Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How AMD Can Beat Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2007 7:57:04 PM

Get B3 Phenoms out that will OC to 3.4+ GHz on air.

Sell Black Edition everything.

Since you have to pay $1000 for an unlocked multiplier on Intel... I would DEFINATELY move to AMD if Phenom is close enough clock for clock with C2D and had an unlocked multiplier.

Not even joking, the 5000+ BE was a great idea (even though it was WAY overhyped at the time.. dark side? cmon PR you suck). Since Intel won't sell one for that cost, it would be a great idea for AMD to start selling cheap unlocked CPUs.

It might not clock as high as a QX9650.. however. It won't cost $1000+. Also.. let's be honest.. The highest mutiplier used for the Penryns will be 8.5x. To get that 4 GHz mark on retail non-extreme Penryns you would need a 470 MHz Bus. OC'd Penryns will probably end up FSB limited before 500 just like Kentsfields. If not.. then I am completely wrong.

So a B3 Phenom in the $300-400 bracket labeled as Black Edition that can clock to 3.4 GHz on air? Yea I would buy it in a second over Intel.

Otherwise, I'm getting a Penryn.

Edit: But yea.. this is really the only way I see AMD making a big come back in the enthusiast segment. Other than people buying into the entire "platform" idea.

More about : amd beat intel

November 19, 2007 8:03:07 PM

3.4? Penryn does 4.0. Move to 25nm core fast?
November 19, 2007 8:05:29 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
3.4? Penryn does 4.0. Move to 25nm core fast?


QX Penryns do 4 for $1000+

Haven't seen what "lower" end Penryns will do. Haven't seen what the wall will be on them just yet with a "low" multiplier.

My point was if Phenom X4 BE could be binned at 2.6 GHz, priced around $350, and be OC'd to 3.4+ GHz on air it would be a great price/performance option versus Intel on the enthusiast segment. And this is entirely possible if B3 is the final "golden" revision.
Related resources
November 19, 2007 8:07:04 PM

The flagship CPU spot seems really important to me. If AMD can make a move on it they would come back for sure.
November 19, 2007 8:10:01 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
The flagship CPU spot seems really important to me. If AMD can make a move on it they would come back for sure.


Flagship vs Flagship I don't think AMD has a chance. I don't think it's a realistic goal for them to beat Intel there.

Personally I think it's great that QX9650s are hitting 4.2 GHz on air. However that doesn't matter to me. My budget for CPUs in new builds is normally $300-500 max. So perhaps I should refer to it more as "mainstream." However if Phenom was able to compete with Intel in that segment with a BE Phenom, or even a Phenom that would OC decently on the B3 revision I would be happy to switch back.
November 19, 2007 8:13:28 PM

cnumartyr said:
Get B3 Phenoms out that will OC to 3.4+ GHz on air.

Sell Black Edition everything.

Since you have to pay $1000 for an unlocked multiplier on Intel... I would DEFINATELY move to AMD if Phenom is close enough clock for clock with C2D and had an unlocked multiplier.

Not even joking, the 5000+ BE was a great idea (even though it was WAY overhyped at the time.. dark side? cmon PR you suck). Since Intel won't sell one for that cost, it would be a great idea for AMD to start selling cheap unlocked CPUs.

It might not clock as high as a QX9650.. however. It won't cost $1000+. Also.. let's be honest.. The highest mutiplier used for the Penryns will be 8.5x. To get that 4 GHz mark on retail non-extreme Penryns you would need a 470 MHz Bus. OC'd Penryns will probably end up FSB limited before 500 just like Kentsfields. If not.. then I am completely wrong.

So a B3 Phenom in the $300-400 bracket labeled as Black Edition that can clock to 3.4 GHz on air? Yea I would buy it in a second over Intel.

Otherwise, I'm getting a Penryn.

Edit: But yea.. this is really the only way I see AMD making a big come back in the enthusiast segment. Other than people buying into the entire "platform" idea.


