Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel's 45 nm Penryn CPU: 4 GHz Air Cooled

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 29, 2007 10:36:07 AM

Four cores, 45 nm structures and overclocking up to 4 GHz make Intel's Penryn Core 2 CPUs faster and more efficient. How bad does it look for AMD?

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/index.html
October 29, 2007 11:03:20 AM

First Reply!
October 29, 2007 11:08:46 AM

Actually, something constructive is probably in order....AHEM

What a thorough, well-written review. Although I'm sure the author will get flamed, let me say that I thought it was great. Two MINOR points include the fact that although the system setup mentions only one hard drive, the photo shows two. Also, the wet jeans, orgasmic, repeated, bold print declaration that AMD is in trouble were over the top. Still, if the benchmarketing is to be believed, they are accurate statements.
Related resources
October 29, 2007 11:10:47 AM

Just another paid Intel pumper supporting the home team!!! I get so sick of this. God, I'm gonna get my tech news from a LEGIT source. Bless you Sharikou!

(please note: the above post was 100% sarcasm)
October 29, 2007 11:12:14 AM

But I hope AMD keeps going. We need them to keep Intel innovating. If AMD goes away and Intel reigns supreme they will rest on their laurels again. It wans't until AMD challenged Intel did they wake the sleeping giant.

Although AMD got what it asked for it still benefited comsumers. Let's hope they can do it again one of these days.
October 29, 2007 11:20:53 AM

Quote:
Page 19 first chart is a piece of crap as while it does state the cache is 2X4 compared to 2X6 it leaves out the fact that Q6800 is also slower in GHz. IE The QX9650 at 3GHz and the QX6800 at 2.93 and may be almost no improvement over the QX6850.

You think they forgot to adjust multiplier and FSB to set the 6800 to exactly 3Ghz?
October 29, 2007 11:24:14 AM

Slobogob said:
You think they forgot to adjust multiplier and FSB to set the 6800 to exactly 3Ghz?

Crap just noticed that its the QX6850 against the QX6800 on the chart.

I would have liked to seen QX6850 OC'ed in the benchmarks to see what the exact improvements were up to 4GHz.
October 29, 2007 11:32:06 AM

I think the article was a little over the top in the praise of the Penryn.

The Penryn showed itself to be what everyone said it was.
A modest improvement over the previous C2D.

7% Gain or so from cache and perhaps enhanced SSE4.
Slightly better thermals.
About EQUAL overclockabiltiy. Perhaps SLIGHTLY improved.

To get their particular CPU to 4.0Ghz, they had to fry it in the process.
So, in essence 3.8Ghz was the limit they could take their chip before they had to do a major voltage increase.

3.6Ghz on the G0 Q6600 with air is very doable.
3.8Ghz on the G0 Q6600 with air has been reported.

So, we are not talking a major improvement.
Perhaps 200Mhz and a little cooler.
This is a nice advance but nothing earth shattering.

Now, I would not be surprised if Intel was able to improve the steppings over the next few months and we will see even better OCs into the low 4.0Ghz range and then it will be really exciting.

October 29, 2007 11:49:58 AM

Now you guys should compare it to a AMD 4x4 System so we can see for certain what the difference in performance is between 4 Intel cores and 4 AMD ones. I mean really.. I only read it to find out where AMD stands, then you do a completely and unbalanced test... I mean really guys..c ome on... thats silly. Hey how about you guys compare a 4 core intel system to a 1 core AMd64 and see how low AMD gets then eh?
October 29, 2007 12:01:12 PM

For credibility reasons:

You do include the following at least twice:
Quote:
Also, we want you to understand why we are comparing Intel's quad-core CPU to a dual-core processor from AMD. For now, since we don't have any alternatives, it's the best we can do until Phenom arrives.


A lot of folks don't read all the small print, probably more headings and the text next under, so if you claim in a heading with bold text:
Quote:
Intel 45% Faster Than AMD


... follow it up with this pretty harsh text:
Quote:
The performance results are nothing short of appalling for AMD. Intel's new Penryn-based QX9650 pulls ahead of AMD's fastest desktop model, the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, by 45%.


