Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

The World's First 65 W Desktop Quad Core

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
May 21, 2008 6:01:31 AM

VERY INTERESTING...
Score
-4
May 21, 2008 7:21:29 AM

People can still play games with this quad core. Sure, it's not as fast as a quad core from Intel, but it's evidently more than suitable to handle today's games. However, for about $200 it's a horrible value.
Score
5
Related resources
Anonymous
May 21, 2008 7:26:24 AM

Just a quick question... at 1.8GHz is this chip even competitive with a higher speed dual core (even when considering 4 core vs 2 and considering multi-core optimized applications)?

It'd be interesting to add in a Intel mid to high range dual core and look at the power consumption and performance vs the relatively low clocked quad. Dropping the clockspeed so low would seem to give back most of the games from having 2 extra cores (and would be worse for SW that cannot use 4 cores).
Score
-1
May 21, 2008 7:41:20 AM

Im an Q9450 owner and to just drop the multipler on the QX9770 and use the same vid isent fair.
My Q9450 VID = 1.1v, EIST drops VID to 1.0375v
C1 stepping, slawr l806a762
I bet thats gonna make it hard for the phenom to beat
Score
1
May 21, 2008 8:25:00 AM

Page 12 title is wrong. It's 9.8% not 8.8%. Just mention it, as it seems no one's noticed it yet.
Score
2
May 21, 2008 11:02:05 AM

This just goes to show how crappy "Barceloney" really is.

Consider the fact that one can buy an e8400 or 8500 which uses the same power, can keep up with AMD's quad cores (even when they are over clocked), and also DESTROY this thing at gaming. WHY exactly would I buy this piece of crap again Frank ?!?!

I guess if I ran Cinebench benchmarks all day and did NOTHING else, then this cpu would look good.

People that buy quad cores are not going to care about 35 watts, they want to brag about speed OR get their work done ASAP, and AMD is crap for that right now !
Score
-1
May 21, 2008 11:09:21 AM

An excellent review Frank ... well done.

Very impartial ... showing the strength's and weaknesses of the low power unit.

The overclocking limit of 2.4 would be interesting to explore further.

Can you elaborate on what settings you went to ... and the HTT frequency please?

Cheers,
Score
-1
May 21, 2008 11:15:26 AM

An excellent review Frank ... well done.

Very impartial ... showing the strength's and weaknesses of the low power unit.

The overclocking limit of 2.4 would be interesting to explore further.

Can you elaborate on what settings you went to ... and the HTT frequency please?

Cheers,
Score
-2
May 21, 2008 11:55:28 AM

Why did you underclock the l3 cache and memory controller? The ht link is ment to be overclocked, not underclocked! L3 runs the same speed as ht link not 2,4 ghz. Slow L3 is a big bottleneck in games.
Score
0
May 21, 2008 12:23:30 PM

comparing power consumption of a 1.8ghz phenom with a stock q6600 and touting the phenom as the power consumption king is a very inaccurate conclusion. The articles here just keep getting worse and worse... seriously who hires these clowns?
Score
2
May 21, 2008 12:26:29 PM

Quote:
Its performance is perfectly adequate for office work and entertainment, though not for games.

I hope that statement was intended for this particular CPU only, or the fanboyism of this site just went up 10 notches to ludicrous stupidity.
Score
2
May 21, 2008 12:53:56 PM

skittles, even if it is accurate, so what because INTEL could just under clock the q6600 and draw 65 watts to, but the performance would suck also.They're just pushing efficiency because AMD is getting destroyed on the performance front and there is no real news right now on any performance oriented front.
Score
1
Anonymous
May 21, 2008 1:19:54 PM

The real point of this (chip and article) is twofold:

1, If you're really going to run multithreaded apps 24/7 (or not much less) this processor is really perfect. This points to the fact, that K10 was really made for server segment: it is scaling very well in multisocked configurations, and at lower clocks it is very energy-efficient.

2, The biggest deficiency of the current dekstop Phenoms is that they are way too power-hungry. Maybe the SOI is to blame, as I've read the SOI process has a frequency tipping point after which the dissipation grows tremendously. Anyway, the situation seems curable, as this 9100e can be clocked to perform on par with 9750 yet consuming substantially less. That brings some hope for AMD.
Score
3
May 21, 2008 1:33:11 PM

@Rachotilko

Uh what about the fact that they SUCK (x4's) ?! This architecture is AMD's version of Netburst. This design sucks no matter how you try to spin it; here is hoping the next cores from AMD fare better. Where is the advantage in buying this piece of junk ? Maybe if I had a bank of servers, maybe...as far as any real desktop apps go, I'd be just as well of going core 2 duo as I would on this thing, winning in one benchmark doesn't impress me because I do lots of things with my desktop.
Score
-5
May 21, 2008 2:25:41 PM

