Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anandtech Phenom review is in

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2007 8:25:33 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=315...

I don't know what to say... major disappointment would be an understatement. :( 

EDIT - HardOCP as well http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQyMiwx...

PS. Please, no fanboy baiting crap in this thread. Let's focus on the topic at hand. Thanks.
November 19, 2007 8:45:58 AM

;(
Related resources
November 19, 2007 8:49:19 AM

First of all, I'm really disappointed with AMD's execution this time. Having an inferior CPU doesn't mean you have the right to fooling and faking the benchmarks. I was going to purchase a Phenom, just to test it out. Now, due to this dishonorable and deplorable trick AMD pulled, I guess I'll have to take my money elsewhere.

Anandtech:
Quote:

For the first time in as far as I can remember, AMD wanted all benchmarking on Phenom to be done at a location in Tahoe, of course on AMD's dime. AMD would fly us out there, we would spend a couple of days with a pre-configured system and we'd head home to write our stories.

...Needless to say, I wasn't happy. I refused to go to Tahoe.

All hail Anand! Thank you! Thank you for holding your esteem as a journalist.

Quote:
A representative from AMD's PR agency in charge of the Tahoe trip asked me, somewhat surprised, "what, Intel doesn't work like this?".

Sorry to say, Intel doesn't. Today Intel let us preview the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 processor, do you want to know how they did it? The FedEx guy dropped off a chip.

For those who insisted on Intel's dirty tricks (cough Baron cough), I guess the role has switched. Years ago, Intel would do anything to hide their failure in Pentium 4. The result? People start to jump on the AMD wagon.

This time, people are going to jump on the Intel wagon.

Quote:
To AMD: if you want to be Intel, start acting like it.

Couldn't be any truer.

Firingsquad:
Quote:

Interestingly enough, all of AMD’s Phenom CPUs were running at 1.3V; that’s a little bit higher than AMD’s 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz Phenom CPUs, which run between 1.1-1.25V. I took a stab at overclocking my Phenom rig but got a BSOD before hitting 2.35GHz. For overclocking purposes AMD directed all of us towards one specific PC in the back of the room. Apparently all the other systems had very limited headroom for overclocking, as no one seemed to be able to push their system very far.

I guess before AMD fixes the TLB errata, and their process node, no overclocking for us. It becomes more of a bet.

Quote:

As you can probably imagine, that last hour became quite frustrating as I was cursing to myself and Ryan that the systems had been clocked so much higher than the actual launch speeds, and we’d been given so little time for testing.

In other words, no real benchmarks. Its the same thing as letting reviewers benchmarking the 3.0Ghz chip, when all you're going to launch is a 2.2~2.3Ghz part. Not cool.

November 19, 2007 8:50:48 AM

DrMaV said:
;(



My sentiments exactly. It does look as if the unthinkable has happened. Phenom is slower clock for clock than year-old Kentsfield. Honestly, who woulda thunk it 6 months ago?
a c 87 à CPUs
November 19, 2007 8:58:06 AM

Perhaps its the AMD lover in me, but I don't see 100% of the same doom and gloom in this article as the authors do. It was able to win/tie some of the encoding benchmarks, and some of the gaming benchmarks. (ones based off of newer encoders/games at that.) Power consumption wasn't good, but that can change as yields get better. I was also bothered by the lack of playing with the independent power planes. I thought we were supposed to be able to power the 4 cores separately? Did they even try to turn 3 cores down while using only one?

With all that said, I would still recommend an Intel CPU. All AMD has managed to do is close the gap (in some cases) that it had with Intel. Once you factor price into the equation, Intel looks really good. Did I miss the thermal numbers? (I only read the anandtech article btw...)
November 19, 2007 9:28:54 AM

4745454b said:
Perhaps its the AMD lover in me, but I don't see 100% of the same doom and gloom in this article as the authors do. It was able to win/tie some of the encoding benchmarks, and some of the gaming benchmarks. (ones based off of newer encoders/games at that.) Power consumption wasn't good, but that can change as yields get better. I was also bothered by the lack of playing with the independent power planes. I thought we were supposed to be able to power the 4 cores separately? Did they even try to turn 3 cores down while using only one?