... it doesn't make the article look objective. The Intel architecture is in no doubt the most efficient and faster, but how comes a dual-core's results become "appalling" in comparison to a quad-core?

Intel or AMD doesn't matter for me, but these kind of spinning of words in Tom's Hardware have made me a very rare visitor. In case anyone now claims that I'm simply complaining because I'm a hidden AMD fan, let me here present some figures which compares a Intel dual-core (E6850) with a quad-core (QX6850):

Cinema 4D = -100 %
3D Studio Max = -100 %
DivX 6.6.1 = -30 %
Mainconcept H.264 = -70 %

Does that lead to the conclusion that a dual-core Intel E6850 perform appallingly bad?

Come on now Tom's Hardware, you can do better than this!

October 29, 2007 12:07:09 PM

allenander said:
Now you guys should compare it to a AMD 4x4 System so we can see for certain what the difference in performance is between 4 Intel cores and 4 AMD ones. I mean really.. I only read it to find out where AMD stands, then you do a completely and unbalanced test... I mean really guys..c ome on... thats silly. Hey how about you guys compare a 4 core intel system to a 1 core AMd64 and see how low AMD gets then eh?


Who do you know that owns an AMD 4X4 system? The article clearly stated that the test was for single processor systems. Virtually no large OEM sells 4X4 systems so the average home user is going to have a hard time acquiring one... it's just not a viable system in terms of numbers. I felt the article clearly explained itself, its purpose and its limitations.
October 29, 2007 12:13:27 PM

Reading the Article, I think the reviewers were in a tough spot in regards to AMD.

1) Do you not compare it against AMD systems at all until the Phenom is available? This would have angered AMD fans that AMD was excluded.

2) Include AMD chips which relatively speaking are dated and have them show poor performance. This is what they did and angered AMD fans.

I think perhaps a little less commentary about the relative poor showing of the AMD chips may have been in order. Save the comments for when you have a phenom to compare in a couple weeks.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 29, 2007 12:27:18 PM

Well... To play Devil's advocate: AMD either couldn't or wouldn't provide a new Quad. No production sample. No engineering sample. Nothing. It's pretty hard to do a comparison to something you can't get your hands on. So Tom's was stuck using the best AMD Proc they could get. Toms made this clear at the beginning of the article.

And it's not an isolated ting: There have been complaints from the beginning about the non-availability of AMD's quad. And the ones you *can* get aren't even the 2Ghz speeds. Newegg, one of the largest online retailers, doesn't have any in stock at any price. The fastest (clock speed) AMD desktop proc you can get there is a stinking Althon 3.0. And there is only ONE Barcy processor in stock: A 1.7 Ghz for $214. And the 2.0Ghz has *never* been in stock there.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...


So how about changing:

Quote:
Come on now Tom's Hardware, you can do better than this!


to:

Quote:
Come on now AMD, you can do better than this!





Quite frankly, I'm highly disappointed: This is putting AMD two generations behind the power curve, as far as manufacturing process. And I'm not seeing anything on the pipeline to make up the difference. So we have a paper launch NON-delivery of a product which is becoming 2 generations old as it hits the market. AMD is getting their a$$es KICKED in the enthusiast market. Period. End of Discussion.

And it's sad. Just sad.
October 29, 2007 12:28:39 PM

Thank You for the article -THG is an awesume site! (unless your work for amd, live for amd or just a play old amd fantic)

q6600 4ghz on air: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-JJr2Vnfs1w


come on THG i think 4.5ghz is the number!
October 29, 2007 12:44:29 PM

zenmaster said:
I think the article was a little over the top in the praise of the Penryn. (are you kidding mr amd fantic - 4w idle, free 7% increase, 4-5ghz possible with water easy, blows amd out of the water 45-55%)

The Penryn showed itself to be what everyone said it was.
A modest improvement over the previous C2D. (no its much more overclock-able - you must be blind?, note it runs the same temperature at 3.8ghz as the qx6850 runs at 3ghz - the article under plays the benifts) (you need to get smoking the green part on your cpu box! you ever even seen an intel chip)

