Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HardOCP Overclock Phenom 9600 Black Edition

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 20, 2007 2:46:31 PM

Wow, cool article, if a little short. Seems the last couple of days have come through with more promising news for Phenom. Makes me wanna get one to check it out! Maybe next year, around Q2
December 20, 2007 3:28:19 PM

AMD Phenom 9700 2.4 GHz 125 W
AMD Phenom 9600 2.3 GHz 95 W
AMD Phenom 9500 2.2 GHz 95 W

One of these things is 31% more than the others...
Related resources
December 20, 2007 3:32:03 PM

Now if they could just release a stock 3ghz BE that will go 4ghz like intel, then we will see a real battle!

Gimme that 10,000 model !
December 20, 2007 3:35:28 PM

Montgomery Burns would like that.
December 20, 2007 4:02:54 PM

While this Phenom Black Edition is not going to run like a top Intel quad, it finally has the look of something interesting. Can't get it until after Christmas or maybe New Year's, but unless something better comes out, I might just give it a try.
December 20, 2007 4:14:49 PM

Quote:
When you compare the Phenom to Intel’s Core 2 product line, the parts pull up fairly equal in the mid-2GHz clock range. The Phenom is in no way a bad product, it just so happens that Intel’s Core 2 line simply scales better in terms of clocks and performance. In fact, the Phenom is a very good processor, it just simply is not the "best." There will be many Phenoms finding their way into enthusiast cases simply due to the fact that Phenoms can be found inexpensively, they have tremendously stable infrastructure behind them, and are showing to overclock very well. And AMD is letting us do it easily with the Black Edition Phenom.


Since when was it fairly equal any of the Intel quads.

Phenoms can be found inexpensively! Not quite as inexpensively as Q6600 which is quicker at stock and overclock higher and easier.

Stable infastructure. Obviously thats why AMD chose to release a bios patch to fix those stability issues which in turn decreases performance by 20%.

Phenoms are overclocking well. They are overclocking so well that AMD has decided not bother releases higher clocked versions because they believe that at 2.6ghz it won't have any issues.

Now I am an AMD fan but I'm getting pissed off with people twisting facts and divulging incorrect information to buyers that don't know any better. As they are a reviewer they are obliged to show facts not make things up.
December 20, 2007 4:19:35 PM

After my little rant if they actually get a Phenom to run stable at 2.8ghz that is at least an improvment. However once again the review has no mention of any voltages or whether it will at least beat a Q6600. But for existing AM2 owners this is at least a sign of an improvment.
December 20, 2007 4:41:20 PM

gpippas said:
Since when was it fairly equal any of the Intel quads.
Real world situations (games, office applications etc) you're not going to notice any real difference between a 2.4GHz AMD quad and a 2.4GHz Intel quad.

gpippas said:
Phenoms can be found inexpensively! Not quite as inexpensively as Q6600 which is quicker at stock and overclock higher and easier.
Phenom 9500 (retail) = $200 ... q6600 (oem) = $260 ... in other words, phenom's cheaper.

gpippas said:
Stable infastructure. Obviously thats why AMD chose to release a bios patch to fix those stability issues which in turn decreases performance by 20%.
Infrastructure (from my understanding) is referring to the platform (AM2/AM2+/AM3)

gpippas said:
After my little rant if they actually get a Phenom to run stable at 2.8ghz that is at least an improvment. However once again the review has no mention of any voltages or whether it will at least beat a Q6600. But for existing AM2 owners this is at least a sign of an improvment.
Check the screenshot of the AMD overdrive utility in the article, it shows the voltage. Read the thread attached to the bottom of the article, voltages are talked about by Kyle Bennett in there.
December 20, 2007 4:43:19 PM

gpippas said:
After my little rant if they actually get a Phenom to run stable at 2.8ghz that is at least an improvment. However once again the review has no mention of any voltages or whether it will at least beat a Q6600. But for existing AM2 owners this is at least a sign of an improvment.


This article showed that the retail one matches the engineering samples (at least for clocks) and we've all seen the comparisons between the overclocked engineering samples vs. various core 2 chips.
December 20, 2007 5:09:02 PM

Quote:
Phenom 9500 (retail) = $200 ... q6600 (oem) = $260 ... in other words, phenom's cheaper


Price wise in the UK the Q6600 is cheaper I didn't check the US prices. It works out about $60 cheaper if you convert it.