With all that said, I would still recommend an Intel CPU. All AMD has managed to do is close the gap (in some cases) that it had with Intel. Once you factor price into the equation, Intel looks really good. Did I miss the thermal numbers? (I only read the anandtech article btw...)


It closed the gap a bit on 65nm Core 2. Unfortunately it has to compete with 45nm Core 2. Even if it was faster clock for clock than Core 2 100% of the time on all tests... Look at the OCs people are seeing on Penryns so far. Intel can easily push out faster and faster processors while AMD will be struggling to get the B3 out to compete with the Penryns.
November 19, 2007 9:52:50 AM

In gaing and 3dmark06 its very respectable. HDTV encoding an playback are also good. Factor in price and backwards compatibility and its not quite the end of he world people!

Overclocking problems are probably down to motherbaords and bios I would say.
November 19, 2007 10:28:10 AM

While it is a good review, Anand got one of the big facts wrong which in turn invalidates their asessment of the cpu.

The prices they mentioned are off by quite a shot.



Look at the euro prices. Yes, if you use the current rate prices will look different in dollars, but take it from an old european that usually prices translate 1:1. A Q6600 costs 205€ at the cheapest online shop i could find.
If you take into consideration the whole spider setup and look at the prices of the 790 boards and the new 38xx series GPUs, there is a very obvious trend.
AMD doesn't offer top performance anywhere but right now it seems that the green team aims at price/performance and that with great success.
Given the upgrade possibilities AMD has indeed managed to offer something worthwhile.

Another thing i noticed was the SSE4a and SSE4.1 difference and incompatibility between AMD and Intel. It's a rather bold move by AMD but given their price politics and their almost suicidal move to flood the market with cheap CPUs it suddenly makes sense too.

If, and that is a rather big "IF", AMD manages to stick to their plans and more important to their prices without anymore delays this will be an interesting christmas.
November 19, 2007 10:28:47 AM

Yeah, I see a lot of doom and gloom posts about the Phenom but for what they cost who cares? They are about the same price as the Q6600 and if you have an AM2 board already...... you don't need a new board. I actually think its pretty cool and if you also read the Toms test of the Phenoms they are not that bad. I think AMD is attacking the right segment at the mid range level and will hopefully get better with time.

The AMD quad comes close to the Q6600 and looks to overclock nicely; this also puts it in the range of the Q6700 which FYI is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $200+ more then the Phenom. So I really don't see the need for all the doom sayers but I do have to say that AMD needs to get their butts in gear and get out some processors that crank out high-mid range processors that have a great "bang for the buck" factor or they are going to take it where it hurts.
November 19, 2007 10:53:08 AM

Tom's has a more indepth review, but needless to say Phenom is underwhelming :(  AMD is making a huge mistake by targeting "midrange" users. They have to target high end user as well as mid range users. I wasn't planning a new system rebuild until mid 2008 at the earliest. I would like to go with AMD, but if they don't get their act together and show us something that is an absolute must have, my next build will be Intel.
November 19, 2007 11:00:56 AM

Zephyn said:
Yeah, I see a lot of doom and gloom posts about the Phenom but for what they cost who cares? They are about the same price as the Q6600 and if you have an AM2 board already...... you don't need a new board. I actually think its pretty cool and if you also read the Toms test of the Phenoms they are not that bad. I think AMD is attacking the right segment at the mid range level and will hopefully get better with time.

The problem is, most people have MBs that support Intel's quad-core thanks to Intel's preview of Conroe before AMD transitioned to AM2. Phenom's uncompetitive performance means that segment has no reason at all to switch to an AMD processor.