7% Gain or so from cache and perhaps enhanced SSE4.
Slightly better thermals.
About EQUAL overclockabiltiy. Perhaps SLIGHTLY improved. (at give speed, overclockablity is huge - i don't know what rock you crawled out from but dell, hp, gateway etc now overclock there highend stuff)

To get their particular CPU to 4.0Ghz, they had to fry it in the process. (only thing fried is you - 65c fried?)
So, in essence 3.8Ghz was the limit they could take their chip before they had to do a major voltage increase.
(major voltage change? do even read anything? dell ships there top system at 1.62v)

1.33v is high? what do you run your amd at? i bet its higher!

3.6Ghz on the G0 Q6600 with air is very doable.
3.8Ghz on the G0 Q6600 with air has been reported. (yes i agree not the point of the article - mine is running 3.72-3.85) i ship systems at 3.6ghz

So, we are not talking a major improvement. (yes we are you just did not pay attention)
Perhaps 200Mhz and a little cooler. (perhaps alot cooler and possible faster with water - nooboie)
This is a nice advance but nothing earth shattering. (if you work at amd it is they have hard time at 2ghz since only the 1.7ghz rejects can be found)

Now, I would not be surprised if Intel was able to improve the steppings over the next few months and we will see even better OCs into the low 4.0Ghz range and then it will be really exciting. (you woke up - thg did not push the chip hard they called 1.45v very high but its not, 1.5-1.6 is high - they had to have a part 2 (noobie)

October 29, 2007 12:58:43 PM

Scotteq, if you read my comment and added comparison between what a difference you see between two per core equal CPU:s, you should have understood that my criticism wasn't directed at how Tom's Hardware once more proved the well known and accepted truth: Intel is at the moment the clear winner. I've got no argument about that.

My argument has more to do with journalism. Tom's Hardware isn't any obscure exclusively known by some few nerds, it has become a larger player on the net influencing consumer decisions. Why then should articles have a touch of yellow journalism? There's no need for half-truths or twisted facts.

That AMD needs to present something more impressive than the old K8 architecture is undoubted. It's also correct that the quad-cores aren't available yet. Nevertheless it's a lot easier, I can't even see that there should be any argument about this, to produce a review, than to produce the object for the review. Who really knows, maybe the next generation AMD won't compete with these Intel ones in pure performance, but should that change the substance of articles?
October 29, 2007 1:19:52 PM

Dragon,

Do you understand the slightest technical aspects?
I think you fail to grasp that this chip is built using a smaller process and using new materials.

What is appropriate voltage for larger 90nm or 65nm may not be good for 45nm chips with it's different materials. Since they can operate with less power, supplying old levels may harm the chip.

Also, Water Cooling would have done very little to assist with an OverClock. The chip was hitting a Voltage limit, not a heat limit.
Increasing the voltage further would have simply further endangered the chip.

Your desire to bring AMD into the discussion shows the weakness of your arguments. The point of discussion was comparing the new Intel Chips to the old Intel Chips. To try and prove your point, you compared the new Intel chips to AMDs.

A classical philosophical fallacy employed by those who need to divert readers from the weakness of their arguments on a given topic by discussing a different one.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 29, 2007 1:23:12 PM

Quote:
Scotteq, if you read my comment and added comparison...


I did read your comment - And Tom's covered their journalistic behind by clearly stating in the beginning of the article that they were unable to obtain a Barcy Quad. Engineering sample or otherwise. Yet the readership/membership *really* want to know how these things stack up against each other. So what do you do? Leave AMD out entirely and get flamed for poor journalistic standards because you didn't include them? Or do you do your best to provide the content your readers demand with the best you can get your hands on, and then get flamed for poor journalistic standards because you were forced to include a poor~er performing product in the comparison? Do you run the comparison and risk AMD's marketing folks getting p*ssed off at you for somehow "making" their stuff look bad? If AMD gets mad, will they not provide product for future testing? Or do you use your position with the readership at large to make the case that AMD *really* need to get performing product into consumer hands?

Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that it's far better to publish the results of the best (Product X versus Product Y) that you are able to obtain. Explain clearly what it is, why the comparison was made, and why the results look as they do. Then let the chips fall where they may. {No Pun Intended, I assure you....} This is how people make their buying decisions, after all: We look for the best we can obtain with the money we have to spend.

I understand your point - It may... Hell - almost surely, would have been better from AMD's perspective had Tom's left AMD out of the comparison altogether. But that's not what the member/reader~ship want to see. We want to see Brand A's best going head to head with Brand I's best.

Maybe next time Toms could do a $300 Processor/$150 Mobo/identical memory/identical HDD test, or something. I know it could be made to sound like a backhanded comment, but I would expect to see more comparable results given the way AMD is currently positioning themselves in the market. And that'd go some way towards neutralizing Intel's advantage in outright performance.
October 29, 2007 1:33:58 PM

I personally think the 4x4 system should have been used. I dont consider an extreme edition cpu mass market at 1000$. thats just my opinion. good article though, good to see intel is staying on its toes to stay ahead.
a b à CPUs
October 29, 2007 1:57:17 PM

Very few people have that kind of money for a processor.
According to Anandtech.com there isn't that much of improvement over Conroe for the masses (lower cost processors), except in video editing, etc. and overclockability.
October 29, 2007 2:49:20 PM

I am actually and AMD fan. I am glad that these articles continue to make AMD look foolish and put pressure on them because they really have been behind the curve. No 4x4 system available to test? When did they say that this system was going to be available? Hmmm. I think AMD didn't want to provide a system because it would probably just have been beaten anyways. AMD really likes to blow horns when they have something on paper...but come on AMD...if you are going to tell us about technology make sure you have the hardware available to back up the claims!!!

I WANT PHENOM AND I WANT IT NOW!!!
October 29, 2007 3:15:01 PM

I was here.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 29, 2007 3:42:08 PM

Quote:
Who was surprised that a 4 core 45nm processor beats a 2 core 65nm processor by 45%?? Considering it has 50% more cores, a die shrink and 6x more cache. lol. Stupidest most pointless comparison test THG has done to date. Of course they are Intel fanboys, so its expected.




Given the entries the result is/was a foregone conclusion, and looking only at the numbers it is disingenuous to even try. But to my mind the real questions are more along the lines of "Why didn't AMD provide a new Barcy Quad when they were clearly asked to do so?" or maybe "Why is Tom's Hardware forced to use old AMD stuff in order to have something to write." and of course "Why, given the very recent years of AMD's performance advantage over Intel, hasn't AMD been able to respond in kind."


As for the Fanboy stuff - If Toms had left AMD out of the comparo altogether, I get the feeling the same people would be using the same phrase. Not like there haven't been recent posts claiming Tom's are Intel Fanboys because of the relative lack of AMD coverage, or anything. Also, given that the commentary a couple years ago from the Intel side was pretty much the same as currently witnessed from the AMD side, I personally have to conclude that Tom's is writing articles on who's stuff beats who's. No More, No Less. That Tom's are rounding out the selection with whatever is newsworthy, from whatever source is providing newsworthy material. No More, No Less. And that the only thing that has changed is which side of the fence happens to be growing the sour grapes. No More, No Less.

And yes, I do notice the irony of "Intel Fanboy" comments from a member who'd rig is Intel based. Quite Amusing, really.
October 29, 2007 3:53:04 PM

Quote:
Who was surprised that a 4 core 45nm processor beats a 2 core 65nm processor by 45%?? Considering it has 50% more cores, a die shrink and 6x more cache. lol. Stupidest most pointless comparison test THG has done to date. Of course they are Intel fanboys, so its expected.


Most of those applications dont take advantage of multiple cores, also the results are skewed by the %145 percent improvement in 3dsmax and the 115% improvement in cinema 4d %130 improvement in h264.