I think you have some good points.....I was kinda thinking the same thing. Gimmicks sell but these...like an unlocked multiplier etc. are cool things that might have a appeal and will help boost sales.


November 19, 2007 8:15:27 PM

I demand unlocked multipliers on everything.
November 19, 2007 8:25:20 PM

Also you forgot all of the crippled quad cores with only three cores working......where are those? AMD said they would also sell tri-cores.
November 19, 2007 8:26:52 PM

caamsa said:
Also you forgot all of the crippled quad cores with only three cores working......where are those? AMD said they would also sell tri-cores.


My question is where the heck are they going to be priced?

It'll be like.. 20 bucks more for a tri core vs dual core and another 20 bucks for a quad core.

I think AMD could gain some force in the OEM segment with a good HD refresh and the B3 stepping of the Phenom.
November 19, 2007 8:31:09 PM

cnumartyr said:
My question is where the heck are they going to be priced?

It'll be like.. 20 bucks more for a tri core vs dual core and another 20 bucks for a quad core.

I think AMD could gain some force in the OEM segment with a good HD refresh and the B3 stepping of the Phenom.



Yea and who knows how they will perform. That could make for a big mess in the market....I checked for Phenoms and they are all sold out on the sites that I checked.

I still think the AM2 is the way to go if you are going to buy AMD until they get out a better version of the phenom.

If you go intell the best is their Q6000 chip. If I was going to build a new system I would have built a system around that.
November 19, 2007 8:32:33 PM

caamsa said:
Yea and who knows how they will perform. That could make for a big mess in the market....I checked for Phenoms and they are all sold out on the sites that I checked.

I still think the AM2 is the way to go if you are going to buy AMD until they get out a better version of the phenom.

If you go intell the best is their Q6000 chip. If I was going to build a new system I would have built a system around that.


I build my last XP rig around that.

I plan on building a Vista 64 rig in Feb/March. I'd like to see Phenom BEs because I do like the idea of it and give Intel some competition.
November 19, 2007 8:43:03 PM

How can AMD beat Intel? With a stick, while Intel was sleeping.

Ok, on a more serious note, if AMD can get out some B3 revisions with unlocked multipiers at a low enough cost, then maybe AMD has a good chance in the mid-range market. No flagship leadership here, but a solid mid-range performer. After that, AMD needs to learn how to stop lying about its products. Hearing the used-car saleman pitch of how great the product is and time after time seeing results that are bad turns people off. Hear enough lies and only the die-hard types will continue to buy.

Another thing is to make sure that products are available. So Phenom is offically released. See any advertised at Newegg? For that matter, where are all the motherboards to support it? When will they arrive; two weeks, four weeks, longer? AMD needs a change in management desperately, the sooner the better. Lee Iacoca helped save Chrysler back in 1980. AMD needs someone like him now.
November 19, 2007 8:55:07 PM

AMD said there would be Phenoms available toward's the end of the week. And to be fair, Intel started showing off the 3.2 Penryn today also, but you can't buy it. (Not that I'd spend $1000 on a CPU)

I think AMD should unlock all their multipliers until they can get more competitive.
November 19, 2007 8:58:35 PM

sailer said:
How can AMD beat Intel? With a stick, while Intel was sleeping.

Ok, on a more serious note, if AMD can get out some B3 revisions with unlocked multipiers at a low enough cost, then maybe AMD has a good chance in the mid-range market. No flagship leadership here, but a solid mid-range performer. After that, AMD needs to learn how to stop lying about its products. Hearing the used-car saleman pitch of how great the product is and time after time seeing results that are bad turns people off. Hear enough lies and only the die-hard types will continue to buy.

Another thing is to make sure that products are available. So Phenom is offically released. See any advertised at Newegg? For that matter, where are all the motherboards to support it? When will they arrive; two weeks, four weeks, longer? AMD needs a change in management desperately, the sooner the better. Lee Iacoca helped save Chrysler back in 1980. AMD needs someone like him now.