Quote:
Real world situations (games, office applications etc) you're not going to notice any real difference between a 2.4GHz AMD quad and a 2.4GHz Intel quad.


True the difference won't be very noticable to the average user but seeing that it is only marginally better clock for clock than K8 anyone with a K8 above 2.4ghz shouldn't really bother because it almost a downgrade. Besides it is pretty hard to tell the difference between a Q6600 and a QX9650 without actually benchmarking.

Quote:
Infrastructure (from my understanding) is referring to the platform (AM2/AM2+/AM3)


I took it as meaning architecture (K10) which isn't exactly bug free. If he meant platform then I agree there is nothing wrong with AM2/+.

Quote:
Check the screenshot of the AMD overdrive utility in the article, it shows the voltage. Read the thread attached to the bottom of the article, voltages are talked about by Kyle Bennett in there.


Your are right. I didn't see the screenshot there.


Quote:
This article showed that the retail one matches the engineering samples (at least for clocks) and we've all seen the comparisons between the overclocked engineering samples vs. various core 2 chips.


Also true I completely forgot we already have the results of overclocked ES Phenoms. Even overclocked they still didn't beat the Q6600. However at the price you are getting them in the US that would change things a lot. Price/performance completely changes in that case. But you can see where I was coming from.
a c 132 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 20, 2007 5:25:48 PM

Quote:
Phenom 9500 (retail) = $200 ... q6600 (oem) = $260 ... in other words, phenom's cheaper.

Why are you comparing a 9500(2.2) to Intel 2.4? They are clock for clock close, but why not the 9700(2.4). Ohh right, it cost more. Where i live the Q6600 is still cheaper then the 9500(both retail)....

Either way its good that things are moving along at amd.....this keeps the prices lower....
December 20, 2007 5:35:22 PM



Given the dramatic change on the SiSoftSandra score, Phenom and the TLB bug patch is nowhere near as bad as earlier thought. With the service pack installed to Sandra, the scores of 4789 mb/s on the integer and 4805 mb/s on the floating point go up to 9624 mb/s on the integer and 9637 mb/s on the floating points, more than double what was previously reported. This can only be good for AMD and the Phenom.
December 20, 2007 7:51:36 PM

nukemaster said:
Why are you comparing a 9500(2.2) to Intel 2.4? They are clock for clock close, but why not the 9700(2.4). Ohh right, it cost more. Where i live the Q6600 is still cheaper then the 9500(both retail)....


Because I was discussing affordability... But if you want to go that route... Cheapest intel Quad (for LGA 775) is the Xeon 3210, clocked at 2.13GHz (slower than 9500's 2.2GHz) and priced at $247 (newegg time of posting) for the retail version.

So, roughly equivalent clocks, but the phenom 9500 is $50 cheaper and has a higher stock clock speed.

Price wise in the UK the Q6600 is cheaper I didn't check the US prices. It works out about $60 cheaper if you convert it. said:
Price wise in the UK the Q6600 is cheaper I didn't check the US prices. It works out about $60 cheaper if you convert it.


True about that, I'm stuck in the UK and all our e-retailers seem to be disregarding AMD's slashing of the price atm... Only a matter of time though hopefully.
December 20, 2007 7:57:14 PM

Hmmm...

it OCs to 2.8-3 Ghz


Not as good as Intel, but it's at least somewhat respectable. Decent overclocking in addition to overdrive makes it more appealing.

If they can supply a decent quantity I'll call this one a success.
December 20, 2007 8:22:05 PM

Not much more than the K8, if any at all. Think it'll hit 3.4Ghz?
December 20, 2007 8:27:11 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Not much more than the K8, if any at all. Think it'll hit 3.4Ghz?

Doubt it, the reviews with overclocked Phenoms suggest that at 3GHz, it's already well over 200W under full load. 3+GHz is simply out of reach for air cooling.
December 20, 2007 8:35:35 PM

200W just for the cpu? or for the whole system?
December 20, 2007 8:37:15 PM

Wattage isn't really an issue with overclocking, OCers don't care how much power it will use, just how fast it will go.