14% to 30% improvement in GAMES
37% in lame (who uses mp3 these days anyway..)
30.6% in AVG
40.8% in WinRAR
I wouldnt say Im suprised... but the results are not because they used 4 cores (in the non video encoding/rendering tasks atleast). These are single threaded applications, and it they look very good for a chip that isnt on the market yet!
October 29, 2007 3:57:48 PM

That was a really well done article guys. The battery of tests ran and data provided must have been exhaustive at the least. Everyone now knows exactly what Penny can do.
October 29, 2007 4:07:40 PM

jkflipflop98 said:
That was a really well done article guys. The battery of tests ran and data provided must have been exhaustive at the least. Everyone now knows exactly what Penny can do.


technically we only know what yorkfield can do, they didnt have a penyrn to test :) 
October 29, 2007 5:06:56 PM

i just think they should have used the quad fx just so you could have a quad 2 quad comparison, its not like the intel proc tested is mainstream, neither is quad fx. 250$ dual core vs 1000$ quad.... the article was in depth and very accurate im not doubting that at all. if your going to go top end vs top end, might as well do the dual socket. they may not have that board and procs though, that would be understandable. ok my rant is done. good article guys.
October 29, 2007 5:30:37 PM

everyone is glad they exsist, were all just a little irritated that we havnt seen anything competitive from AMD yet :( 
October 29, 2007 5:34:47 PM

Nice processor. Gives me a good indication that the Q6600 days are numbered. With the performance figures shown here, a skulltrail platform using TWO of these gems will run circles around a Q6600. Should Intel improve the Penryn stepping, this difference will be vast.

AMD desperately needs a quad-core CPU out there to level the playing field, and a damn-good performing one at that.

However, the enthusiast market is also now lacking a CHIPSET to run an overclocked quad-core decently. Intel's P35 loves SLACR, but it won't run SLI, and the nForce 680i won't even push a SLACR anywhere near it's limit, despite being dual-GPU friendly.

Now it's time for the mobile quad-core Penryn to kick some laptop ass. :sol: 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 29, 2007 5:38:06 PM

Quote:
....To you Intel fanboys, you better hope and pray AMD survives, or you'll be right back to paying $1000 for a "Extreme Edition" cpu with lackluster performance such as with P4. AMD woke Intel up, and you better be glad they exist.



We are of one mind on this: "Spanked" may be "Spanked" in the article of the day, but I am not happy the performance gap is widening. Competition is a GOOD thing, and for all concerned. More money, flowing in more directions, and we enthusiasts get to enjoy the best that can be made at whatever price point we choose to spend our hard~earned. Not looking forward to the potential of having to pay $1500 for my next proc. Tho it does help me to be happier ahd more impressed with my little Q6.

Peace
October 29, 2007 5:48:23 PM

There was a little talk about Intel not being pushed on the XBITs.
They were noting one reason the Intel's are so Overclockable is because Intel is not really being pushed to provide higher clock speeds by their competitors so they don't have to.

If AMD was shipping Phenom in Quantities and at default speeds of 3.0Ghz, you could bet your bottome dollar the the fast G0 processor would be shipping at stock speeds much faster than 3.0Ghz.

October 29, 2007 5:58:47 PM

Quote:
Quote:
To you Intel fanboys, you better hope and pray AMD survives, or you'll be right back to paying $1000 for a "Extreme Edition" cpu with lackluster performance such as with P4. AMD woke Intel up, and you better be glad they exist.


I'm glad that AMD exists, but here is the problem: AMD woke Intel up, but has Intel woke AMD up?
October 29, 2007 6:33:51 PM

skittle said:
Most of those applications dont take advantage of multiple cores, also the results are skewed by the %145 percent improvement in 3dsmax and the 115% improvement in cinema 4d %130 improvement in h264.

14% to 30% improvement in GAMES
37% in lame (who uses mp3 these days anyway..)
30.6% in AVG
40.8% in WinRAR
I wouldnt say Im suprised... but the results are not because they used 4 cores (in the non video encoding/rendering tasks atleast). These are single threaded applications, and it they look very good for a chip that isnt on the market yet!

Hence an average of all test becomew a mishmash of relevant and non-relevant figures, why it raises the bar for how such tests are done.


Games, depending on which of course and WinRAR aren't unaffected by the number of cores in use. It all depends on the software developers, but even WinRAR gives about 10 % better result if going from a dual- to a quad-core.
October 29, 2007 6:38:39 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I'm glad that AMD exists, but here is the problem: AMD woke Intel up, but has Intel woke AMD up?