Eh, 9100e still has at least one ace up it's sleeve. If you use bios 1.2 with that chip, you can lower the VID on the northbridge/IMC and it will cut the Load and Idle power a lot. Depending on what it's stock set at, there should be plenty of room to lower it and still keep it stable. My 9600 BE was doing 2.4ghz on the NB at the stock VID, and could easily do 2ghz on the nb at 1.1v VID, stable. Only problem is, changing the VID I dont know if C&Q will still work. Still the biggest issue with Phenom Power consumption is the IMC, until they make it throttle or lower voltages like the rest of the chip.
Score
0
May 21, 2008 4:43:49 PM

I think AMD is even more efficient than most tests claim; the memory controller is intergradted into the processor and not the Northbridge part of a motherboard's chipset. Extra traffic and external components running on 65nm (or higher) chipsets is surely to add to the power consumption of all Intel processors especially when dealing data storage facilities or super-computers.
Score
1
May 21, 2008 6:27:50 PM

I'm not sure about this article. From the benchmarks, it looks like this cpu is slower and consumes more power than a Q6600 which is Intel's old 65nm cpu. Performance per dollar and performance per watt still seems to lean in Intel's favor. The only thing I see worth mentioning in this article is AMD released the world's slowest quad core that still costs as much as a respectable Q6600. As the others pointed out, if you don't need performance, get a reasonably clocked dual core and keep general application performance at a higher level.
Score
1
Anonymous
May 21, 2008 7:57:17 PM

Is it me or have Tom's reviews seem to have a bias against Intel lately? Ever since the site design change, they haven't really had anything nice to say about them. It's usually something like "Intel MAY lead in performance, BUT...."
Score
-1
May 21, 2008 8:16:56 PM

The type of users that use office apps, do not play the latest games, and care about power are mostly buying laptops these days.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 21, 2008 9:01:34 PM

JSP78 is right. Q9450 doesn't have 1.2875V, but max 1.2V. This would translate 92W from article to less than 80W
Score
0
May 21, 2008 9:58:58 PM

AMD might just be getting in back together. In no way does it match intel, but compared to previous overclocking margins, 33% is huge!
Score
0
May 21, 2008 10:11:31 PM

Ill admit its an interesting article, but I would have to disagree on the second line of the article: "But few users other than gamers still care solely about performance". I can only assume that this is referring to people looking for an energy efficient chip, well I have worked for some time in the computer retail industry with HP, and never once have I been asked by a customer or employee how energy efficient a machine is. Sure there may be one or two of you here at toms that care, but many of those people are probably also going to slap a massive graphics card into the system also, so what does 65w vs. 95w matter when you have a GPU hogging up to 400w in some cases? If you want to save energy, put your machine to sleep when its not being used and trash a few old light bulbs, ENERGY SAVED!!!
Score
1
May 21, 2008 11:08:43 PM

Yeah there is more, but this site is for enthusiasts and not an IT trade mag.
Score
-2
May 21, 2008 11:09:35 PM

Dudes, there's more to computing than overclocking CPUs and playing games with quad-SLI rigs…
Score
2
May 21, 2008 11:16:06 PM

On what planet does the Q9450 use more power than the Q6600?
Not mine?

I would recommend THG check their results, since clearly their testing is returning incorrect results.
Score
1
May 21, 2008 11:27:42 PM

Does CPU-Z not reflect real world as far as voltage goes?

Page 3 says stock voltage is 1.10v
Page 4 says "We were able to overclock the Phenom 9100e ... to 2.40 GHz without increasing the core voltage." and then the screen shot with CPU-Z shows 1.280v
Score
0
May 22, 2008 12:01:38 AM

question1Just a quick question... at 1.8GHz is this chip even competitive with a higher speed dual core (even when considering 4 core vs 2 and considering multi-core optimized applications)?It'd be interesting to add in a Intel mid to high range dual core and look at the power consumption and performance vs the relatively low clocked quad. Dropping the clockspeed so low would seem to give back most of the games from having 2 extra cores (and would be worse for SW that cannot use 4 cores).


Think of it in terms like this: You have a 4 lane highway versus a 2 lane highway, cars on both are moving at the same speed. What one will allow more cars to pass by in a given time?
Score
-2
May 22, 2008 4:57:03 AM

This is perfect for anyone who is running a SOHO server where it has to run 24/7 and don't need powerful processors.

For laymen, ie. people who use computer to chit chat, watch movies, listen to music, email, edit Word/Excel, and often installs a lot of programs running in the background like Antivirus, Screen Saver,... then this CPU is also fantastic.

For game, I never think a quad core is a good choice. With the same amount of money, I would rather buy a 2-core with the highest clock speed.
Score
1
Anonymous
May 22, 2008 7:55:36 AM

Think of blade servers ... this is where K10 fits really very well. Anywere else it does not seem to make any sense.

One thing puzzles me anyway : the integer performace compared to K8. Look at the Sandra ALU CPU benchmark. That one scales perfectly with number of threads. And yet, per core (!) performace of K10 is BELOW that of similarly clocked K8. That's beyond my comprehension, given a long list of would-be enhancements of K10 compared to K8, listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K10#Characteristics_of...
Score
0
May 22, 2008 7:55:55 AM

Anyone else having problems reading the comments section? The text is all over the place.

