Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom 9700, AMD's 1st Quad-Core CPU

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2007 9:45:00 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weave...


Benchmarks are in. Even the highest clocked Phenom which will not be available for a while gets its silicon handed to it in every single benchmark by Intel. Heck, even the top K8's made breakfast out of Phenom in single threaded applications.

Not good for AMD.

All I can say is WOW. I'm just amazed that in most benchmarks even Intel's first "double cheeseburger" quad-core schools Phenom in all it's native glory. This means that AMD will have to bargain price their chips, as their best (but very unavailable chip) won't be shipping for what some estimate as months.
November 19, 2007 9:52:14 AM

Phenom was butchered across the board.

I didn't expect the progress AMD have made with their chips to be so limited.
November 19, 2007 9:55:58 AM

Quote:
I didn't expect the progress AMD have made with their chips to be so limited.


I don't know if "progress" is the word. In many benchmarks quad-core Phenom is bested by dual-core K8 Athlons.

I'm still speechless, just speechless! I guess some of us weren't trolling all these months but telling our true concerns of AMD inadequacies.

I could understand this kind of performance from a June launch of K10, but they delayed it 6 months. Just imagine what it was like BEFORE the delay!
Related resources
November 19, 2007 9:58:53 AM

THG: "The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks."

WOW, I'm still reading it all, just amazing! I predict another year of AMD loses in the billions. Not because their processors suck (compared to Intel), but because they aren't going to be able to make any money out it. Intel gets to charge hundreds and hundreds more for its top part, while AMD isn't even able to make their top part or deliver it.
November 19, 2007 10:03:15 AM

Agreed.

I'm partway through building an AM2 system for my boy and note that the X2 6400 is now under $180. It makes the Phenoms seem absolutely pointless.

It looks like the poor yields for Phenom might not cause AMD too many problems - there may well be very poor demand.
November 19, 2007 10:34:42 AM

How many freaking threads do we need linking to the same article? Mods? Hello? :hello:  :whistle: 
November 19, 2007 10:52:56 AM

I'm not defending AMD here but I reckon since most AM2 boards can support the Phenom without any upgrades, and the fact that it IS the cheapest quad-core on the market, that's where they will find their demand. Although when they mentioned that you won't need to upgrade boards with the Phenom, that's assuming most Intel users don't already have a quad-core supportive board, which IMO is false (but don't quote me on that). If you need to upgrade an Intel board it will be for the Penryn, and Phenom doesn't even come close to Penryn. Besides, whose going to spend $1,500 on a processor if you're seriously considering price? If you're going to spend that much on a Penryn then you should be able to afford a board as well, aye? I guess what I'm trying to say is AMD seems to be trying to coax people in to buying their product because you don't need to upgrade the motherboard to use it, but most of us who build our PCs (with Intel chips) already have a quad-core supportive board. It's like trying to sell American gasoline to the Saudis. They already have it! I don't think they're going to make much money advertising that you don't need to upgrade the board. Who knows what it'll do for them though. And like it said on the article, it's price/performance is the same as Intel's right now and I think that's the only way they're going to sell these things.
November 19, 2007 10:55:44 AM

Just thought I might mention, it seems to me like Tom's signed an agreement with AMD to let AMD read over their article and make it benefiting to AMD.
November 19, 2007 11:09:55 AM

Quote:
THG: "The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks."

WOW, I'm still reading it all, just amazing! I predict another year of AMD loses in the billions. Not because their processors suck (compared to Intel), but because they aren't going to be able to make any money out it. Intel gets to charge hundreds and hundreds more for its top part, while AMD isn't even able to make their top part or deliver it.


No there wont be another year of losses in the billions. Phenom in a black box form will sell like hotcakes, in a regular form it'll sell like hotcakes, cos its cheap. It'll make it into laptops and oem desktops in the millions, cos its a quad core and its cheap. At the right price everything has its consumer appeal, and cheap quad cores would seem extremely marketable.

Im relieved its just here in the marketplace. As of now AMD/ATI has a better range of products both comparitively and absolutely than it has done for probably about 2 years.
November 19, 2007 11:17:22 AM

Quote:
I think its great that it will work with AM2 and current AM2 chipsets. With Intel, you will need yet another chipset, the X38 wont even work with the new 45nm processors. You can bet these boards (x48) will be outrageous in price like the c2d mobos were when they came out.