Its not a matter of AMD just nodding off at the wheel, so much as having new model problems.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/07/24/...

This is most recent article I could search for regarding AMDs core leakage problems.
October 29, 2007 6:48:26 PM

I expect this chip to be better than my Northwood and 3800+ Brisbane
October 29, 2007 7:20:33 PM

Tomshardware could of pushed this CPU close to 4.4-4.5GHz stable over AIR. Below is my overclock and passed 12 hour stress test but little bit high side on the vcore for everyday use.

October 29, 2007 10:08:42 PM

Quote:
The delay of Barcy really hurt AMD badly. But I dont think they are nodding off at the wheel, I think its more that Intel with such vast resources has just been moving really fast, almost too fast for mobo and chipset makers to keep up. I dont think that little AMD can compete at the same level. Thats why they are moving into other markets and creating other products to bring income. The cell phone chips they recently started selling is just one example. Im sure they are working on others and they just dont have the same resources as Intel to step it up on the cpu front and move in other markets at the same time.


There is certainly a lot of truth to your statement. I certainly will not count AMD out any time soon. I doubt very much they will ever go under not only for the fact that they have a large diverse market but they have a decent video card (ATI) business they can fall back on. But I agree that this is kinda a David VS Goliath type battle and the only way AMD is going to reclaim ground is to pull a rabbit out of their hat........the only question left is...........when and how>>>>>>>>?

If AMD can continue to keep up with Intell then I think the die hard fans of AMD will stick with them and they will probably break even. If their products fall too far behind and Intell continues to offer good price VS performance ratio then more and more people will go over to Intell.

I have had a few intell systems but am mainly an AMD person due to (in the past their price vs performance) over intell. My first amd cpu was a K-2 450 on my super socket 7 shuttle board. Now I am down to an AM2 and a few 939 systems. If AMD does not turn it around when I am ready for a new upgrade I will certainly go with an Intell system.

:sol: 
a c 126 à CPUs
October 29, 2007 10:12:27 PM

I for one enjoyed this very long and thourogh article since it showed a lot of the benefits of the new 45nm and High-K dielectric technology. That was the main focus, not to compare AMDs old CPUs to the new one. I believe that THG included the AMD CPUs so that people wouldn't complain but they were mad they didn't use the 4x4 which if you match up the sales of a Intel EE to a 4x4 from AMD the EE outsells the 4x4 easily thus is why they are at almost every major online/in store retailer.

This chip looks very promising and this is not what we will get in November. This is just the C0 stepping and I am sure we will have a B1-3 stepping in November and a G0 stepping by mid to late August. I plan to upgrade to the low end one that runs at 2.66GHz since I have a P35 mobo and it will run it at 3GHz with a lower voltage and less watts/heat dis than my Q6600.

One thing that really interested me was that at a stock 3.0GHz it used less power than a low end single core Sempron. That is a major feat for a 4 core CPU to use less than one core. You can say its not a equivalent comparison but that looks really bad that Intel is able to do that with no IMC.

I just wounder how it is that AMD cannot provide a Phenom Quad core and its less than 2 days till the month they are to be released. That makes me wounder if AMD is scared. Either way as long as they put something competetive out there I am happy. But if they wait too long they will face a newer technology(Nehalem) which will not be as easy as Penryn/Yorkfield to compete with.

To me Intel is doing a fantastic job right now. The results are accross the board in almost everything compared to every high end chip out there. They did deliver the promise of a faster more efficient chip that is in its early stages which means it will get better with time.

I hope this motivate AMD to tell you the truth. I love Intel(except for Prescott which is why I stuck with Northwood till Kentsfield) and this reminds me of the old Intel that I grew up with. I just want to be able to buy a 8 core CPU in late 2008/ early 2009 for 200-300 bucks and if AMD doesn't step up it might not be possible. Intel has been on a 18 month streak hitting home runs and AMD hasn't pitched its fastball yet. At least I hope not. 2 years is too long for a company to stay in the dark and leave us out too.
October 29, 2007 10:28:30 PM

young said:
Tomshardware could of pushed this CPU close to 4.4-4.5GHz stable over AIR. Below is my overclock and passed 12 hour stress test but little bit high side on the vcore for everyday use.