Ahhh with Chrysler I do remember there being a little old 1.2 billion dollar loan from the Govt. Chrysler has been in the position of bankruptcy about 3 times. How many times has AMD been in that position?
November 19, 2007 9:05:20 PM

The 1.2 billion to Chrysler was more of a guarentee on the loans that it already had than to new borrowing. Since AMD isn't quite that bad off yet, think of how much AMD could be helped by someone with equal leadership talent?
November 19, 2007 9:11:24 PM

sailer said:
The 1.2 billion to Chrysler was more of a guarentee on the loans that it already had than to new borrowing. Since AMD isn't quite that bad off yet, think of how much AMD could be helped by someone with equal leadership talent?


I believe that you are 100% correct about AMD needing better leadership.
November 19, 2007 9:25:33 PM

This still would not be competitive... Q6600s hit 3.4Ghz+ on air easily for 280 bucks, who cares about locked multiplier.

Maybe if Tolliman tri-cores are sub $150 and surpass 3ghz they can edge out the Pentium Dual-cores and E4X00 series for the entry-level. That's the only AMD option I could even possibly see worth buying, provided you don't already have an AM2 system.
November 19, 2007 9:29:50 PM

3.4GHz from a Phenom is enough to beat Intel? You're joking right? Current G0 Q6600s are doing 3.6GHz on air, and at a higher IPC too. Then there is the 45nm chips...

Let's see,
3.4 x 0.9 = 3.06GHz C2Q @ 65nm
3.4 x 0.85 = 2.89GHz C2Q @ 45nm

Dude, that's hardly competitive, Black Edition or not.

AMD wants an Intel killer? Make a Phenom overclock to 4GHz+, with unlocked multis, at $250. And that's against a 65nm C2Q. Against 45nm, make that 4.5GHz+. No kidding.
November 19, 2007 9:36:07 PM

epsilon84 said:
3.4GHz from a Phenom is enough to beat Intel? You're joking right? Current G0 Q6600s are doing 3.6GHz on air, and at a higher IPC too. Then there is the 45nm chips...

Let's see,
3.4 x 0.9 = 3.06GHz C2Q @ 65nm
3.4 x 0.85 = 2.89GHz C2Q @ 45nm

Dude, that's hardly competitive, Black Edition or not.

AMD wants an Intel killer? Make a Phenom overclock to 4GHz+, with unlocked multis, at $250. And that's against a 65nm C2Q. Against 45nm, make that 4.5GHz+. No kidding.


I'm assuming the errata thing actually deals the 10% performance knock that people are claiming.

Also.. do you really think an 8.5x multi Penryn will clock 4.5 GHz and break 500 MHz FSB on a quad? If you do, I hope you are right.. it'd be fun.

I'm not talking about an Intel killing, I'm talking about a mid-range alternative that can OC well.
November 19, 2007 9:44:21 PM

cnumartyr said:
I'm assuming the errata thing actually deals the 10% performance knock that people are claiming.

Also.. do you really think an 8.5x multi Penryn will clock 4.5 GHz and break 500 MHz FSB on a quad? If you do, I hope you are right.. it'd be fun.

I'm not talking about an Intel killing, I'm talking about a mid-range alternative that can OC well.


From my understanding, the errata has nothing to do with performance gains, but with the system freezing at certain times.
Quote:
The bug causes the system to freeze when a certain combination of instructions coincides with extraordinarily high traffic.

This bug can only be reproduced in the lab but does not occur under normal, real-world conditions. It is still present in the 2.20 GHz and 2.30 GHz versions of the Phenom (9500 and 9600).

So, I don't see how this errata will add 10% more performance, when it only happens when a "certain combination of instructions coincides with extraordinarily high traffic".
November 19, 2007 9:52:58 PM

NMDante said:
From my understanding, the errata has nothing to do with performance gains, but with the system freezing at certain times.
Quote:
The bug causes the system to freeze when a certain combination of instructions coincides with extraordinarily high traffic.