The AMD quad comes close to the Q6600 and looks to overclock nicely; this also puts it in the range of the Q6700 which FYI is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $200+ more then the Phenom. said:
The AMD quad comes close to the Q6600 and looks to overclock nicely; this also puts it in the range of the Q6700 which FYI is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $200+ more then the Phenom.

And if you overclock, you might as well get the Q6600 which will easily reach performance levels that AMD probably won't hit till 2009 or later.
November 19, 2007 11:08:23 AM

Expected UK prices;

9500 - 125GBP ($250)
9600 - 150GBP ($300)

Which would be inline with the euro prices above and the dollar prices online.
November 19, 2007 11:10:31 AM

Iain1974 said:
Expected UK prices;

9500 - 125GBP ($250)
9600 - 150GBP ($300)

Which would be inline with the euro prices above and the dollar prices online.


They need to be about $50 USD cheaper to be a good alternative considering it will be hit or miss OCing.
November 19, 2007 11:13:54 AM

accord99 said:
The problem is, most people have MBs that support Intel's quad-core thanks to Intel's preview of Conroe before AMD transitioned to AM2. Phenom's uncompetitive performance means that segment has no reason at all to switch to an AMD processor.


And if you overclock, you might as well get the Q6600 which will easily reach performance levels that AMD probably won't hit till 2009 or later.


Very true my friend; I have been looking back over on timelines and I have to agree with you. Most people do have Core2 boards and not the AM2 boards. This is quite a bit of bad news for AMD and they are going to have to drop their prices quick to make themselves competitive; on the bright side its great news if you have an AM2 board.

Oh well, I am due for a new build in March or so and I am waiting on the new lineup of graphics cards before my build. I will just bother with the chipset then.
November 19, 2007 11:20:07 AM

Zephyn said:
Very true my friend; I have been looking back over on timelines and I have to agree with you. Most people do have Core2 boards and not the AM2 boards. This is quite a bit of bad news for AMD and they are going to have to drop their prices quick to make themselves competitive; on the bright side its great news if you have an AM2 board.

Oh well, I am due for a new build in March or so and I am waiting on the new lineup of graphics cards before my build. I will just bother with the chipset then.



790 is a great chipset.

HD38x0 will be great cards.

Overclocking with OD looks to be a breeze.

Now we just need a good processor to drop in the mix and even I wouldn't mind going AMD. They should just push the B3 out the door faster.
November 19, 2007 11:29:55 AM

Look at the Motherboard that Tomshardware used!! it was a Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe! Now from my understanding the Phenom will work on older AM2 boards , but will use the older Hyper transport 2.0 rather than the AM2 + 3.0 hypertransport.

Now the Results are disappointing, but Phenom really does need the new upcoming AM2+ boards to work to it's potential. Phenom is at a distinct disadvantage in this test please bear this in mind. This is not a fair test at all using obsolete Motherboard technology to showcase a new CPU.

I do believe AM2+ boards are not avaliable as of yet, but Tomshardware is completely Intel biased so it's convenient for them to have us believe Phenom is rubbish.

Please wait for the Phenom to be benchmarked with a newer AM2+ board before writing it off as rubbish.

The Review is BS!
November 19, 2007 11:34:13 AM

(FiringSquad)
Quote:
I took a stab at overclocking my Phenom rig but got a BSOD before hitting 2.35GHz.

Reminds me of my first x2 4400+, which started blue-screening at 2.25Ghz (up from 2.2Ghz stock). A later sample of the same SKU reached 2.6Ghz. Their chips have varied and changed over time without so much as a new stepping.

Quote:
I don't see 100% of the same doom and gloom in this article as the authors do. It was able to win/tie some of the encoding benchmarks, and some of the gaming benchmarks.

The question I ask myself is whether AMD fundamentally changed its market position. Changing from competing with mid-high-ranged dual cores just yesterday to low-ranged quad cores today (both count as mid-ranged overall) is but a small, incremental step. The fact alone that it is quad-core has little meaning to its current business; it's not after a performance title, and a quad-core doesn't attract very different consumers from a faster clocked dual-core.