Penryns will work on P35s. They will work on X38s. If it's not working on (insert X38 motherboard here) it's most likely a BIOS issue.


QX9650 on Asus P5K Premium (P35)

Edit: But yes I do think it's a good thing that it's a drop in replacement on AM2 boards. It's just unfortunate that it will have to use HT2.0 instead of the HT3.0 on AM2+ boards.
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2007 11:19:18 AM

Me too, MrsBytch. A lot of AM2 owners might be happy then can pop in a quad core into their current systems without having to buy a new mobo.
November 19, 2007 11:19:39 AM

Quote:
Agreed.

I'm partway through building an AM2 system for my boy and note that the X2 6400 is now under $180. It makes the Phenoms seem absolutely pointless.

It looks like the poor yields for Phenom might not cause AMD too many problems - there may well be very poor demand.


I would do the 5000 black eddition for that price: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... prolly AMD's best processor for price at the moment and its only $129.99 at newegg.
a c 172 à CPUs
November 19, 2007 11:22:59 AM

Quote:
Im relieved its just here in the marketplace. As of now AMD/ATI has a better range of products both comparitively and absolutely than it has done for probably about 2 years.


True. As midrange or upper midrange products, sometimes "good enough" is good enough.
November 19, 2007 11:28:36 AM

B3 will sell great if it lives up to the hype.

I might even convince some people to build them so I can mess with it.
November 19, 2007 11:34:32 AM

Quote:
I think its great that it will work with AM2 and current AM2 chipsets. With Intel, you will need yet another chipset, the X38 wont even work with the new 45nm processors. You can bet these boards (x48) will be outrageous in price like the c2d mobos were when they came out.


Quit the FUD will ya? Even my 15 month old Asus P5B Deluxe (P965 chipset) works with 45nm, as will all P35 chipsets.
November 19, 2007 11:52:52 AM

It's such a shame that AMD / ATI is only competing in the mid-range with Intel / nVidia.
November 19, 2007 11:59:27 AM

I agree, but, that is were they will make the most money. Any idea when the phenom X2s will be hitting the market?
November 19, 2007 12:00:04 PM

Quote:
No there wont be another year of losses in the billions.


I don't agree. The margins on those processors are going to be much smaller. Intel is able to sell its processors for much more because they perform more. However, the cost to make them is relatively the same.

I'm interested to see how the stock market reacts to the failure of a launch.
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2007 12:09:19 PM

What's the bet the Phenom drops in price quite a bit.

Then it will sell ...

Plus a couple of the early articles mentionned it OC'ing to around 2.8 to 3Gig. If that is so and it is that much cheaper then I'm looking at it for the kids machines which are duals at present.

Otherwise Iv'e gotta changout three mobos (AM2's) and thats not cheap ... Intel mobos are way more expensive.

Swapping out a couple of chips is a 5 min job in comparison to major surgery.

Still ... the QX6600 does have one real strength ... we know the G0 stepping overclocks like mad.

So my money is presntly still on the cheap Intel quad ... better value for money for the enthusiast.

After seeing all of the articles now I'm getting a low end Intel quad ... well for my PC anyway ... not for my kids tho ... heh heh.

Lets hope this launch lowers the entry price for Quads.

If so .. thank you AMD.


November 19, 2007 12:13:33 PM

You're all missing the big picture. AMD is not financially viable at the CPU prices it is currently asking. Period.
November 19, 2007 12:23:16 PM

epsilon84 said:
Quit the FUD will ya? Even my 15 month old Asus P5B Deluxe (P965 chipset) works with 45nm, as will all P35 chipsets.



Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770: Paper Tiger?
"With this launch, Intel is presenting another 45 nm processor in the over-$1,470 price range that also requires a new high-end platform based on the equally as-yet-unavailable X48 chipset. Intel's intentions here are crystal clear, namely to disrupt AMD's launch, try to win a battle in the technology war, and to make a profit. Also, this is the first time in the company's history that it has announced two new $1,470+ processors based on the same technology within the space of three weeks.
Barely two months after the introduction of the X38 chipset, Intel is announcing a new CPU that will no longer run on this supposed high end platform - and some motherboard companies haven't even had the chance to introduce a product based on this chipset! What does Intel expect its customers to do now, when it only adds to their confusion and insecurities in this manner?
Since the currently available Core 2 processors all run flawlessly with the P35 chipset, which is actually on sale as a real product in the market, we can't recommend buying an X38-based motherboard. As soon as the QX9770 goes on sale, you'll be able to find an appropriate X48 board for the same price X38 boards sell for now. It's definitely not worth purchasing an expensive X38 board now that may not be compatible with newer processors later due to upgraded specifications , e.g. FSB 1600.
Let's hope that the mid-range and budget 45 nm processors expected for 2008 are not all locked on FSB1600 - otherwise, users looking to upgrade will be forced to exchange their entire platform (X48 motherboard plus DDR3 memory), just to use a new processor."

Think again!
November 19, 2007 12:24:43 PM

I'm new to the thread but I always hear that intels mobo cost more that may be true but if you go on newegg you can find the 775 mobos for under100$ and yes some 775 mobos will run the new penryn chip.
November 19, 2007 12:25:53 PM

Sirfiroth said:
Evidently you suffer from an illusion of knowledge.

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770: Paper Tiger?
"With this launch, Intel is presenting another 45 nm processor in the over-$1,470 price range that also requires a new high-end platform based on the equally as-yet-unavailable X48 chipset. Intel's intentions here are crystal clear, namely to disrupt AMD's launch, try to win a battle in the technology war, and to make a profit. Also, this is the first time in the company's history that it has announced two new $1,470+ processors based on the same technology within the space of three weeks.
Barely two months after the introduction of the X38 chipset, Intel is announcing a new CPU that will no longer run on this supposed high end platform - and some motherboard companies haven't even had the chance to introduce a product based on this chipset! What does Intel expect its customers to do now, when it only adds to their confusion and insecurities in this manner?
Since the currently available Core 2 processors all run flawlessly with the P35 chipset, which is actually on sale as a real product in the market, we can't recommend buying an X38-based motherboard. As soon as the QX9770 goes on sale, you'll be able to find an appropriate X48 board for the same price X38 boards sell for now. It's definitely not worth purchasing an expensive X38 board now that may not be compatible with newer processors later due to upgraded specifications , e.g. FSB 1600."

Think again!


Perhaps you'd like to realize that MOST of the Penryns will work on a 1333 MHz FSB which means they will be supported. The QX9650 works at 1333 MHz FSB. This has nothing to do with Penryn, but FSB support. If they wanted to release a Q6600 @ 1600 MHz FSB.. guess what? You'd need a new mobo if you wanted to OFFICIALLY support it.

Saying all Penryns require a new motherboard is fairly ignorant. However yes, in the instance of 1600 MHz FSB X48 is the only one that will officially support it from Intel.. But Gigabyte and Asus already support 1600 MHz FSB on their X38 platforms.

Since it was buried in a paragraph let me restate for emphasis.

QX9770 support has nothing to do with 45nm support on P35s/X38s. It has 100% to do with FSB support.
November 19, 2007 12:28:10 PM

Quote:
I'm new to the thread but I always hear that intels mobo cost more that may be true but if you go on newegg you can find the 775 mobos for under100$ and yes some 775 mobos will run the new penryn chip.


Good OCing Intel mobos cost more.

Vanillas are still cheap.
November 19, 2007 12:31:34 PM

ethel said:
It's such a shame that AMD / ATI is only competing in the mid-range with Intel / nVidia.


Actually, in terms of Quad Core, I would consider AMD's placement the low end. Overall, maybe a mid-range product, but for the use of the specific type of product it is, it's low end. Oh well, Intel innovates and AMD gives us Intel's technology on the cheap.
November 19, 2007 12:31:53 PM

Sirfiroth,

Again, this will not require a new MB.
All this requires is running DDR2-800 at full speed.

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but DDR2-1066 and higher are currentyl being sold and used on current Mobos.

It's basically a 400FSBx4 which nearly every Mobo for ages have been able to handle.