(Win XP Pro + SP2)
Score
0
May 22, 2008 7:57:37 AM

RachotilkoThink of blade servers ... this is where K10 fits really very well. Anywere else it does not seem to make any sense.One thing puzzles me anyway : the integer performace compared to K8. Look at the Sandra ALU CPU benchmark. That one scales perfectly with number of threads. And yet, per core (!) performace of K10 is BELOW that of similarly clocked K8. That's beyond my comprehension, given a long list of would-be enhancements of K10 compared to K8, listed here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K [...] chitecture


Always take Sandra benchmarks with a pinch of salt, especially the integer math. It is a largely synthetic benchmark that does not reflect real-world performance. You can see this by running two different CPU's at the same core speed..their performance would be similar.
Score
0
May 22, 2008 1:46:36 PM

This chip runs at only 1.8Ghz. The q9300 runs at 2.5Ghz and is 95W so Intel could release a 1.8Ghz chip if they wanted to that would also be 95W.
Score
-1
May 22, 2008 1:52:46 PM

They could release a 65W chip if they down clock their chips down to 1.8Ghz is what I meant. They just don't see a market for this, but if AMD does start selling these chips expect to see Intel flood 65W quads running at 1.8GHz
Score
1
Anonymous
May 23, 2008 3:29:37 AM

there is one little problem: VID. today, they are q6600 G0s with VID so low as 1.1875 (mine is from the first g0 series, @VID:1.2875). and also there are some overclockers, who have energy efficient functions enabled, so 6x400@1.163 goes well (this happens, when you clock yours to 9x400 and cpu is idle). oh, and btw, mine does 9x333@1.260 24/7 (and yes, it's prime stable).

this CPU is intresting, but intel keeps lowering theyr CPUs VIDs. so, it's slow on default, it's a good overclocker, and only suitable for multicore apps. for the price of an q6600, which is far more faster, and hell, if you get one with a low VID (and when you buy a new one novadays, you'll get one with relatively low -under 1.225- VID), it will consume more, but not with mutch. but its efficiency ratio will be much better.

on the other hand, if the 780 chipset is the perfect for you, and when you get one cheaper than a 9850BE, this could be a good deal. we got the first low cost energy efficient quadcore system, its weird, but for its purpose, its good.
Score
1
May 23, 2008 3:39:41 PM

We need intel quads on 780 chipsets...lol
Score
0
May 23, 2008 5:47:55 PM

Second sentence in the article: “But few users other than gamers still care solely about performance.”

Interesting… anything to back that claim up?
Score
0
May 23, 2008 5:54:35 PM

royalcrownbut this site is for enthusiasts
At one time perhaps, but no longer :( 
Score
0
Anonymous
May 24, 2008 2:19:53 AM

Hmm... so the 780G chipset saves ~17W at full load over the 790FX, so assuming the same power savings occur at idle, this phenom system idles @ 77W on a 780G, and the X2s near the 5000+ mark idle @ 60W?

There's something off about those #s since a budget system I recently built for someone else using a Gigabyte780G MB, a 5000BE X2(stock speed), 9600GT, 2 sticks DDR2-800, an older IDE HDD & DVD drive, and a generic 350W PSU idles @48-49W (measured at the wall socket) in XP w C&Q on.

Their #s are supposed to be with a 8800GTX?! Don't those things eat like 50-60W idling and 200W full tilt? How do they arrive at their power consumption figures in this article?
Score
0
May 24, 2008 4:16:36 PM

at Best Buy Canada we have this cpu in one of the HP Slimline pc's. The pc overall runs a fair bit cooler than the other Slimlines, due in large part to the fact that this processor runs cooler and consumes less power.
Score
0
May 25, 2008 1:48:32 AM

lol @ 1.8 of course u could do that low of a wattage.

I apreciate, somewhat, the try for competition. but every single newer model from amd, is quite pathetic. kinda nice to see "better" models coming out, but they are ever so lil in difference, why even bother.

atleast intel, even if they come with newer models ever so quick, they have something big to offer as a new feature and or improvement.
Score
0
May 25, 2008 1:58:29 PM

Whoa AMD still uses a FSB (p4) OMG what century are we in?
Score
-1
May 25, 2008 5:47:22 PM

Wow! I never expected to be surprised by a phenom. Imagine how freaking awesome the 45nm edition would be! Can't wait to get my hands on of these. Now if they'd just increase the cache and unlock the multiplier for gamers.
Score
0
May 26, 2008 2:20:10 AM

it preforms good enough for gaming. despite it might be a bit slower it uses alot less power and also delivers quite alot overclocking potential with reasonable pricetag. but since i would mainly use it for intensive multi tasks and gaming then if i would go for amd i would consider the phenom 9850 BE with the unlocked multiplier which offers preformance simular to that of the Q6600 and still has a reasonabable overclock potential. not as high as the Q6600 has tough but gets along. the wait is for the Q9450 to drop in price soon then it will be the best value out there with its large 12mb cache and overclock potential.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 27, 2008 7:07:40 AM

AMD needs to pull those clock up to beat intel which they don't seem to be dong for now....
Score
0
!