(Of course power is a consideration when picking a power supply, but you know what I mean)
December 20, 2007 8:38:34 PM

Yeah I do, but 200W for just the cpu is ridiculous.
December 20, 2007 8:39:46 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Yeah I do, but 200W for just the cpu is ridiculous.



Mine is at about 200W for 3.6 GHz.
December 20, 2007 8:43:28 PM

Did you use a multimeter?

Also 200W for just 3Ghz vs 200W for 3.6Ghz and on top of that the Q6600 beats Phenom clock for clock. Hmm...
December 20, 2007 8:44:44 PM

Hey any one think if AMD can increase its L2 cache size to 1Mb per core would that significantly increase its performance or won't make much of a difference?(if possible that is with K10 achitecture)
As you may see from my status i am a newbie but i have always been following latest technological develpments since GCSEs (6+ years) and this site has been no1 source of information :) 
December 20, 2007 8:47:56 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Did you use a multimeter?

Also 200W for just 3Ghz vs 200W for 3.6Ghz and on top of that the Q6600 beats Phenom clock for clock. Hmm...


I've checked all of my voltages with a multimeter to varify they were near BIOS setting. However no I haven't checked Amp draw on the CPU with a multimeter. :kaola: 

That said, I've read numerous places on the wattage of a Q6600 at 3.6 GHz so I assume it's around 200W.

And I agree with what you said about the Phenom/Q6600, but you said 200W for a CPU was rediculous.. point/counter-point.
December 20, 2007 8:54:13 PM

Yeah if you answered yes about the multimeter, I'd ask how you did it :D 

I still think 200W for just the cpu is ridiculous. But now that I think of it, the watt usage is exponential as you clock higher and higher.
December 20, 2007 8:59:22 PM

pathan7- Yes, performance probably would go up if the L2 cache size was larger, in the 1 MB per core range. In fact, it could probably use 2 mb per core. But there probably isn't enough space left with the L3 cache already in place, so it may not be possible, but I can't say for sure.

For a point of comparison, Intel is using 2 MB per core on the Kentsfield design and up to 12 MB on the Yorkfield (I'm not sure if the 12 MB is per core or total, which would mean 3 MB per core). There's got to be good reason for those large L2 caches.
December 20, 2007 9:01:52 PM

sailer said:
pathan7- Yes, performance probably would go up if the L2 cache size was larger, in the 1 MB per core range. In fact, it could probably use 2 mb per core. But there probably isn't enough space left with the L3 cache already in place, so it may not be possible, but I can't say for sure.

For a point of comparison, Intel is using 2 MB per core on the Kentsfield design and up to 12 MB on the Yorkfield (I'm not sure if the 12 MB is per core or total, which would mean 3 MB per core). There's got to be good reason for those large L2 caches.


Yorkfield is 12 MB total.

Wolfdale is 6 MB total.

Honestly.. I can't remember the link off the top of my head, but clock for clock 1MB -> 2 MB Cache was worth about 1-3% and 1 MB -> 4 MB was about 5-7% improvement. (Comparing equally clocked Allendale "Lite" (E21x0 Series), Allendale (E4x00 series), and Conroe (E6x00 series).
December 20, 2007 9:07:47 PM

Cnumartyr- Thanks for the clarification on the L2 cache sizes.
December 20, 2007 9:20:51 PM

oh thanks guys so seems like when AMD move to 45nm technology then they can implement larger L2 caches, and possibly larger L3 caches too.but if cache can be of so paramount importance why didn't AMD go for larger L2 cahces in the first place (unless they under-estimated their competition). BTW i am no AMD fan boy but i do not like monopoly as it affects the end user in many ways , price being one of them.
December 20, 2007 9:22:20 PM

pathan7 said:
oh thanks guys so seems like when AMD move to 45nm technology then they can implement larger L2 caches, and possibly larger L3 caches too.but if cache can be of so paramount importance why didn't AMD go for larger L2 cahces in the first place (unless they under-estimated their competition). BTW i am no AMD fan boy but i do not like monopoly as it affects the end user in many ways , price being one of them.