The question is normally how far into the 500FSBx4 range can they hit.

It's really silliness indeed.
The overwhelming majority of the old p965 chipsets will handle these chips w/o the slightest issue since the 1600FSB is a very normal setting nowadays.

November 19, 2007 12:35:09 PM

Quote:
I don't agree. The margins on those processors are going to be much smaller. Intel is able to sell its processors for much more because they perform more. However, the cost to make them is relatively the same.

I'm interested to see how the stock market reacts to the failure of a launch.


AMD's stock has never made sense. It'll probably skyrocket simply because they released a processor. Remember when they announced they would be diluting the existing stock shares? I think it went up then too! If the market as a whole is down, I expect AMD to track to that - this news is almost a non-significant event in terms of AMD's bottom line (especially for this fiscal year).
November 19, 2007 12:40:03 PM

I'm on a P6N Platium, NF 650i. And it has support for 45nm yorkfield and wolfdale (L2 12MB) CPU's (1333FSB). And it's pretty much an older chipset. Don't understand why people bring up the old reasons for staying away from certain products, when it really isn't true in all cases. :heink: 
November 19, 2007 12:47:11 PM

Quote:
You're all missing the big picture. AMD is not financially viable at the CPU prices it is currently asking. Period.


Tell us please, the cost of producing the chip, if you have knowledge.
November 19, 2007 12:49:35 PM

Well, I definitely don't plan to upgrade to Phenom at this point. Seeing the 6400+ beat it in gaming makes the value seem terrible. Good thing my current system does anything I want it to.
November 19, 2007 12:52:06 PM

TSIMonster said:
Well, I definitely don't plan to upgrade to Phenom at this point. Seeing the 6400+ beat it in gaming makes the value seem terrible. Good thing my current system does anything I want it to.



That's the exact same argument as the E6850 vs Q6600 people have in the Intel market. Games aren't optimized for quad cores just yet. As they add the support in games the Phenom X4 will run further and further away from higher clocked dual cores.
November 19, 2007 12:54:54 PM

Sweet. Decent pricing.. Socket past 2009..im in!
November 19, 2007 12:55:15 PM

cnumartyr said:
That's the exact same argument as the E6850 vs Q6600 people have in the Intel market. Games aren't optimized for quad cores just yet. As they add the support in games the Phenom X4 will run further and further away from higher clocked dual cores.


Not quite the same, because E6850/Q6600 are from the same CPU generation, Phenom vs X2 is not.

In the vast majority of benchmarks, except for heavily threaded ones of course, the X2 6400+ is still faster than the Phenom 9600.
November 19, 2007 12:56:56 PM

Price/performance is always the issue, except for the extremists. We will see the market price for both of these chips come to demand levels before long.

It is always interesting to me....to see people degrade other people's choices because it is the not the choice they would have made. Valid, in some cases, true, but still interesting.
November 19, 2007 1:00:42 PM

Grimmy said:
I'm on a P6N Platium, NF 650i. And it has support for 45nm yorkfield and wolfdale (L2 12MB) CPU's (1333FSB). And it's pretty much an older chipset. Don't understand why people bring up the old reasons for staying away from certain products, when it really isn't true in all cases. :heink: 


The answer is simple - People are uninformed.

The "Paper Tiger" article was clearly such as case.
It is filled with so much wrong or mistaken information it's sad.

He was so SHOCKED by the sudden announcement of the new 1600FSB Penryn, even though they were demoed 2 months ago. Sigh............

I guess he expects Intel to highe somebody to come to his house and read him bedtime stories every night about what is going on in the computer world. I'm really surprised he was not benchmarking PONG on his computers.
That is about as informed as this guy seems to be.
November 19, 2007 1:01:39 PM

epsilon84 said:
Not quite the same, because E6850/Q6600 are from the same CPU generation, Phenom vs X2 is not.

In the vast majority of benchmarks, except for heavily threaded ones of course, the X2 6400+ is still faster than the Phenom 9600.