To soothe the "doom and gloom" worries, we'd need to know that AMD can afford staying in the budget CPU range yet again as it improves its formula. People have doubts because the K10, even at this new process node, is much bigger than the K8 or previous chips at their times of introduction. (Clawhammer 193mm^2 130nm; Toledo 199mm^2 90nm; Barcelona 283mm^2 65nm) Their key is probably how well and quickly they transition to 45nm. I don't foresee the full K10 design ever meeting the mass-production/performance requirement for a profitable mainstream chip at 65nm.
November 19, 2007 11:37:25 AM

speedbird said:
Look at the Motherboard that Tomshardware used!! it was a Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe! Now from my understanding the Phenom will work on older AM2 boards , but will use the older Hyper transport 2.0 rather than the AM2 + 3.0 hypertransport.

Now the Results are disappointing, but Phenom really does need the new upcoming AM2+ boards to work to it's potential. Phenom is at a distinct disadvantage in this test please bear this in mind. This is not a fair test at all using obsolete Motherboard technology to showcase a new CPU.

I do believe AM2+ boards are not avaliable as of yet, but Tomshardware is completely Intel biased so it's convenient for them to have us believe Phenom is rubbish.

Please wait for the Phenom to be benchmarked with a newer AM2+ board before writing it off as rubbish.

The Review is BS!


Most reviews tested with 790FX boards... how about you read them? Like the Anandtech review I linked to, for example. ;) 

And no, HT3 doesn't help performance one bit. Sorry to burst your bubble.
November 19, 2007 11:40:05 AM

HardOCP review is more accurate and less biased
November 19, 2007 11:43:35 AM

Looking through the various reviews it does not seem like a complete disaster, but it really needs to be priced reasonable to compete.
November 19, 2007 11:45:39 AM

Quote:
Even the brand new X38 or p35 will not be compatible.


I thought P35 could run Penryn CPU's or do you mean some future Intel processor?
November 19, 2007 11:47:32 AM

Quote:
Im not dissapointed at all. Alas it works with all existing chipsets and sockets. Unlike the new Intel 45nm will require yet another chipset. Even the brand new X38 or p35 will not be compatible. You can expect x48 to be outrageously priced like whent he 65nm c2d boards came out. ($250+)
The extra cool part is the 770 and 790 chipsets will allow you to run 4 cards in crossfire.


Will you quit posting this?

QX9650s are working in P35s right now.

Direct us to a link where you are getting this BS from or stop posting it. You are completely misinformed.
November 19, 2007 11:48:38 AM

Quote:
Im not dissapointed at all. Alas it works with all existing chipsets and sockets. Unlike the new Intel 45nm will require yet another chipset. Even the brand new X38 or p35 will not be compatible. You can expect x48 to be outrageously priced like whent he 65nm c2d boards came out. ($250+)
The extra cool part is the 770 and 790 chipsets will allow you to run 4 cards in crossfire.


WTF?! Stop spreading FUD, all P35/X38 chipsets work with Penryn. Even my P965 Asus P5B Deluxe works with Penryn... :ange: 
November 19, 2007 12:00:27 PM

I really wanted AMD to offer something great, but they didn't. I'm going to face facts and my Quad Upgrade will probably be a Penryn rather than Phenom.
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2007 12:18:06 PM

For the price and features of the 790FX mobos, it's not a disappointment at all. A Phenom 9700 paired with a 790FX mobo will make a really nice gaming machine. C'mon, we're looking at quad gpu's! that's friggin cool! One thing is obvious from the reviews is that Phenom's performance will scale well with increased clock speed. Too bad we have to wait (longer) for the 2.8GHz and 3GHz parts.

There is no comparison between Phenom to Yorkfield when it comes to raw performance, but when it comes to the price, (Phenom <$325 whereas Yorkfield >$1250!!!) Phenom is a very attractive option. Even when pricing out a Q6600 based machine compared to a Phenom based machine, there's a respectable price/performance difference.

