Will the real Agena please stand up!

[BaronMatrix]

Well, it looks like things are not so bad as some think as new pics of Agena and CPU-Z have popped up over at OCW today. Amazingly enough it's seems to be about where AMD said. And without further ado, we proudly present Phenom X4 9600.

Read it and weep naysayers.


http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=98de24ec491ff18e75b1476ffe500fde&p=422697#post422697


As you can all plainly see a 2.3GHz Phenom runs at less than 1V. And also note the absence of the Engineering sample designation. This is the real retail Agena which should be B2F stepping. It look sindeed like AMD will be dropping a 2.2GHz and 2.4GHz Phenom FX in a few weeks.

 

[yomamafor1]

humm that does indeed look impressive.

Another site also have GP9600 @ 2.3Ghz, but with voltage around 1.2V. I suspect that 2.3Ghz will consume roughly around Q6600, with idle voltage all the way down to 0.9V. Seems like AMD's split plane voltage is really helping them.

 

[ausch30]

I wish them the best and hope it performs well but only time will tell. As it's been said before it's in all our best interest that AMD/ATI delivers a great product to foster innovation and competative pricing and to keep the goliaths in check.

 

[BaronMatrix]

I wish them the best and hope it performs well but only time will tell. As it's been said before it's in all our best interest that AMD/ATI delivers a great product to foster innovation and competative pricing and to keep the goliaths in check.

I would say how can you doubt the creators of the first 1GHz X86 chip, first dual core X86 server CPU and the ONLY X86-64 implementation?

There should be some systems popping up soon. From that voltage 3GHz should be no problem.

 

[yomamafor1]

I would say how can you doubt the creators of the first 1GHz X86 chip, first dual core X86 server CPU and the ONLY X86-64 implementation?

There should be some systems popping up soon. From that voltage 3GHz should be no problem.

That's like saying "How can you doubt Ford's ability to manufacture fuel efficient, reliable, yet powerful car? They're the first one to mass produce automobile, the first one to adopt assembly line, and the first one to push automobile into mass market."

Well time has changed, son.

But from the preliminary CPU screenshots, it does seem like Phenom has a fighting chance against Penryn.

 

[Kari]

yay, I want to see some benchmarks...

 

[weskurtz81]

Interesting to say the least. Lets see some benchmarks and higher clocked parts!

 

[wolverinero79]

As you probably forgot Baron, Intel released a 1 Ghz and 1.13 Ghz chip before AMD's Athlon 1.1 Ghz.

I'll give you that AMD introduced the first X86 dual core Server chip (yay AMD!). IBM produced the first dual core server chip in 2000, long before the AMD milestone in 2005. Intel took longer to produce a dual core chip (released in 2006) and it turned out to obliterate AMD's dual core offering. Not sure what your point is here...

You also left out that Intel produced the first quad core x86 part. You also seem to be forgetting to mention that on current roadmaps, Intel will continue to outpace AMD in adding cores for the foreseeable future.

Um, EM64T (aka Intel 64) is for all relevant purposes identical to AMD64 (you know, AMD's implementation of X86-64) and has no significant disadvantages. Intel produced IA-64 before X86-64 was developed. Maybe it's time to admit that you don't know much about compilers and the evolution of x86... And so now even though most people have 0 use today for 64 bit computing, it's available from both vendors.

You come up with interesting "arguments".

 

[BaronMatrix]

Interesting to say the least. Lets see some benchmarks and higher clocked parts!

It's been reported that AMD is preparing Spider systems right now and they should be in the hands of reviewers in a week or so. I'm sure Anand will get at least one. Hopefully they won't wait until the last minute.

 

[BaronMatrix]

As you probably forgot Baron, Intel released a 1 Ghz and 1.13 Ghz chip before AMD's Athlon 1.1 Ghz.

I'll give you that AMD introduced the first X86 dual core Server chip (yay AMD!). IBM produced the first dual core server chip in 2000, long before the AMD milestone in 2005. Intel took longer to produce a dual core chip (released in 2006) and it turned out to obliterate AMD's dual core offering. Not sure what your point is here...

You also left out that Intel produced the first quad core x86 part. You also seem to be forgetting to mention that on current roadmaps, Intel will continue to outpace AMD in adding cores for the foreseeable future.