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l71/kmtyb/SP32-20071025-160524.gif

Nice job. What heatsink did you use? Your vcore is pushing it nicely.

I would be interested to see how this chip screams with a Swiftech peltier, since a lower stock vcore would be an advantage here.

While we're on the topic, anybody care to donate a Mach II GT??? I've got this big-ass orange tank filled with R404A out the back... :D 
October 30, 2007 12:09:44 AM

heh, interesting article.

I notice it states the QX9650 doesn't need to run over 400FSB (1600QDR). It's an interesting place to stop as that's about the limit I had booting into windows. 405FSB was possible to boot into windows but pretty much nothing over it. It would clockgen up to ~480FSB from that point though. I wonder if you experienced the same limit? If so it's an interesting way to write it up for the article ;) 
It certainly makes and interesting environment for limited multi CPUs when they're released.

Another thing, I take in the article that the QX6850 and the QX9650 are assumed to have the same Tjunction/Tmax value? That's quite a bold assumption as I'm guessing that it's the "ol trusty" 100C value that's been used by CoreTemp for quads for a while now despite being very dubious indeed with 1333FSB CPUs. I certainly don't know what the Tjunction/Tmax would be for the new 45nm CPUs but I'd be fairly confident it's not 100C. Perhaps a DTS readout may have been more useful?

However, the CPU is indeed a monster that runs very cool, so it's a bright future for overclockers. It'd just be nice to get some more tangible feedback on the chips performance and abilities.
October 30, 2007 12:36:23 AM

Quote:
The delay of Barcy really hurt AMD badly. But I dont think they are nodding off at the wheel, I think its more that Intel with such vast resources has just been moving really fast, almost too fast for mobo and chipset makers to keep up. I dont think that little AMD can compete at the same level. Thats why they are moving into other markets and creating other products to bring income. The cell phone chips they recently started selling is just one example. I'm sure they are working on others and they just dont have the same resources as Intel to step it up on the cpu front and move in other markets at the same time.



First, amd got lucky! Net-burst burst with gate leakage - amd's lucky day! AMD seized the moment and made the first dual core. The X2 is/was the pinnacle of amd technology and its still a great low end chip.

Second - amd thought they where so smart, they could be the market leader and beat intel. AMD aspires not just to be the copy cat who uses intel's x86 legacy. Wiki says intel, amd and via all helped on x86 but its still based on the 80386 - i just threw away my trusty 8088 a few years ago.

AMD did not foresee all the isues that are so well discussed here on THG. Just as Intel did not see the gate leakage that brought down the p4's, the netburst's 32 instruction pipe length.

Now AMD finds itself, just as intel did back in may 05 when the x2 debuted - yes, 11/06 was intels athlon moment and 11/06 was the start of amd's p4 like issues.

AMD is not moving into new markets they are treading water in existing markets! Look at new revenues - those are for the comined ati/amd - amti company.

As far as cell phones go, half the world has one already. They are more common in Africa then clean water or a water purifer. This is just another low end commodity market and will not bale out amd.


AMD needs to save its bread and butter, AMD needs to use their combination of ATI to bring us the end users low cost chipset/cpu/gpu replacement product - lets call it CCG (cpu chipset graphics). Lets add lan and sound.
or SLiCC-GL. Slick gl - sound, lan, cpu, chipset, gpu and lan!

Dreams of beating intel is what got amd exactly where they are today - remember amd's boasts (25% then 30% market share). You do remember 2-3 years when amd would have you think intel would be selling of their plants and amd "true quad cores" would run everything from the $400 wallmart pc to the highend $7k gamers.

AMD $35 share on its way to $180 - wait thats apple?