Some of these folks around here need to stop drinking the kool-aid, unclinch their sphincters and relax a little bit. Contrary to what some say, right now with the market and given the strength of Intel's product line-up, Phenom being "good enough" is all that's necessary, AMD needs to remain competitive and not trounce Intel with the release of every new proc. And, guess what, Phenom is competitive.

Quote:
speedbird - I do believe AM2+ boards are not avaliable as of yet, but Tomshardware is completely Intel biased so it's convenient for them to have us believe Phenom is rubbish.

No, sorry, there are two 790FX mobos currently available on newegg, a gigabyte and an MSI. I'm curious to see what Asus and aBit put out.
November 19, 2007 12:33:01 PM

It seems 'competitive' is a term thrown around loosely nowadays...

Explain to me, how exactly is Phenom competitive? It loses in EVERY aspect to a C2Q.

Lower performance? Tick.
Slower clock for clock? Tick.
Higher power consumption? Tick.
Lower price/performance? Tick.
Lower performance/watt? Tick.
Lower overclockablity? HUGE Tick!
Reliability? (TLB issues >2.4GHz) Tick.

So, again, let me ask, how is Phenom 'competitive'?
November 19, 2007 12:35:28 PM

In 6 weeks $350 Penryn quads will ship.
November 19, 2007 12:40:17 PM

Wombat2 said:
In 6 weeks $350 Penryn quads will ship.


$266 Q9300 and $316 Q9450 to be precise... street prices will probably be a little higher of course.

These are going to lay a real smackdown on AMD, as if the current situation is not bad enough.

AMD will need to price their 2.6GHz FX @ $250 to compete, and their 2.2GHz quad at $200...
November 19, 2007 12:40:54 PM

You can't really toute lower power consumption when you are promoting quad GPUs. That's like saying you to get 10 miles to the gallon now compared to 8 earlier!
November 19, 2007 12:41:55 PM

What people aren't pointing out when saying the platform is a great idea is that the core - the CPU - sucks for the purpose. The 790FX mobos can let you run 4 ATI cards, right? Who would want that graphics power with a chip that can't keep up? If AMD was targeting gamers in any way shape or form, the CPU would at least try to compete with Intel's midrange Quad Core, or even the top end. The launch just doesn't make sense.
November 19, 2007 12:43:40 PM

wolverinero79 said:
What people aren't pointing out when saying the platform is a great idea is that the core - the CPU - sucks for the purpose. The 790FX mobos can let you run 4 ATI cards, right? Who would want that graphics power with a chip that can't keep up? If AMD was targeting gamers in any way shape or form, the CPU would at least try to compete with Intel's midrange Quad Core, or even the top end. The launch just doesn't make sense.



Because even with 4 GPUs the CPU will not be the bottleneck at high resolutions. They could have released a 2.0 GHz quad core with 4 way CF and been fine. That's the only reason I can think of atleast.
November 19, 2007 12:52:24 PM

cnumartyr said:
Because even with 4 GPUs the CPU will not be the bottleneck at high resolutions. They could have released a 2.0 GHz quad core with 4 way CF and been fine. That's the only reason I can think of atleast.


Wrong, even with 8800GTX SLI CPU speed matters. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

Quad Crossfire on 512MB 3870s will be a joke in terms of scaling efficiency. There simply isn't enough VRAM to support resolutions such as 2560x1500. Remember, quad CF of 512MB cards != 2GB VRAM effective... you are still limited to the 512MB framebuffer.

To show the true potential of Quad CF, you need 4 cards with 1GB VRAM, which, needless to say, will hardly be cheap and is impractical for 99% of the market. And even then, you would be severely CPU bottlenecked with a Phenom anyway.
November 19, 2007 12:54:46 PM

epsilon84 said:
Wrong, even with 8800GTX SLI CPU speed matters. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2Miwx...