This bug can only be reproduced in the lab but does not occur under normal, real-world conditions. It is still present in the 2.20 GHz and 2.30 GHz versions of the Phenom (9500 and 9600).

So, I don't see how this errata will add 10% more performance, when it only happens when a "certain combination of instructions coincides with extraordinarily high traffic".


I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt one last time. I'd really like to see AMD compete again and I just don't think the B2 Phenoms are the answer. Now I'm just hoping ATI keeps them afloat.

I guess I'm trying to make some excuses for them because I don't want to see the market dominated by Intel, even though that's where we're headed.
November 19, 2007 9:54:57 PM

At this point I really don't see how AMD can come back. By the time they get up to 3GHz with their B3 steppings Penryn will be in full swing. Also, Intel is clocking their 65nm processors very conservatively; they don't really even need 45nm to beat Phenom. It's just another nail in the coffin. And then Nehalem :( 

*this message brought to you by my S939 Athlon X2 3800+*
November 19, 2007 9:59:46 PM

cnumartyr said:
I'm assuming the errata thing actually deals the 10% performance knock that people are claiming.

Also.. do you really think an 8.5x multi Penryn will clock 4.5 GHz and break 500 MHz FSB on a quad? If you do, I hope you are right.. it'd be fun.

I'm not talking about an Intel killing, I'm talking about a mid-range alternative that can OC well.


Do you even know what the errata does? It causes random instability under high workloads at 2.4GHz or higher, that in itself does not make Phenom lose 10% IPC. There is a workaround for this errata, that disables the L3 cache altogether (I think), and this incurs a 10% performance hit. In practical terms, it's hardly a fix since a 2.3GHz without the 'fix' will be much faster than a 2.4GHz with the 'fix' enabled.

No, I don't expect the lower end Yorkfields to break 500FSB. Having said that, I do expect current P35 boards to do 450FSB minimum, around 470 - 480FSB on 'good' mobos, with X38/X48 hopefully getting close to 500FSB with more mature BIOSes (they do about 480FSB currently).

Oh, and it's an 8x multi for the Q9450, not 8.5x. Yes, I'm not too happy about it too, since it will most likely be FSB limited, not architecturally. However, it's the only 45nm I can afford, at ~$320 it's already $50 more than a Q6600.

So realistically, we are looking at around 3.6GHz - 4.0GHz from a low end Q9450, which is equivalent to a 4.14 - 4.6GHz Phenom. Which is why I said if AMD is serious about beating Penryn in overclocking, they had better find a stepping that does 4.5GHz+ on air.
November 19, 2007 10:05:31 PM

I was refering to the article that according to AMD says they take a 10% performance hit from it. However if the case is as you stated it, then no I'd say there isn't hope there. I understand what a bug is, but I was under the impression (again from the article and others) that the cause of it caused the 10% performance hit, not the disable of the L3 cache as a work around.

However for the $500ish Intel Q9550 will have the 8.5x Multiplier. I don't think we will see 500 FSB from the Penryn, but I may be entirely wrong.

I do however STILL believe this is the best way for AMD to catch up and try to get some of the market back.

Btw do you have a link to some Penryn quads doing 480 MHz Bus on the X38?
November 19, 2007 10:18:48 PM

Which article are you referring to? I must have missed it. According to Fudzilla (yeah yeah :p )

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Quote:
AMD has a huge problem with the B2 revision of its Phenoms. It was supposed to launch 2.2GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.4GHz CPU, but it looks like the company will have to delay its 2.4GHz CPU to Q1 2008. AMD doesn't have any choice as the 2.4GHz part is crashing in some heavy load scenarios.

According to senior sources at the company, AMD's 2.4 GHz Phenom has an errata that can crash the CPU in some heavy load multitasking scenarios, but it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen. Luckily there is a fix for the errata, but if you turn on the fix, you automatically lose about 10 percent of the performance. In the real world, it won't really work well enough to allow the company to launch a 2.4GHz CPU.

