Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad-Core Phenom Models & Clocks Revealed

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Quad Core
  • Processors
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 11, 2007 9:07:01 AM

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Quad-Core_Phenom_Models...


News
Quad-Core Phenom Models & Clocks Revealed

AMD has confirmed the model name and clock speed of the upcoming quad-core Phenom processors and plans to launch them as scheduled in Nov/Dec while Phenom FX will launched in Q1 next year. AMD plans to add higher clocked Phenom FX and Phenom quad-core processors in Q2 next year.
Phenom FX-82 will be clocked at 2.6GHz or higher while the faster FX-8x model could hit 3GHz. FX-82 DVT samples will be available in Q4 while production will kick off in Q1 2008 while FX-8x DVT sample and production is slated for Q2 2008.
Phenom 9600 and 9500 clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.2GHz respectively will be the first quad-core Phenom processors to hit the market in Nov. Phenom 9700 clocked at 2.6GHz will come along slightly later in Dec. A faster iteration of the quad-core Phenom will come along in Q2 2008 while DVT samples will be available in Q1. Most likely, it will be called Phenom 9800 and clocked at 2.8GHz.

More about : quad core phenom models clocks revealed

October 11, 2007 9:34:21 AM

Hmmm...Nice find...

Well it's good to see that they'll atleast have a 2.6 clocked model in 2007. But q2 2008 just seems so far away for a 3 ghz production model. But we still really don't know how well they are going to perform in the desktop segment. I also bet the first revision won't be that great on OC'ing...They'll end up making a new revision around q1/q2 for their entire product line for better heat and OC headroom....Time will tell..

Nice find though ^.^
October 11, 2007 9:52:38 AM

THANKS
Yea looks good, cant wait for the 3ghz speed models then ill update again or maybe 2.8
October 11, 2007 12:20:35 PM

is this another AMD paper launch :-(
October 11, 2007 3:06:32 PM

How is ATI's and nVidia's laziness during the C2D launch Intel's fault?

C2D was a great launch from Intel (far better than the X38 thusfar...although Intel's processor launches are typically better than chipset changes), especially considering the huge demand.
October 11, 2007 3:37:49 PM

Mrs. Bytch, what are you talking about? You bytching about Intel not providing SLI support on their boards that supported the C2D? What do you have to bytch about? Your own profile shows that you obviously don't see the need to run a SLI rig.

hball
October 11, 2007 3:49:22 PM

No flaming. If this is true, then the old stepping problems are over and the Phenom will be competitive. Things will only get better when the 45nm process is working, (at least until Nehalem)
Time will tell.
I'm still waiting for a Phenom / Kentfield / Yorkfield performance per clock benchmark.
October 11, 2007 3:54:37 PM

Does anyone know how AMD quad-Phenoms compete with Intel Q6600 in performance and pricing?
October 11, 2007 4:02:46 PM

PhantomBlot said:
Does anyone know how AMD quad-Phenoms compete with Intel Q6600 in performance and pricing?


We're not really going to know this until they're out or reviewers get samples ... while barcelona was a decent enough guideline, the actual answer to your question won't be answered until they're available.
October 11, 2007 4:03:26 PM

Quote:
You mean like the C2D? When C2D launched there were no nvidia boards to support it, Intel raped everyone for a crappy board ($250+) and NO SLI support. You can bet when phenom launches there will be sli, crossfire, and chipsets from AMD, nvidia, sis, and via.


i smell a fanboy. intel launch was great, ok there wasn't huge amount of board to run it on, but you could easily pick on up for £80, i did.
October 11, 2007 4:05:46 PM

Yes, this is another paper launch because you should notice that any of the chips people like us would actually want to buy won't actually be released until next year.
Intel has simply gained so much ground...or conversely DAAMIT has lost so much. The whole tri-core thing smacks of a dying company scrambling to sell anything they can...even products that don't pass initial testing for their original design.
tri-core = broken quad-core
Maybe ATI will find a way to separate and stay productive once AMD finally dies...if it does, not saying it will. Remember, it was AMD who forced ATI to slow production and release of the R600.
October 11, 2007 4:22:11 PM

General_Disturbance said:
Yes, this is another paper launch because you should notice that any of the chips people like us would actually want to buy won't actually be released until next year.
Intel has simply gained so much ground...or conversely DAAMIT has lost so much. The whole tri-core thing smacks of a dying company scrambling to sell anything they can...even products that don't pass initial testing for their original design.
tri-core = broken quad-core
Maybe ATI will find a way to separate and stay productive once AMD finally dies...if it does, not saying it will. Remember, it was AMD who forced ATI to slow production and release of the R600.



Last time i checked, when graphics card companies (namely nvidia for this example) launch a new range of GPU's, they start by releasing the top range part and then several months later launch the mid range parts. Example of this would be the Nvidia 8 series, where they started with the 8800GTX and then a couple months later got around to launching the 8800GTS and then a couple months after that showed up with the low-mid range 84/5/600 series cards.

This means they filter cash from people over a longer period of the financial year, with their releases tailored to specific cash-level buyers. If all the 88 cards were released at the same time, nvidia would have shifted less GTX's because more people at the time would have opted to save cash and go for one of the GTS offerings. By releasing in stages they help to ensure they shift more stock overall.

Now, since the leading discrete GPU manufacturer that uses this release timeplan hasn't gone bust yet, i'm going to choose to believe that AMD isn't going to rapidly go bust as you seem to me to be predicting.