Quad Crossfire on 512MB 3870s will be a joke in terms of scaling efficiency. There simply isn't enough VRAM to support resolutions such as 2560x1500. Remember, quad CF of 512MB cards != 2GB VRAM effective... you are still limited to the 512MB framebuffer.

To show the true potential of Quad CF, you need 4 cards with 1GB VRAM, which, needless to say, will hardly be cheap and is impractical for 99% of the market. And even then, you would be severely CPU bottlenecked with a Phenom anyway.


I meant 4 ATI cards. A single GTX will still outperform HD3870s in CF (supposedly).

Edit: I can see where I am wrong on nVidia and would concede in that market. However I still believe 2x HD3870X2s will be CPU limited if paired with a B3 Phenom (which "should" be out when the X2s drop).
November 19, 2007 1:07:14 PM

spoonboy said:
In gaing and 3dmark06 its very respectable. HDTV encoding an playback are also good. Factor in price and backwards compatibility and its not quite the end of he world people!

Overclocking problems are probably down to motherbaords and bios I would say.


Looking good AMD! at the price point.. I will never buy a 1000 dollar processor again! Its not worth it..
November 19, 2007 1:26:10 PM

From Anand's article:

Quote:
Phenom is much like the solemn relative, visiting during a time of great sorrow within the family;


That = HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
November 19, 2007 1:39:19 PM

yomamafor1 said:
First of all, I'm really disappointed with AMD's execution this time. Having an inferior CPU doesn't mean you have the right to fooling and faking the benchmarks. I was going to purchase a Phenom, just to test it out. Now, due to this dishonorable and deplorable trick AMD pulled, I guess I'll have to take my money elsewhere.

Anandtech:
Quote:

For the first time in as far as I can remember, AMD wanted all benchmarking on Phenom to be done at a location in Tahoe, of course on AMD's dime. AMD would fly us out there, we would spend a couple of days with a pre-configured system and we'd head home to write our stories.

...Needless to say, I wasn't happy. I refused to go to Tahoe.

All hail Anand! Thank you! Thank you for holding your esteem as a journalist.

Quote:
A representative from AMD's PR agency in charge of the Tahoe trip asked me, somewhat surprised, "what, Intel doesn't work like this?".

Sorry to say, Intel doesn't. Today Intel let us preview the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 processor, do you want to know how they did it? The FedEx guy dropped off a chip.

For those who insisted on Intel's dirty tricks (cough Baron cough), I guess the role has switched. Years ago, Intel would do anything to hide their failure in Pentium 4. The result? People start to jump on the AMD wagon.

This time, people are going to jump on the Intel wagon.

Quote:
To AMD: if you want to be Intel, start acting like it.

Couldn't be any truer.

Firingsquad:
Quote:

Interestingly enough, all of AMD’s Phenom CPUs were running at 1.3V; that’s a little bit higher than AMD’s 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz Phenom CPUs, which run between 1.1-1.25V. I took a stab at overclocking my Phenom rig but got a BSOD before hitting 2.35GHz. For overclocking purposes AMD directed all of us towards one specific PC in the back of the room. Apparently all the other systems had very limited headroom for overclocking, as no one seemed to be able to push their system very far.

I guess before AMD fixes the TLB errata, and their process node, no overclocking for us. It becomes more of a bet.

Quote:

As you can probably imagine, that last hour became quite frustrating as I was cursing to myself and Ryan that the systems had been clocked so much higher than the actual launch speeds, and we’d been given so little time for testing.

In other words, no real benchmarks. Its the same thing as letting reviewers benchmarking the 3.0Ghz chip, when all you're going to launch is a 2.2~2.3Ghz part. Not cool.