The new B3 stepping will solve the errata and will allow AMD to move to 2.6GHz or faster and the new stepping comes in Q1 2008, expect it towards the end of the quarter.

This is definitely catastrophic news for this fallen hero, but the 2.2 and 2.3GHz parts will sell for less than €200 in an attempt to try and fight Intel.


As for X38 doing 480FSB, sure. 485FSB in fact, my memory failed me. Not Penryn quads though, but Q6600 using a lower multi.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=313...

This is on an early BIOS remember, the chipset itself is still relatively new, hopefully a more mature BIOS can squeeze a little more out of X38.
November 19, 2007 10:21:04 PM

I ussually avoid Fudzilla when I can...

I was refering to this one: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/99177

I get where you are coming from now on the work around.

I hadn't seen those benches yet on the X38... This just makes me want to pick up a Bone Trail and say screw it and take the plunge into DDR3 as well.
November 19, 2007 10:22:20 PM

epsilon84 said:
3.4GHz from a Phenom is enough to beat Intel? You're joking right? Current G0 Q6600s are doing 3.6GHz on air, and at a higher IPC too. Then there is the 45nm chips...

Let's see,
3.4 x 0.9 = 3.06GHz C2Q @ 65nm
3.4 x 0.85 = 2.89GHz C2Q @ 45nm

Dude, that's hardly competitive, Black Edition or not.

AMD wants an Intel killer? Make a Phenom overclock to 4GHz+, with unlocked multis, at $250. And that's against a 65nm C2Q. Against 45nm, make that 4.5GHz+. No kidding.


So how many people over clock their cpu's? If you buy a dell, emachine, hp, or some other manufactured computer there is often no way to even over clock on these systems. These make up the bulk of the computers. Think of the thousands of machines in private businesses or government offices, do you think they get over clocked...........now for private uses who are into over clocking yes intell is the way to go, but it only matters for a very small fraction of users. In that case it makes the AMD cpu's a lot more competitive in the price vs performance.
November 19, 2007 10:24:22 PM

cnumartyr said:
I ussually avoid Fudzilla when I can...

I was refering to this one: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/99177

I get where you are coming from now on the work around.

I hadn't seen those benches yet on the X38... This just makes me want to pick up a Bone Trail and say screw it and take the plunge into DDR3 as well.


I can't read German... :kaola: 

DDR3... meh, wait it out, it's far too expensive atm compared to DDR2.
November 19, 2007 10:25:32 PM

caamsa said:
So how many people over clock their cpu's? If you buy a dell, emachine, hp, or some other manufactured computer there is often no way to even over clock on these systems. These make up the bulk of the computers. Think of the thousands of machines in private businesses or government offices, do you think they get over clocked...........now for private uses who are into over clocking yes intell is the way to go, but it only matters for a very small fraction of users. In that case it makes the AMD cpu's a lot more competitive in the price vs performance.


Not when a Q6600 is $276 and outperforms the Q9600 with less power and heat output.

OEMs don't just look at performance. They look at thermals as well so they can get by with the least amount of heatsink possible to cut corners somewhere else. AMD is going to have to cut prices further if they want to call price/performance point.

I'm thinking in the enthusiast segment with a decently OCing B3 at a good price point it will be an affordable alternative to Intel's offering.
November 19, 2007 10:27:58 PM

caamsa said:
So how many people over clock their cpu's? If you buy a dell, emachine, hp, or some other manufactured computer there is often no way to even over clock on these systems. These make up the bulk of the computers. Think of the thousands of machines in private businesses or government offices, do you think they get over clocked...........now for private uses who are into over clocking yes intell is the way to go, but it only matters for a very small fraction of users. In that case it makes the AMD cpu's a lot more competitive in the price vs performance.


I'm sorry, did you just miss the OP's entire point?!

