Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD phenom outrageous quad-core performance - dumping?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 12, 2007 6:49:06 PM

amd 2.4ghz? is tiger dumping these? outrageous performance the ad says? does tiger mean outrageously bugged cpu's for cheap? rejected from server manufactures - maybe?

tiger ad:


"Thanks for shopping with TigerDirect.com! Want to get a hold of the latest in AMD's multi-core processing arena? Of course you do. Check out the AMD Phenom 9600 Processor! It has 2.40GHz processing speeds, 4MB of cache space, and true quad core processing abilities. And best of all, it's only $299.99!


This impressive processor comes with the fan you'll need to keep the Phenom's multiple execution cores cool. This CPU has astounding 1800 MHz front side bus speeds. You read that correctly. Plus it comes with all the proprietary AMD technology that you've come to expect like HyperTransport 3.0 and Cool N Quiet 2.0. Are you ready for the next step in AMD processing? Get the Phenom 9600 chip today, for only $299.99!


Regards,

Carl Fiorentino
President, TigerDirect.com "


I thought all these 2.4ghz chips are bugged? why does new egg show this as 2.3ghz for $25 less? - sorry i am not a big amd fan these days so i do not have one of these chips
December 12, 2007 7:02:30 PM

the phenom 9600 is indeed 2.3, don't know why they are stating 2.4, false advertising.

The affects all their barcelona/phenom chips, it just doesn't seem to be as serious as the faster clocked models.

It's all marketing though, the tiger direct information that is. ATM, I would never consider a phenom processor, a x2 for a budget rig yea, but a phenom is nothing more than a paper weight till they fix the large amount of issues floating around.
December 12, 2007 7:21:25 PM

i see - i knew the the 2.4 was bugged and i thought they weren't any for sale.
thx!
Related resources
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 12, 2007 9:14:52 PM

Yea the Phenom 9700 is the 2.4GHz version 9600 2.3GHz and 9500 2.2GHz. And that plus the more expensive prices is why I don't do tigerdirect ever again.
December 12, 2007 10:06:23 PM

Have to say that I might consider buying a Phenom 9600, if it was selling for $69. Then it might be a step up from my old 4400+, a small step up, but at least a step up.
December 12, 2007 10:08:32 PM

tiger now has the 9500 and the 9600
December 12, 2007 10:56:30 PM

expensive paperweight here I come! :whistle: 
December 12, 2007 11:55:25 PM

If I was going to have it shipped to anyone, Id ship it to Anands or THG so we could all see some honest benches of an honest retail Phenom 9700 instead of a canned, controlled press excursion. I wonder how much booze AMD pumped into the 'jounalists' before letting them into the room with all the systems.
December 13, 2007 12:53:04 AM

why would you buy one when you can not overclock it?
or am i wrong?

the intel quad cores have enough bugs as it is.

i think around $150 is a fair price based on the q6600 that runs 3.6ghz
December 13, 2007 1:33:16 AM

dragonsprayer said:
why would you buy one when you can not overclock it?
or am i wrong?

the intel quad cores have enough bugs as it is.

i think around $150 is a fair price based on the q6600 that runs 3.6ghz


If you were the average person who goes into Best Buy for a computer, you wouldn't be overclocking, you would only be looking for a computer that gives what you think was a good price. You might see a Q6600 computer for $1200 and a Phenom quad core for $1000 and you would buy it thinking you got a good deal.

Or do you mean you personally? In that case, I can think of no good reason.

I think $150 for a Phenom is too much, since I can buy a 5000+ Black edition that can run significantly faster and can be overclocked to run faster yet. To date, the only reason I've found to buy a Phenom is for the dubious pleasure of being able to say that I have a quad core. I'd rather find my pleasures in other things.
December 13, 2007 1:55:16 AM

while the errata is very overblown as it is unlikely to effect any of us, the BIOS fix will. that combined with the poor overclocking means that ill wait till k11.
December 13, 2007 2:55:41 AM

I'll wait for K20 :) 

I think my Q6600 should last me 4 years...Anyways are there any reports on the highest Phenom overclock right now?
December 14, 2007 6:06:44 PM

Evilonigiri said:
I'll wait for K20 :) 

I think my Q6600 should last me 4 years...Anyways are there any reports on the highest Phenom overclock right now?


Expreview got their Phenom ES to 3.0Ghz, with 1.5 Vcore. Xtremesystem got the retail version to 2.6Ghz.
December 14, 2007 7:11:14 PM

Quote:
People here act like its the errata bug thats hurting phenoms performance, when in fact its the software fix thats hurting the performance. Of all the errata bugged processors Intel has released, how come their software fixes didnt cause such a performance decrease? Or is it just that phenom is so scrutinized right now thats its blatently obvious?


All processors have bugs, but the TLB eratta is not a minor big. Minor bugs can be fixed with microcode updates, but not large bugs, which is apparent in Barcelona.
December 14, 2007 7:16:07 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Expreview got their Phenom ES to 3.0Ghz, with 1.5 Vcore. Xtremesystem got the retail version to 2.6Ghz.


Sadly there is such a big difference between cherry picked ES samples and the retails.
December 16, 2007 6:16:27 AM

Someday overclocking will be called tuning and if your not doing it your not mainstream

or intel will just open the multiplier's up and only sell 2 chips
low and high
December 16, 2007 7:06:58 AM

This TLB erratum on the AMD platform is very reminiscent of the FDIV erratum of the Pentium, circa 1994. It is still being used today as a model of how NOT to do build-outs without proper testing / validtion.

A recent summary from the NSF Nanoarchecture Workshop included this statement:

"The most well-known example of design error problems is Intel’s 1994 Pentium FDIV errata, in which a defective
floating point divider design cost Intel $475M to recall 5M CPUs."

As I recall, this erratum only affected integers in the 10th decimal place, or something like that. Still, it was serious enough for Intel to recall many millions of CPU's.

The entire report can be read here:

http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~strom/nsf_workshop/nsf_nanoarc...
December 16, 2007 8:20:05 AM

...while AMD does not have $475M to recall CPUs *lol*
Thats the difference
!