stepping get one now. they seem to be making them already, probably getting stocks for the big release of the whole line in q1. no one except the enthusiasts really want/need something that can do above stock, and its definately possible they could let small numbers out for a enthusiast edition...... would be nice.
The K7 was better too.Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkenmaster
yeah was disappointed, was hoping there would be competition and so lower prices...though intel are doing ok for the price!
still i hope amd get a new revision out soon that can compete better with penryn.
if they dont it'll be an easy decision for my new build in the new year.
now, hexus guys, were these supposed to be £145/£159 inc vat? because ocuk yet again screwing people are putting them up at £170/£200 inc vat, which is ridiculous. i mean amd would never price them that much above the Q6600, especially not both, it would make no sense at all.
30% bump on cpu's, 35% bump on the msi mobo, 15% bump on ati gpu's. its getting ridiculous.
Don't buy it at that price then, silly :p
If no-one thinks they are worth that money, they won't sell any.