AMD Phenom II X4 970

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Seems that a new speed bump for the Phenom II X4 will be released and will be clocked at 3.5GHZ:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...s_Sources.html

However,it seems two versions will exist as one will be based on the Phenom II X6.

[Queelis]

Oh yeah, that leaves room for overclocking

[DanceswithUnix]

Oh yeah, that leaves room for overclocking

If it stays in a 125W envelope, yes it might!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Novatech have the CPU on sale for around £150:

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/p...70FBGMBOX.html

[matty-hodgson]

Why is there such a massive gap in price between Intel and AMD? If you wanted to get yourself a 3.5GHz quad core from Intel you'd be looking at 3 or 4x the price of that.

[Terbinator]

Why is there such a massive gap in price between Intel and AMD? If you wanted to get yourself a 3.5GHz quad core from Intel you'd be looking at 3 or 4x the price of that.

Because the similar priced i5 760 probably beats the PII 970 in all but a select few tests.

[Fuzzed_out]

Why is there such a massive gap in price between Intel and AMD? If you wanted to get yourself a 3.5GHz quad core from Intel you'd be looking at 3 or 4x the price of that.

Different architectures use different methods to do the same things, it's the same reason that AMD and nVidea cards have very different core counts on similar performing cards.

[scaryjim]

Because the similar priced i5 760 probably beats the PII 970 in all but a select few tests.

More to the point, because *all* the i7 processors can handily beat out a Phenom II X4 in all be a select few tests. As a result AMD are basically price-limited by Intel's current selling price for the cheapest i7 - they have to sell their X6 processors at that price or lower, and they have to sell the X4s just a little cheaper than that.

But yes, a current Intel quad at 3.5GHz would be miles ahead of this processor...

[nibbler]

But for that price just get a 1055T surely :S

[scaryjim]

Depends whether you want 6 cores out of the box or 3.5GHz out of the box.

Sure, a competent overclocker could get a 1055T to 3.5GHz (I'd assume, anyway), but not everyone who buys processors, and certainly not the vast majority of people who buy computers, are competent overclockers...

[badass]

More to the point, because *all* the i7 processors can handily beat out a Phenom II X4 in all be a select few tests. As a result AMD are basically price-limited by Intel's current selling price for the cheapest i7 - they have to sell their X6 processors at that price or lower, and they have to sell the X4s just a little cheaper than that.

But yes, a current Intel quad at 3.5GHz would be miles ahead of this processor...

Pretty sad really. The Bloomfield CPU's have a smaller die with less transistors so they cost less to produce than AMD's Phenom II's. So AMD have to sell a more expensive to produce CPU for less money due to the fact they didn't pull their digits from their behinds when they had the fastest desktop and Server CPU's available for x86/x64 servers.
I really, really hope bulldozer makes Sandy Bridge look slow but I doubt it. They'd have to increase overall performance of their 12 core CPU's by 50%, their 6 core CPU's by nearly 100% and their quad cores by the same amount. Single threaded performance and Energy efficiency at idle and load will have to be loads better as well. Otherwise they are stuck competing purely on price.

One question: With the die harsested 6 core ones support Turbo Core? Will both? Or will Neither?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Pretty sad really. The Bloomfield CPU's have a smaller die with less transistors so they cost less to produce than AMD's Phenom II's. So AMD have to sell a more expensive to produce CPU for less money due to the fact they didn't pull their digits from their behinds when they had the fastest desktop and Server CPU's available for x86/x64 servers.

Intel's "honest" business practices probably also did not help!

I really, really hope bulldozer makes Sandy Bridge look slow but I doubt it. They'd have to increase overall performance of their 12 core CPU's by 50%, their 6 core CPU's by nearly 100% and their quad cores by the same amount. Single threaded performance and Energy efficiency at idle and load will have to be loads better as well. Otherwise they are stuck competing purely on price.

One question: With the die harsested 6 core ones support Turbo Core? Will both? Or will Neither?

The 95W version of the Phenom II X6 1055T is quite energy efficient especially considering how big the die is and the fact it is made on a 45NM process.

Again,having had to maintain their own fab as part of licensing agreements they used to have with Intel was not helpful for AMD IMHO.

[Terbinator]

Intel's "honest" business practices probably also did not help!

Help what, that they sat on their jacksy for 3 years while Intel steam rolled them ?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Help what, that they sat on their jacksy for 3 years while Intel steam rolled them ?

Or the fact that Intel did the following:
1.)Having to maintain a fab as part of their license agreements with Intel meant that billions of dollars had to be poured into fab building and process development. This money could have been put into CPU R and D. It also meant that they were not able to use other fabs which were not AMD owned AFAIK.

This also meant they had limited capacity too and on top of this limited what processes they could use too. It does not help they have to compete with Intel who have among the most advanced CPU production processes too. AMD cannot compete at all in this area as Intel simply has more money to invest in fabs.

2.)Intel has a much bigger R and D budget for CPUs alone than AMD ever had.

3.)When AMD was ahead bribed companies such as Dell to either not stock or limit the stock of prebuilt computers with AMD processors. This in many ways affected AMD's brand image among many customers who saw nothing but Intel processors in some of the biggest PC manufacturers in the world even at a time when AMD was ahead.

Many people who are not enthusiasts only consider Intel since most of them have only seen Intel processors in Dells,etc.

[Terbinator]

I'm not denying that happened and perhaps the business practices were shady, but if you put out a decent chip and then don't build on it while your competitor is deeply distressed questions need to be asked.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm not denying that happened and perhaps the business practices were shady, but if you put out a decent chip and then don't build on it while your competitor is deeply distressed questions need to be asked.

The merger of AMD and ATI did not help and it lead to the delay in both the original Phenom CPU and R600 GPU and of course the first Phenom processors had the errata bug too. OTH,the Phenom was made on a relatively immature 65NM process which meant it could not reach sufficiently high clockspeeds to be competitive. On top of this Intel had already transitioned to a 65NM process nearly a year before AMD had. The original Phenom also walked straight in the 45NM refresh of the Core2. AMD was over a year behind Intel with 45NM process technology too.

Even the original version of AMD Fusion was shelved since it was not possible to make it on a 45NM process.

The misstep with the Phenom really did cost AMD dearly and with a smaller R and D budget it will take them longer to recover from it. OTH,Intel can afford to spend much larger sums of money to recover from its mistakes.