True, but I didn't expect K10 to be such an advancement that a 2.3 GHz part could out perform a 3.2 GHz part in "single" threaded apps.
November 19, 2007 1:04:36 PM

It would be interesting to see the X2 and Phenom compared with same clock speed single core performance in order to see how the new tech compares to the old.
November 19, 2007 1:10:24 PM

Quote:
I dont think it was a flop at all. At least you wont need a new chipset or socket, which is more than I can say for the 45nm Intel quads. Not even the brand new X38 or P35 will work with it. You can bet those boards will be very expensive too, just like when c2d came out.
The Phenom and 700 series boards will be better performance per dollar than Intels offerings.


Did Sharikou hack your account or something?

All P35/X38 boards work with 45nm quads, WTF are you smoking?! :pt1cable: 

The QX9650 was reviewed on P35/X38 boards FFS! :whistle: 

November 19, 2007 1:10:46 PM

Quote:
I dont think it was a flop at all. At least you wont need a new chipset or socket, which is more than I can say for the 45nm Intel quads. Not even the brand new X38 or P35 will work with it. You can bet those boards will be very expensive too, just like when c2d came out.
The Phenom and 700 series boards will be better performance per dollar than Intels offerings.



3 Threads you've posted that in. 3 Threads you were wrong in.

45nm works on P35 and X38. It works on older 650i and even P965.

Seriously, stop spreading blatant lies.
November 19, 2007 1:12:45 PM

Quote:
3 Threads you've posted that in. 3 Threads you were wrong in.

45nm works on P35 and X38. It works on older 650i and even P965.

Seriously, stop spreading blatant lies.


Notice how he never replies afterwards. Typical FUD spreading behavior.
November 19, 2007 1:14:03 PM

mtyermom said:
It would be interesting to see the X2 and Phenom compared with same clock speed single core performance in order to see how the new tech compares to the old.


K10 is about 10 - 15% faster than K8 clock for clock.
November 19, 2007 1:14:57 PM

Quote:
Notice how he never replies afterwards. Typical FUD spreading behavior.



Of course not.

Had I seen you posted before me I wouldn't of bothered. However the LAST thing I want to see is an AMD fanboi see this without a response and start freaking out and spreading it to all his buddies.

It'll happen either way.. How could he reply to the truth? Link his blog as truth? :kaola: 
November 19, 2007 1:30:43 PM

Was this article written by the AMD advertising department? As many others have pointed out, the claims of lack of platform support for the Intel chips is simply untrue. I prefer to make my own decisions about sane prices. For a gamer, a slower chip is never a bargain. And all of the smoke in the world can't conceal the fact that the Phenom's performance is disappointing. This article is the worst distortion that I've ever read in Tom's. You can tell that Dr. Tom is no longer around.
November 19, 2007 1:36:00 PM

Interesting how quiet BM is on this.
November 19, 2007 1:48:18 PM

Did anybody else notice that both articles - the Phenom and Paper Tiger articles - were by the same author. No doubt he's a copy writer for AMD.
November 19, 2007 1:52:39 PM

Quote:
3 Threads you've posted that in. 3 Threads you were wrong in.

45nm works on P35 and X38. It works on older 650i and even P965.

Seriously, stop spreading blatant lies.


you say p965's eh? hmmmm can you show me where you get this info?
November 19, 2007 1:53:28 PM

All i can see is this new quad is basically newer with better features and a longer life cycle. I was ready to buy and i got excited when i looked at the article. But upon reading it and finding that it really doesnt perform any better than my 6000+ in the app's that I use i cant justify buying it at this point. Hell who know's though...I may Ill give it a couple more day's and then make my decision.
November 19, 2007 1:53:29 PM

What was up with the author saying (at the end of the article) that x38 chipsets won't support the upcomming 45nm chips?

thats such a load of crap? it says on the spec sheet that they natively support 1600fsb, and the upcomming 45nm's

????

anyone know why he would write such things?
November 19, 2007 1:57:33 PM

I have what many may consider a dumb question. I do work in AutoCAD to make digital terrain models. Some of the files have huge amounts of linework and I have to generate at model based on that. I also do comparisons of the models to determine the amount of soil that has to be moved to get a job done. With all of that in mind, what benchmark would be the best to look at to determine what processor is faster at that type of computation? Would a cpu that is fast at making PDF files, but slower in winrar be better then the faster in winrar? Just curious if anyone has any knowledge on that. Thanks
!