Um, EM64T (aka Intel 64) is for all relevant purposes identical to AMD64 (you know, AMD's implementation of X86-64) and has no significant disadvantages. Intel produced IA-64 before X86-64 was developed. Maybe it's time to admit that you don't know much about compilers and the evolution of x86... And so now even though most people have 0 use today for 64 bit computing, it's available from both vendors.

You come up with interesting "arguments".

Everyone knows that K7 hit 1GHz first - unless they were just fan boys spreading FUD. The point was that all of you act like AMD just started making CPUs after NetBurst. FX60 ruled the dual core world and Intel's 64bit implementation(IA64) was so useless that MS stopped making the Wksta OS - yes I actually tested Itaniums. I don't remember mentioning compilers so I'm not sure what that's about.

As far as 64bit, games are getting the support and the ONLY reason why they don't recompile is that there are TONS and TONS of HeatBurst chips out there.

 

[sailer]

Well, the link to ocworkbench looks good. I just hope some 2.6 ghz of better chips get out as well. Then again, if the 2.3 ghz chips overclock well enough, maybe they will do for the time being. Need some benches to see how well it does, though. I also hope the chips get out so that I can see them at Newegg and have the opportunity to buy one, should I so desire. In other words, no paper launch.

 

[pete4r]

As you probably forgot Baron, Intel released a 1 Ghz and 1.13 Ghz chip before AMD's Athlon 1.1 Ghz.

LOL, so true, everyone knows the big Slot A K7 hit 1.0GHz first. Intel's Pentium III Coppermine only got it after a month or a few months after. Then they announced NetBurst and Pentium 4 was around the corner.

Thunderbird K7 @650Mhz - 1.4GHz stood ground to compete with P4 until the Palomino XP1500+ - X2600+ arrived and later Barton with 333MHz FSB from XP2500+ to XP3200+ with 400MHz FSB to compete with P4 at some what 3.6GHz

Then off come the A64 2800+ to A64 3800+/4000+ and FX-57 to leave the Pentium 4s behind.

Then came the Pentium D dual core and only to find the A64 X2 two weeks later to re-take the lead and until 2006 to be replaced by Core 2 Duo....

Now your up to date.

 

[Reynod]

Fair ... up to a point. The XP3200+ was no match for a 2.8 P4 (or faster) on anything other than office use.

The Barton's were no match for a Northwood beyond 2.6 in most cases and the Northwood was a good overclocker. I burned a few mobos trying too ... heh heh.

As a faithful AMD Fanboi I must acknowledge the Northwoods at that time were good chips.

The P4's only trailed the A64's until core2.

The EE's would have been much more popular if Intel hadn't greedily priced them out of most people's range ... like AMD did with the FX series.

I couldn't see that link before ... now that I can ...

BM ... I notices nothing on the CPUz stepping for that 9600 chip. Where did you see ref to that please?

 

[raytracer06]

Intel produced IA-64 before X86-64 was developed.

I thought the discussion was about x86 CPUs...
IA64 had nothing to do with x86 architecture, and IA64 is not the first non-x86 64-bit architecture : UltraSparc CPUs were already 64-bit (sparc v.9 architecture).... and it was in 1994...

anyway, does it really matter now to know who made the first 1GHz cpu, or the first x86-64 ? those chips are now obsolete, and what matters is the performance we can get NOW...

and we gotta hope AMD will be able to take the lead again, not because AMD is good and Intel is evil, but because concurrence is good for us (look at GPUs : the all new 8800gt is more powerful than a 8800gts and is priced like a 8600gts... do you think NV would have released it if the HD2900 wasn't here ?)

the last thing we need is one company taking the lead

 

[sunny27]

they never showed the motherboard/chipset tab in cpu-z on tht forum.
could have seen what chipset they were using ,since its am2+ wht's the difference between am2+ and am2??
and will it work with the am2 boards available now?

 

[rodney_ws]

BM is right about the 1 GHz race. So says CNET News.

http://www.news.com/2100-1040-237712.html

Not sure how that's relevant to anything in the present, but what they hell!

 

[Reynod]

Yes sunny27 I noticed the HT link speed was crawling along too.

Any comment there?

 

[BaronMatrix]

they never showed the motherboard/chipset tab in cpu-z on tht forum.
could have seen what chipset they were using ,since its am2+ wht's the difference between am2+ and am2??
and will it work with the am2 boards available now?