AMD's biggest error is they actually thought they could be intel and be the market leader. AMD did not have the deep pockets required, the products(quadcore) or personal(marketing and hector reall sux). What AMD needs to do is go back to being second and second is fine, build its based from lowend to mid level to then back to higher end.


jeeze - what a speech!


the delay of barcie did not hurt amd - amd's arrogance and failure hurt amd

October 30, 2007 3:18:11 AM

"The times they are a changen..."

Man the CPU market is really starting to kick butt again.GPUs have been doing that for a recent while. Last time I saw this much raging seems to be back around 1997. We had a few more players. IDT, Cyrix, AMD, Intel. I named in that order for fun... IDT rocked. They were so good at so cheap. sure every one else could kill'em on benchmarks, but they were darn good at cheap. I miss my 200mhz Winchip. I left it in my friends fiance's computer years back.

Now if we could just get motherboard manufacturer's to always use high quality caps and such we would be set(really only maybe a couple dollar difference, production cost yes...) And... really think about, "well that connector should never go their..."
October 30, 2007 3:59:51 AM

I was really ashamed to be a Tom's Hardware reader after I read this article. I know it's been said already but how is it good journalism to pit a brand new quad against an older dual and then say that AMD's performance is abysmal!??! Talk about your ultimate apples to oranges comparison. This article should have left AMD completely out and pitted intel against itself. Plain and simple. End of story.
October 30, 2007 4:14:13 AM

shoota said:
I was really ashamed to be a Tom's Hardware reader after I read this article. I know it's been said already but how is it good journalism to pit a brand new quad against an older dual and then say that AMD's performance is abysmal!??! Talk about your ultimate apples to oranges comparison. This article should have left AMD completely out and pitted intel against itself. Plain and simple. End of story.


Definitely. THG should totally compare Intel's current offering with the un-released product, and vapourware from AMD. Or better yet, let's compare Intel's last generation with AMD's current generation. That'll be a lot more fair and balanced than this article they just wrote.
October 30, 2007 5:38:15 AM

Did everyone get it out of their system. :pfff: 
October 30, 2007 6:21:07 AM

shoota said:
I was really ashamed to be a Tom's Hardware reader after I read this article. I know it's been said already but how is it good journalism to pit a brand new quad against an older dual and then say that AMD's performance is abysmal!??! Talk about your ultimate apples to oranges comparison. This article should have left AMD completely out and pitted intel against itself. Plain and simple. End of story.


And Im ashamed that toms let you register an account, and post that dumb comment.

The point of the article wasnt to compare a dual core to a quad core... its main purpose was to show the potential of the penyrn/yorkfield.

Im really suprised you didnt pick this up from the title:
Intel's 45 nm Penryn CPU: 4 GHz Air Cooled

Could it really be any more obvious what the article was covering?
October 30, 2007 8:53:18 AM

I have to agree with some of the previous posts. Why bother to point out that Intels new 4 core processor beats AMDs dual core processor? That's not a fair comparison. The article sounds very biased. It was a little dissapointing to read that on Tomshardware. I expected more professionalism.

The processor does what Intel had announced quite a while ago. A small performance gain combined with a significant reduction in power consumption. That's where the real news is and where AMD has to catch up. Power consumption.
October 30, 2007 12:13:11 PM

I hope for AMD to come up with something good. They better...Other though: Intel left AMD in dust. It is like AMD was on the top few years ago...felt asleep and now...good for intel bad for AMD fans...
October 30, 2007 12:32:45 PM

rodney_ws said:
Who do you know that owns an AMD 4X4 system? The article clearly stated that the test was for single processor systems. Virtually no large OEM sells 4X4 systems so the average home user is going to have a hard time acquiring one... it's just not a viable system in terms of numbers. I felt the article clearly explained itself, its purpose and its limitations.


You are right but you can't buy this new intel core either. Plus comparing 2 generation old athlon with next generation intel is really fair...on the other hand intel cost $1000 whereas Athlon 6400 black ed. around $220 dig that....I was always a AMD man starting with AMD 486 DX 66MHz and 8Mb of Ram and 650MB HDD and VGA with 1MB RAM that was 13 years ago oh boy I miss that time when I had stocks of 5.25" floppy disks...anyway AMD has to push it to regain the top
!