Cache for AMD isn't "as" important because it has it's own memory controller on die. Intel has slower memory bandwidths and as such has more Cache to compensate... Something like that.
December 20, 2007 9:22:57 PM

And for an additional light of hope for AMD, according to the Dallas morning News, the stock price for AMD actually raised 30 cents in todays paper.
December 20, 2007 9:25:52 PM

I think the reason they didn't go for the larger L2 cache was their decission to build a large L3 cache. The 45 nm die might help for increasing the size of the L2 cache, but I can't say for sure. When designing chips, many things have to be considered, including compromises, and the engineers made what they thought was the best choice. Sometimes only time and use tell whether their choice was a good idea or not.
December 20, 2007 9:28:18 PM

pathan7 said:
Check it out.seems rather interesting (don't know if that site is trustworthy though)
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/phen...


As I posted earlier in a previous thread, that article demonstrates that Phenom wins mostly in memory benchmarks -- traditionally AMD's strong suit -- while Core wins in the real stuff like games. The situation isn't much different from before Phenom's release.
December 20, 2007 9:45:06 PM

d4NjvRzf said:
As I posted earlier in a previous thread, that article demonstrates that Phenom wins mostly in memory benchmarks -- traditionally AMD's strong suit -- while Core wins in the real stuff like games. The situation isn't much different from before Phenom's release.


i wasn't thinking about 9900 beating Q6700 but i was looking at the wider picture: Penom 9600 Black Edition if overclocked to 3.0 GHz looks rather interesting considering the price point it is released at.
December 20, 2007 10:35:30 PM

Perhaps so, but unless you intend to use > 2 cores, is it worth the extra $$$ over the 5000+ BE for the per-core performance delta?
December 20, 2007 10:39:10 PM

d4NjvRzf said:
Perhaps so, but is it worth the extra $$$ over the 5000+ BE for the performance delta?


Depends on what you do ... If you do a lot of encoding or play supreme commander, the extra 2 cores are very useful ^^
December 20, 2007 10:40:13 PM

d4NjvRzf said:
Perhaps so, but is it worth the extra $$$ (say, over 5000+ BE) to get a rather marginal performance increase?


That's a very good question. I'd like to see some benches where an overclocked 5000+ BE was compared to a Phenom BE. As whether or not its worth it, it would also depend on what you do with it. Very few games would take advantage of any quad out there, whether AMD or Intel. At the moment, quads are more useful in business apps, and to people who might use their computer for both business and gaming.
December 21, 2007 1:06:22 AM

Well, they did a comparison on Toms regarding clock for clock between the phenom and X2 cores, they phenom was either just slightly ahead, or in some things very much ahead.
December 21, 2007 2:45:05 AM

I read that review, but it wasn't quite the whole truth and nothing but the truth. First off, they were overclocking the Phenom. Second, they underclocked the X2 6000+. So neither chip was as you would buy one off the shelf. They managed to show the Phenom being better per core then the X2 at a given clock speed, but they didn't prove the Phenom was a better chip as a whole.

Had the X2 been allowed to run at its standard clock speed, or been overclocked, I'd imagine the X2 would have left the Phenom behind in the tests. That's been one of the sore spots for the Phenom. Except for the fact that its a quad and therefore can do four things at once, as opposed to a dual core only doing two things at once, it so far has shown no real advantage. The 9600 BE, if overclocked to 3 ghx, should logically run better than a X2 6000+ at stock speed. But the 6000+ can be overclocked as well, thus still canceling out the Phenom BE's advantage.
December 21, 2007 10:52:57 AM

Sailer, while what you say is true the 6000+ doesn't clock much higher than it's stock ... around 3.4GHz max, and that's really pushing it (125w TDP at stock vs phenom's 95w).

Meanwhile the K10 has about 10-15% average clock for clock advantage ... which would (at 3GHz) would put it's cores somewhere around the equivalent of a 3.3-3.45GHz K8 ... except there are 4 of them, not 2.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 11:03:31 AM

a K10 at 3ghz uses alot more then 95w. That TDP is for the stock settings. The quad core will use alot more w when its OC''d compared to its stock rating
December 21, 2007 11:23:54 AM

As will the K8 ... I was just pointing out that the K8 has a higher starting point/
December 21, 2007 1:07:10 PM

soloman02 said:
Xbitlabs did a test of Phenom in real world settings. In games, even a 3Ghz Phenom is beaten by a stock Q6600 (let alone an overclocked one),

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom...