All you need to do is look at the HT Link speed, that tells you if it's an HT3 (AM2+) or HT1.1(AM2). HT3 has a much higher link speed. The Sapphire mobo that was used for the WGC in Seattle was HT3 with a 2.6GHz HT link. That board may have been HT3 since it was 1600MHz rather than 1000MHz. All of the retail 790FX boards should have HT3 enabled up to 3600MHz. The FX dual sockets will have the 3600 HT.

 

[BaronMatrix]

BM is right about the 1 GHz race. So says CNET News.

http://www.news.com/2100-1040-237712.html

Not sure how that's relevant to anything in the present, but what they hell!

I was just saying that AMD is a competent manuf. I think Phenom will be....phenomenal :lol:

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I was just saying that AMD is a competent manuf. I think Phenom will be....phenomenal :lol:

LOL Baron. You've got me kinda excited about it. I hope it lives up to the hype. I can't wait to see:

A) Third party benchmarks
B) Availability and pricing on our favorite Newegg



Keep us updated Mr. Baron.

 

[ausch30]

BM is right about the 1 GHz race. So says CNET News.

http://www.news.com/2100-1040-237712.html

Not sure how that's relevant to anything in the present, but what they hell!

"Dell's Dimension home PC with the Pentium III 1-GHz chip, 256MB of memory, a 30GB hard drive, DVD drive and CD-RW drive is priced at $5,999."

What a bargain!

 

[wolverinero79]

Wow, it's nice that people use looking through old web articles as the way to "remember" what really happened. Here's the truth. AMD may have officially "launched" 1Ghz barely before Intel, but as with most AMD "launches" availability wasn't intact until some time later (you all should be familiar with AMD paper launches). Yes, Intel was rushed as well, but they still had the supply when needed. So the question becomes, which processor could you buy first? It was Intel.

It's also true that who got there first makes little difference in terms of today's terms. Ford created the first mass produced automobile, but currently, only a moron (or "car fanboy" ) would choose an American car over a Japanese counterpart. I merely am trying to counter Baron's twisting of historical facts. Give AMD credit where credit is due - but keep it there.

 

[weskurtz81]

As you probably forgot Baron, Intel released a 1 Ghz and 1.13 Ghz chip before AMD's Athlon 1.1 Ghz.

I'll give you that AMD introduced the first X86 dual core Server chip (yay AMD!). IBM produced the first dual core server chip in 2000, long before the AMD milestone in 2005. Intel took longer to produce a dual core chip (released in 2006) and it turned out to obliterate AMD's dual core offering. Not sure what your point is here...

You also left out that Intel produced the first quad core x86 part. You also seem to be forgetting to mention that on current roadmaps, Intel will continue to outpace AMD in adding cores for the foreseeable future.

Um, EM64T (aka Intel 64) is for all relevant purposes identical to AMD64 (you know, AMD's implementation of X86-64) and has no significant disadvantages. Intel produced IA-64 before X86-64 was developed. Maybe it's time to admit that you don't know much about compilers and the evolution of x86... And so now even though most people have 0 use today for 64 bit computing, it's available from both vendors.

You come up with interesting "arguments".

I just wanted to say that statement is completely false. The released them in 2005, and they came no where close to "obliterating" the X2's. For instance, the 820 would lose almost EVERY benchmark to the X2 3800 on Tom's charts, and the Pentium D 950 would lose almost every benchmark to the X2 4600. So, it's actually the other way around, the X2 obliterated the Pentium D's.

 

[weskurtz81]

Baron, I've been lurking and reading your sheer unadulterated crap for months, and now on the verge of the unprecedented humiliation that is just around the corner for you and the lobotomized morons who run AMD, all I can say is produce benchmarks that show competitivity or shut the hell up. I'm sick and tired of your shameful attempts to turn what is nothing short of a complete corporate and engineering collapse at AMD into results of a brilliant boardroom strategy. You and AMD are swiftly reaching whirlpool status on the suckability scale. I can only hope that when AMD goes down for the count, you join them. And good riddance!

This looks like the whole pot and kettle situation. Chill out man. Buying an AMD based system isn't a bad thing, it is actually a very good system and makes a lot of sense for people buying on a budget.

 

[runswindows95]

I'm not getting into the whole AMD vs Intel debate that ALWAYS happen in these types of topics. I will say that Phenom does look very promising. Now, for some real benchmarks, and not that Crysis benchmark everyone knows about. I will make up my mind about which CPU I'll go with on my next build when we see real benchmarks done by THG, Ananatech, ExtremeTech, etc.