Let me reiterate, he was saying that a multiplier unlocked B3 stepping Phenom, capable of overclocking to 3.4GHz+, would enable AMD to beat Intel. I provided a counter-argument to that view. As for who overclocks, well, I certainly do, and I'm pretty sure cnumartyr does as well. And in case you forgot, this is an enthusiast forum so excuse me if I talk about overclocking as if it's the norm... because it is, in here. ;) 

If you wanna talk stock speeds, sure, AMD plans to get 2.6GHz and faster parts out with the B3 stepping, but that is still apparently 4 months away, by then Intel will have released 45nm quads at higher clockspeeds too, and we're back to square one.
November 19, 2007 10:28:07 PM

epsilon84 said:
I can't read German... :kaola: 

DDR3... meh, wait it out, it's far too expensive atm compared to DDR2.


lol...

I'd get a DDR2 X38 mobo but I'm going to wait on more manufacturer's to come out with them. I'm not a huge fan of Asus. The main reason I like Intel's Bone Trail is how easy it would be to drop WCing on it without having to rip off heat pipes. Why won't they just release "naked" boards already with no heat sinks for $100 less?
November 19, 2007 10:28:58 PM

sailer said:
How can AMD beat Intel? With a stick, while Intel was sleeping.

Ok, on a more serious note, if AMD can get out some B3 revisions with unlocked multipiers at a low enough cost, then maybe AMD has a good chance in the mid-range market. No flagship leadership here, but a solid mid-range performer. After that, AMD needs to learn how to stop lying about its products. Hearing the used-car saleman pitch of how great the product is and time after time seeing results that are bad turns people off. Hear enough lies and only the die-hard types will continue to buy.

Another thing is to make sure that products are available. So Phenom is offically released. See any advertised at Newegg? For that matter, where are all the motherboards to support it? When will they arrive; two weeks, four weeks, longer? AMD needs a change in management desperately, the sooner the better. Lee Iacoca helped save Chrysler back in 1980. AMD needs someone like him now.


Well said!
November 19, 2007 10:31:59 PM

cnumartyr said:
lol...

I'd get a DDR2 X38 mobo but I'm going to wait on more manufacturer's to come out with them. I'm not a huge fan of Asus. The main reason I like Intel's Bone Trail is how easy it would be to drop WCing on it without having to rip off heat pipes. Why won't they just release "naked" boards already with no heat sinks for $100 less?


Newegg has X38 boards from MSI, Foxxcom, and Gigabyte. The issue for me, personally, is that I don't feel like spending $200+ for a new mobo, then another few hundred $$$ for DDR3 memory.

I'm content with my little E6700 system right now.
November 19, 2007 10:36:33 PM

NMDante said:
Newegg has X38 boards from MSI, Foxxcom, and Gigabyte. The issue for me, personally, is that I don't feel like spending $200+ for a new mobo, then another few hundred $$$ for DDR3 memory.

I'm content with my little E6700 system right now.


I'm in debate with myself. The main reason I want to move to X38 is for full bandwidth CF support. However at the same time I would probably see better performance moving to a P5K Deluxe with DDR21066 and the 8800 GTS refresh.

Decisions... :pfff: 
November 19, 2007 10:38:43 PM

cnumartyr said:
I'm in debate with myself. The main reason I want to move to X38 is for full bandwidth CF support. However at the same time I would probably see better performance moving to a P5K Deluxe with DDR21066 and the 8800 GTS refresh.

Decisions... :pfff: 


I am waiting until Nehalem pops up.
I want to see the prices for the boards, and how much gains/loss in performance the IMC and non-IMC CPUs have compared to each other and the rest of the Intel lineup.

Other than that, my next upgrade will probably be a GPU, but my 8800GTS handles my gaming needs just fine, atm.
November 19, 2007 10:40:51 PM

Btw, I just came across this:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2218304,00.a...