Oh those bastards. How could they? I'm so hurt, I'll never buy Intel again. Or something like that.
November 19, 2007 1:43:06 PM

I won't buy a Phenom even though I have an AM 2 mobo, I'll wait for AM 2+ or AM 3. But I would never spend $1000 on processor. Too painful, my wife just wouldn't understand. I'd rather spend that kind of money on other components, and spend at most $400 - $500 on a CPU.
November 19, 2007 1:43:35 PM

I won't buy a Phenom even though I have an AM 2 mobo, I'll wait for AM 2+ or AM 3. But I would never spend $1000 on processor. Too painful, my wife just wouldn't understand. I'd rather spend that kind of money on other components, and spend at most $400 - $500 on a CPU.
November 19, 2007 1:44:16 PM

epsilon84 said:
It seems 'competitive' is a term thrown around loosely nowadays...

Explain to me, how exactly is Phenom competitive? It loses in EVERY aspect to a C2Q.

Lower performance? Tick.
Slower clock for clock? Tick.
Higher power consumption? Tick.
Lower price/performance? Tick.
Lower performance/watt? Tick.
Lower overclockablity? HUGE Tick!
Reliability? (TLB issues >2.4GHz) Tick.

So, again, let me ask, how is Phenom 'competitive'?


Let's use this same comparrison with a different chip. The Phenom looses in every respect to the AM2 5000+ Black Edition. In fact, if the charts had included the much maligned FX74, the FX74 would have trounced Phenom. If Phenom would have been introduced last year instead of the FX74, then Phenom would have looked fairly good. Maybe not a champoin, but at least a contender. As it is, I don't think it was worth the bother.

The best thing I can say here is that a person might buy an AM2 motherboard and stick a 5000+ Black Edition into it, thereby getting the advantage of having faster ram, DDR 1066 instead of DDR800. That might be a help to the 5000+ BE performance, but it would just make the Phenom look even worse. By going this route, if AMD introduces a better Phenom later on, it could be dropped in with no further upgrades.
November 19, 2007 1:47:05 PM

I think it looks really good from the perspective that there is an errata, Sandra has a problem recognizing the dual controllers and every test showed slightly different results on the benches each place used.

Liek I said, this L3 bug may be limiting the performance of all chips while I have heard no talk of recompiling - or compiling - under the new PGI compiler.

A lot of this is more than likely due to not being optimized. Tom had possibly the most in-depth article and perhaps they will try to compile under PGI and see if there is a difference.

Most things are optimized more fully for Core 2 at this point so I would have expected different numbers than with the older revs and patches.

I still say it's a great start for such an overhauled chip and new chipset. We also see that 2 3850s are coming out faster in some cases than a 8800GTX.

I would bet that as new BIOS' are released and AMD has a chance to get the new revs, it will, I believe, be more competitive. I have sen three reviews and they ll say that the newness of the platform is as much of a problem as having an "inferior" chip.

That's AMDs second problem, more companies will optimize for Intel and AMD either has to use the same "SSE" or convince SW folks to do more optimization for K10 SSE.

Not too bad, AMD.
November 19, 2007 1:50:27 PM

epsilon84 said:
It seems 'competitive' is a term thrown around loosely nowadays...

Explain to me, how exactly is Phenom competitive? It loses in EVERY aspect to a C2Q.

Lower performance? Tick.
Slower clock for clock? Tick.
Higher power consumption? Tick.
Lower price/performance? Tick.
Lower performance/watt? Tick.
Lower overclockablity? HUGE Tick!
Reliability? (TLB issues >2.4GHz) Tick.

So, again, let me ask, how is Phenom 'competitive'?


Because it does what you need faster than the older dual core chips at a good price. The only cases where dual core chips even at 3GHz win is where only clockspeed matters - single core. but then, I guess AMD should give up like Intel did and not even bother.
November 19, 2007 2:01:57 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Because it does what you need faster than the older dual core chips at a good price. The only cases where dual core chips even at 3GHz win is where only clockspeed matters - single core. but then, I guess AMD should give up like Intel did and not even bother.


I said at the start of this thread no flame baiting of AMD fanboys, and I will stay true to that.

If you really think this is a 'great start' then more power to you. I'm glad you are so rapt with Phenom, and that it lives up to your expectations.