Just read the article and he doesn't half give Phenom a kicking at the end. I have to say that I'm suprised that a 3ghz Phenom still can't beat a Q6600. Thats worrying because like the reviewer said AMD aren't even planning to release a 3ghz cpu.
December 21, 2007 1:33:17 PM

coret said:
Sailer, while what you say is true the 6000+ doesn't clock much higher than it's stock ... around 3.4GHz max, and that's really pushing it (125w TDP at stock vs phenom's 95w).

Meanwhile the K10 has about 10-15% average clock for clock advantage ... which would (at 3GHz) would put it's cores somewhere around the equivalent of a 3.3-3.45GHz K8 ... except there are 4 of them, not 2.


First, Phenom consumes far more than 95wt when overclocked. Some of figures from overclocks in the range of 3 ghz have been around 235wts. That's a lot of power, which in turn makes a lot of heat and will take a large heatsink to disapate it.

Second, I did point out that Phenom has four cores verses X2's two cores and thus would have an advantage with those programs that can use four cores. But that leaves the practical question; how many programs, particularly games, use those four cores?

I think the Phenom has a lot of promise, but at this point, it has shown no real advantage over the AM2 chips. It is slow, has errata problems, and makes too much heat. These difficiencies are even greater when the 65nm X2 chips are considered, such as the AM2 5000+ BE instead of the 90nm 6000+. AMD needs to address these problems, and until it does, no amount of cheerleading will make the Phenom better than it is. For the moment, in my opinion, the 5000+ BE remains the best chip to buy from AMD.
December 21, 2007 2:03:10 PM

Phenom 9600 is 95W, 9700 is 125W, 3.0 ghz = defintely above 125W (200W maybe)?
December 21, 2007 2:05:51 PM

sailer said:
First, Phenom consumes far more than 95wt when overclocked. Some of figures from overclocks in the range of 3 ghz have been around 235wts. That's a lot of power, which in turn makes a lot of heat and will take a large heatsink to disapate it.

Second, I did point out that Phenom has four cores verses X2's two cores and thus would have an advantage with those programs that can use four cores. But that leaves the practical question; how many programs, particularly games, use those four cores?

I think the Phenom has a lot of promise, but at this point, it has shown no real advantage over the AM2 chips. It is slow, has errata problems, and makes too much heat. These difficiencies are even greater when the 65nm X2 chips are considered, such as the AM2 5000+ BE instead of the 90nm 6000+. AMD needs to address these problems, and until it does, no amount of cheerleading will make the Phenom better than it is. For the moment, in my opinion, the 5000+ BE remains the best chip to buy from AMD.


1) And in my post after that last one, when someone else mentioned this point, I explained that I was pointing out that the 6000/6400+ ramp up quickly in power consumption as you overclock as well, and that at least the phenom 9600 BE has a lower *starting point* on power consumption than the top end K8's.

2) True, not many things a home user will want to do will utilise a quad core at the moment ... but in a year or so, maybe there will be. Also, while they may not use all four cores for a single task, how many people do multiple things at once? I've been known to have a movie playing, encoding a video, browsing the web and playing an MMO all at the same time (multiple monitors 4tw) and it would be useful in those situations.

3) I agree with you, for the vast majority of people, a 5000+BE is probably the best solution from AMD. However, some amount of "cheerleading" as you put it is required to stop some people from saying it's worse than it is (such as with the TLB issue ... show me a review site which has actually been able to reproduce it)
December 21, 2007 2:22:02 PM

sailer said:
First, Phenom consumes far more than 95wt when overclocked. Some of figures from overclocks in the range of 3 ghz have been around 235wts. That's a lot of power, which in turn makes a lot of heat and will take a large heatsink to disapate it.



235wts is pretty close to the 2*125=250wts required by a pair of QuadFX processors. This means noise like the QuadFX too.
!