If that chart is accurate and a 2.6GHz 9900 will have a 140W TDP, I struggle to see how you can overclock it beyond 3GHz on conventional air cooling. The architecture itself might be capable of 3GHz+, but the thermals won't allow it. This is exactly what happened with Prescott, and I'm afraid AMD may be hitting the same wall in terms of massive leakage at higher clocks.
November 19, 2007 10:48:16 PM

epsilon84 said:
I'm sorry, did you just miss the OP's entire point?!

Let me reiterate, he was saying that a multiplier unlocked B3 stepping Phenom, capable of overclocking to 3.4GHz+, would enable AMD to beat Intel. I provided a counter-argument to that view. As for who overclocks, well, I certainly do, and I'm pretty sure cnumartyr does as well. And in case you forgot, this is an enthusiast forum so excuse me if I talk about overclocking as if it's the norm... because it is, in here. ;) 

If you wanna talk stock speeds, sure, AMD plans to get 2.6GHz and faster parts out with the B3 stepping, but that is still apparently 4 months away, by then Intel will have released 45nm quads at higher clockspeeds too, and we're back to square one.


My point is that a lot of people make the argument that you can just over clock the intell chips and they will in turn be faster than anything that AMD has over clocked or otherwise. Not everyone over clocks or can over clock so that makes the playing field a little more even between intell and AMD. Of course that gap is closing quickly.

A lot of the money made is on machines that will never be over clocked. Example: Federal, State, County governments and colleges purchase thousands of computers every year. Those machines are never over clocked. I am well aware that a lot of people on this site over clock. I too over clock.....but with my current cpu my max over clock hovers around 3.2 and this thing already runs hot and the performance gain is very small so I choose not to take a chance with this current set up. AMD has done well in server markets. Those cpu's are not over clocked. So there is some thing to say about power consumption, price, and performance in the applications that you are using the machine for. I just wanted to add my two cents worth...........

November 19, 2007 10:49:42 PM

If the link that was posted is true and the TDP for a 2.6 GHz Phenom is 140W.. I don't think it matters anymore.

I hope that's on a B2 and the B3 will be more "efficient."

Cool n Quiet 2.0? Turn off the computer.
November 19, 2007 10:56:02 PM

oh hell yeah!
November 19, 2007 11:02:53 PM

boner said:
oh hell yeah!


LOL I just saw Woodbridge, what's up man!

Just did some math and seeing what I can salvage from this rig...

Moving to Vista 64 Bit, X38 Chipset, DDR3, and a DX10.1 Video card...

$850

I don't think that's too bad.

It'll cost me more down the line because I would like to watercool it and have 4 GB of memory at some point. I'd also like to move to 2x HD3870X2s. That would all be down the road. I think $850 is reasonable and completely doable.

Edit: Found this: http://clubit.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=CA4841008#
November 19, 2007 11:14:04 PM

cnumartyr said:
If the link that was posted is true and the TDP for a 2.6 GHz Phenom is 140W.. I don't think it matters anymore.

I hope that's on a B2 and the B3 will be more "efficient."

Cool n Quiet 2.0? Turn off the computer.


Well, it says late Q1 which is when B3 is meant to debut. Was 2.6GHz ever on the radar on B2?

Btw, here is some frightening power consumption (platform power consumption, not CPU alone):
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQyMiw5...


AMD will want to get B3 efficiency WAY UP on their process if they are to challenge Intel in overclocking, and frankly, I just don't see it happening. Just look at the wattages of a Phenom @ 2.8GHz, sure it's B2, but realistically, how much can B3 improve on this by? For example, with C2Q, G0 stepping managed ~10% lower thermals than B2, and was considered a success.
November 19, 2007 11:16:38 PM

epsilon84 said:
Well, it says late Q1 which is when B3 is meant to debut. Was 2.6GHz ever on the radar on B2?