Please excuse the rest of us if we are disappointed with Phenom, however.
November 19, 2007 2:03:02 PM

mimart7 said:
I won't buy a Phenom even though I have an AM 2 mobo, I'll wait for AM 2+ or AM 3. But I would never spend $1000 on processor. Too painful, my wife just wouldn't understand. I'd rather spend that kind of money on other components, and spend at most $400 - $500 on a CPU.



but am2+ socket will be around till 2010 why not?
November 19, 2007 2:04:41 PM

mimart7 said:
Tom's has a more indepth review, but needless to say Phenom is underwhelming :(  AMD is making a huge mistake by targeting "midrange" users. They have to target high end user as well as mid range users. I wasn't planning a new system rebuild until mid 2008 at the earliest. I would like to go with AMD, but if they don't get their act together and show us something that is an absolute must have, my next build will be Intel.


Sigh... My sentiments exactly. I'd hate to "jump ship" but unless AMD can start producing chips that are at least "competitive" I don't know when I'll be able to build a new rig. How can things go so bad for AMD so fast?

Da Worfster
November 19, 2007 2:32:56 PM

epsilon84 said:
I said at the start of this thread no flame baiting of AMD fanboys, and I will stay true to that.

If you really think this is a 'great start' then more power to you. I'm glad you are so rapt with Phenom, and that it lives up to your expectations.

Please excuse the rest of us if we are disappointed with Phenom, however.



You can be whatever you want. I look at the big picture and it has writing that says, CrySis and Valve are the future, not SuperPi or even DivX. At the mainstream GPU resolutions and settings, the chips are on par.

AMD never said word one about Phenom's perf so you all built this magical "phenomenon" in your own heads. Everywhere it should be faster than 3.2GHz dual chips it is. I just hope Anand gets off his "I'm so upset" soapbox and tests X2 vs. K10 like he did when Barcelona was released. They could underclock FX74 or OC 9600. I'm just happy that the "native" quad core chips have all basically appeared and I look forward to CTI improving the chips.

I was always under the impression that this year's earlier losses meant AMD couldn't take as many tool sets off of Turion and Brisbane to adequately debug K10 in time for the launch. It seems as though I was right if the L3 errata is any indication.

I meanit's not liek they can make K10 at Fab 30\38 yet. And from what I've heard at Fabtech, they closed Fab 30 entirely at teh end of last month for the upgrade, so we may never see another 90nm Opteron. That means more wafers for doing K10 revs which WILL SAVE AMD MONEY as they will get twice as many chips from 30mm wafers as from 200mm.

Keep on trucking AMD. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Naysayers come and go but CPU engrs.. crap I can't think of anything.
November 19, 2007 2:43:18 PM

Where do u see the K10 beating the 3.2 ghz part (6400+) in Anand or Tom's review? Some of them are even lagging behind the 5200+ or 5400+ in a few cases. Do you mean u see K10 is faster clock-to-clock than K8 based on the 3.2?
November 19, 2007 2:50:48 PM

epsilon84 said:
I said at the start of this thread no flame baiting of AMD fanboys, and I will stay true to that.

If you really think this is a 'great start' then more power to you. I'm glad you are so rapt with Phenom, and that it lives up to your expectations.

Please excuse the rest of us if we are disappointed with Phenom, however.


If Hector took a steaming dump in a Phenom box and shipped it to Baron his reaction would be:

Wow! AMD really delivered this time around!
\
:pt1cable:  BM
November 19, 2007 2:52:09 PM

I've got to have a Phenom X4, the logo sticker looks so good, it really makes up to a *gamers pc for noobs* with that sticker :lol:  :lol: 

Where the Intel Core 2 Quad is just plain boring :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Agree? Disagree?

Now on the product launch. Im a bit dissapointed, but not at all a disaster, as I can see Phenom sell well. We have placed an order of 2000 9500s from a tier 2 distributor and expect stock on the 29th November (20 days before christmas, so very tight on marketing and jobs)

But hopefully AMD can delivery :sol: 
!