Also, the later launch of the tri-cores (quads with one disabled) can also point to the fact their yields haven't been quite as bad as some others on here have been claiming, since it's taking a few months more to stack up a large enough stockpile to take them to launch. This can only mean fewer $ losses on wasted silicon in the long run.
October 11, 2007 4:30:27 PM

I also forgot to mention that GPU manufacturers have been taking slighty faulty top-range hardware, disabling the faulty parts, rebranding them and finally selling them on as a lower range part for years ... if it's worked with GPU's in the past, why not do it for CPU's?
October 11, 2007 4:52:41 PM

cool, we should have them by 2010.

Then again why do I need these again??
October 11, 2007 4:59:11 PM

PhantomBlot said:
Does anyone know how AMD quad-Phenoms compete with Intel Q6600 in performance and pricing?


Just my speculation, but I believe Phenom 2.4Ghz will fall short of Q6600 in performance. From the data we currently know, which can change in the future, that Phenom's IPC is below Core 2's.
October 11, 2007 5:00:48 PM

Quote:
You mean like the C2D? When C2D launched there were no nvidia boards to support it, Intel raped everyone for a crappy board ($250+) and NO SLI support. You can bet when phenom launches there will be sli, crossfire, and chipsets from AMD, nvidia, sis, and via.


:sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 

Only this time, there will be a lot of boards... but no chip :kaola:  :kaola: 
October 11, 2007 5:47:51 PM

I expect chips...and I don't mean California smokies.
October 11, 2007 7:06:06 PM

Hell, AMD's 65nm still is a paper launch as far as I'm concerned, they're barely available for only the lower half of the clock range that the 90nm parts are selling at. I guess we got shrugged off for companies like Dell.
October 11, 2007 11:06:16 PM

@PhantomBlo t

Id be thinking the price will be the down point on these. Performance or no performance the Q6600 is cheap as chips. Whereas a newly release native quad core that AMD are apparently having issues getting average-medium yields (hence the tri-core). I can see it costing much less than most of the Extreme processors from Intel.
October 13, 2007 2:45:12 AM

So is it safe to say AMD will actually ship a Phenom Quad Processor in Nov? :bounce:  Yes, I'm an AMD fan. I'm rocking out on an OC'd Athlon 2500+ with a Radeon 9500 Pro, laugh all you want, and yes, it's time to upgrade. I would really like to build my next system with a quad processor.

Obviously with the computer I have now I've been away from the game for a few years. If someone could bring me back up to speed on what I should be looking for once AMD actually starts shipping the Phenom quads I'd greatly appreciate it.

I will probably get a DX10 video card, most likely amd, but it doesn't have to be the best. I play mostly games, but also do some video editing even once in a while. What chipsets support the Phenom? Did AMD ever put out a new chipset?

If you need more info let me know.. If AMD pushes the Phenom back any further (farther?) I will probably go against all that is holy and pick up a core 2 (I hate the thought... :cry:  )

Thanks in advance
October 13, 2007 9:00:37 PM

@redboy33

You must be the first person ive talked to that owns a 9500 pro like me. They didnt last to long at all (overshadowed by the 9600pro in a matter of months).

When AMD brings there offerings the quads will nodoubt come first, but it might be worth looking at a tricore cheaper with still good perfomance (speculating). AMD should the the R670 which should be a breathe of fresh air for them in the GPU market. however, atm youd be looking at a 2900
October 13, 2007 9:40:18 PM

Whoa this is all getting really off topic but I can vaguely remember Intel touting Core core Core core. People ran out and got the Core Processor, then Intel released the Core 2 Duo. I had a buddy that ran out and grabbed a Mac over it at the time and was really excited with this whole "Core" thing.

He was a bit pis$ed off that the real performance part he wanted an what Intel was talking about was the Core 2 Duo. So if someone could clear that whole thing up that is actually a pretty interesting soft launch trick.

So, from what I gather (I am an AMD fan, so didn't follow it all) the Core had its own soft launch that ripped alot of people off thinking they were getting Core 2 performance.

Again, that is what I gathered from my buddy, so I am probably misinformed.
October 14, 2007 12:38:48 AM

@Falken699:

The original Core Duo was meant for mobile, and it was a great chip especially from a thermal/power perspective. It wasn't intended to be a high-performance desktop CPU.

A quote from a Mac site from the original Intel launch (Jan 2006) (Text bolded for emphasis by me):



If you talk to both Apple and Intel, they’ll tell you that the Intel Core Duo is a processor designed for laptops, providing a compromise between performance and good power-consumption and heat-generation characteristics. [b said:
And so the Core Duo processor in these new iMacs (as well as the forthcoming MacBook Pro) is clearly not meant to be the be-all, end-all when it comes to raw computing power.
]

If you talk to both Apple and Intel, they’ll tell you that the Intel Core Duo is a processor designed for laptops, providing a compromise between performance and good power-consumption and heat-generation characteristics. And so the Core Duo processor in these new iMacs (as well as the forthcoming MacBook Pro) is clearly not meant to be the be-all, end-all when it comes to raw computing power.
[/b]

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/i...

If you read the whole article, they have a pretty good write-up on how the Core Duo is better than the PowerPC CPUs that Apple was using, but not jaw-dropping performance gains that Apple claimed. Your friend should've done his homework before buying.

The Core was out long before the Core 2. It may be that some companies tried to fool consumers into buying the older Core chips (like they tried to sell the old Pentium systems), but I wouldn't blame that on Intel.
!