Btw, here is some frightening power consumption (platform power consumption, not CPU alone):
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQyMiw5...
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/11954350373uCnGBfBIl_9_1_l.gif

AMD will want to get B3 efficiency WAY UP on their process if they are to challenge Intel in overclocking, and frankly, I just don't see it happening. Just look at the wattages of a Phenom @ 2.8GHz, sure it's B2, but realistically, how much can B3 improve on this by? For example, with C2Q, G0 stepping managed ~10% lower thermals than B2, and was considered a success.

Those are unbelievabe to me...
November 19, 2007 11:25:31 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
Those are unbelievabe to me...


Coming from someone called "itotallybelieveyou'... amusing. :lol: 

What is unbelievable about those wattages? HardOCP thinks it's a leakage issue as you scale the clockspeeds and voltages.
November 19, 2007 11:29:30 PM

epsilon84 said:
Coming from someone called "itotallybelieveyou'... amusing. :lol: 

What is unbelievable about those wattages? HardOCP thinks it's a leakage issue as you scale the clockspeeds and voltages.


I'm sure it is.. the question I have is how the hell did AMD let this happen on top of a poor launch already?

Q6600 G0 on 65nm doesn't have thermals nearly that bad. I was expecting AMD touted as the "Cool n Quiet" and "Energy Efficient" to have better thermals and be held back by other problems.
November 19, 2007 11:52:28 PM

epsilon84 said:
Well, it says late Q1 which is when B3 is meant to debut. Was 2.6GHz ever on the radar on B2?

Btw, here is some frightening power consumption (platform power consumption, not CPU alone):
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQyMiw5...


AMD will want to get B3 efficiency WAY UP on their process if they are to challenge Intel in overclocking, and frankly, I just don't see it happening. Just look at the wattages of a Phenom @ 2.8GHz, sure it's B2, but realistically, how much can B3 improve on this by? For example, with C2Q, G0 stepping managed ~10% lower thermals than B2, and was considered a success.



Looks like the Phenom scales linerly in power consumption as well as perfromance, if the chart is to be believed
November 20, 2007 12:17:20 AM

cnumartyr said:
If the link that was posted is true and the TDP for a 2.6 GHz Phenom is 140W.. I don't think it matters anymore.

I hope that's on a B2 and the B3 will be more "efficient."

Cool n Quiet 2.0? Turn off the computer.



I don't think he realized that I was answering his post not your original post. O well...................

Yowza.......140W.............is that right?

November 20, 2007 12:20:56 AM

how about ...
* iterate the design to keep the power consumption down
* to allow 2 CPU's on a standard size ATX MB, 9.6 x 12 inches

so people can have a "V8" system in a standard size case.

$200 for the MB, $200 for each CPU.

and, and make it STABLE.

i think they'd sell a lot of them.

a cheap $600 AMD V-8 vs. $1000 for an intel quad core
and $200 for the MB ... half the price for the CPU-MB
combination and it would be faster - probably.
November 20, 2007 12:25:29 AM

Raviolissimo said:
how about ...
* iterate the design to keep the power consumption down
* to allow 2 CPU's on a standard size ATX MB, 9.6 x 12 inches

so people can have a "V8" system in a standard size case.

$200 for the MB, $200 for each CPU.

and, and make it STABLE.

i think they'd sell a lot of them.

a cheap $600 AMD V-8 vs. $1000 for an intel quad core
and $200 for the MB ... half the price for the CPU-MB
combination and it would be faster - probably.

Easier said then done but yea... that's basically what AMD needs.
November 20, 2007 1:05:36 AM

The big problem that AMD is going to run into is the fact that Intel is playing it ever so safe with Core2 right now, and Phenom is running at its absolute limit. Intel can trump any progress made by AMD and its proverbial B3 steppings by simply ticking up the multipliers on all of their processors. Judging by the massive OC potential of every Core2 processor, I would say that Intel's 65nm node is so mature that they no longer have any need to "bin" any of their processors. They just do it for marketing purposes.

I dread the day when Intel decides to kill AMD.
!