Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition - A New Hope?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 5, 2008 4:09:06 PM

Too bad. The Phenom came after the Kentsfield and should perform better.
Lets hope this is a manufacturing problem and not an architectural problem.
a c 99 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2008 4:28:19 PM

enewmen said:
Too bad. The Phenom came after the Kentsfield and should perform better.
Lets hope this is a manufacturing problem and not an architectural problem.


It could also be a CPU/BIOS/board tuning problem as well. The scaling numbers when overclocked weren't very good and suggest that the reduction in memory speed causes a big hit in any additional performance that overclocking may yield. The processor is supposed to be able to run RAM at speeds up to DDR2-1066 but for some reason it wouldn't do over DDR2-800 with their setup. I'd like to see what the system would do with RAM running at ~DDR2-1066 rather than ~DDR2-800.
Related resources
February 5, 2008 4:32:20 PM

Yay, a sub-par CPU with an unlocked multiplier... too bad it stills OC worse than the Q6600.

I really hope AMD gets their act together soon.

February 5, 2008 4:47:56 PM

Yet another blatantly obvious paid advertisment for intel :fou:  :fou: 
February 5, 2008 4:53:26 PM

Yup, you're right...

Intel does make AMD suck :-/
February 5, 2008 4:55:43 PM

This is the third 9600 BE thread, the first being the one i posted December 20th ... the second being thunderman a week or so ago ...

muk, you're either thunderman's new handle, or just really like beating dead horses.
February 5, 2008 5:36:52 PM

coret said:
muk, you're either thunderman's new handle, or just really like beating dead horses.
Or perhaps a Tom's employee who just started a thread about a THG article? :??: 
February 5, 2008 5:47:42 PM

1) The thread was started in referance to a Tom's article.

2) It still amazes me through all of the bashing on the latest AMD CPU parts that not one, and I have checked!, not one site reminds us these are first gen parts for Phenom, nobody seems to test with 1066 ram, and all fail to mention the fact that all current Phenoms use HT 3.0 but only at 3600 and not 5200!!

3) I am not a fanboy, gayboy, greyboy. I am not paid by either realm. I want faster, cheaper, less power hungry parts. If you clearly look at AMDs road map I think that is where they are headed.

4) I put on an extra 200-300 kilowatt hrs a month this past summer because of my stupid "quad-corez Roxors your pants" Intel/Nvidia machine. It is all sold and I am now using a AMD BE 5000+ and 3850 256meg to game with at 16X10 and it performs just fine!! JUST FINE!!
February 5, 2008 6:06:11 PM

I'm shocked. How can a company be so stupid?

I speculated about it in december when i made my thread about the release of the 9600 BE and sadly AMD made every mistake they could. (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/246610-10-phenom-black-edition-announced-2007)

1. They used the B2 stepping. That's borderline insane.
2. They priced it way to high.

I've read this article and the conclusion was quite familiar. AMDs CPU products are no longer competitive at their current price. That is quite alarming.
(http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=11)
(http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-shootout_11.html#sect0)

A good way to see the real value of something is ebay. I've monitored Phenom prices there and if the bidding starts at 1€ it usually stops at around 140-150€ - no matter if it's the 9500 or 9600. This indicates that people are not paying for the performance of the processor but for the product name or better "they buy it just to have it". It's like someone bidding 450€ for a Pentium D 840 EE. Most core 2 duos are faster at stock than those PD EEs but they get bought because they are unique, like collectors items. The same is true for the Phenom.
The gap between 2 and 4 cores and the performance difference between the two is seriously messed up. A x2 (windsor or brisbane core) CPU costs me roughly 50€ while a Phenom CPU costs close to 160€. That's quite a steep increase considering a performance increase of about 5%-10% comparing core to core.
Intels Q6600 costs about 190€ while a 6550 or 6750 cost only 130€ or 150€ (The E6600 is no longer sold by Intel!). They perform on par core to core but the markup is not nearly as high as that seen with AMD.

I know the platform of AMD is a little cheaper. A feature rich am2+ board is cheaper than most comparable socket 775 boards, but that shouldn't and can't outweight the odd processor prices.
The power consumption is another issue and another field AMD has lost to the competition, that needs to be taken into account regarding the price. (See links)

What should a Phenom cost? What is it really worth? 120€ (175$)? 140€ (200$)? Or more like 100€ (145$)?


a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2008 6:15:04 PM

AMD keeps talking about the upcoming fixed cores, yet they still haven't delivered any. Still, they send out review samples of the current core, hoping that "any" publicity will help. Reviewers are obligated to review the samples they receive, yet are also obligated tell the truth about their findings.

Everyone on the consumer side wants AMD to succeed, but it appears they simply aren't up to the task at this time.
February 5, 2008 6:16:37 PM

Wasn't this article posted a few weeks ago?
February 5, 2008 7:03:59 PM

I want too see the 45nm ones. The only thing that would make me consider AMD for my nexdt build would be those with much higher clocks.

I generally prefer AMD to Intel but nto if they put out products like these. For overclockers they are just pathetic.
February 5, 2008 7:24:04 PM

Advanced Morgan Duro said:
Yet another blatantly obvious paid advertisment for intel :fou:  :fou: 


Though I can't say anything about payment, this article certainly did come across pro Intel. Instead of simply telling about the Phenom, it was constantly bringing up the idea, "the Phenom 9600 BE isn't as good as an Intel Q6600". I think everyone knows that already. All impartiality was lost very quickly, and instead of telling people what could be accomplished by the 9600 BE in comparison to a standard 9600, it was that consistent, "it isn't as good as Intel's Q6600" that destroyed the validity of the article. It also seemed that the overclocking was done purely by the multiplier, with no attempt made to increase the FSB speed. That leaves me wondering if any higher speeds could have been achieved through a combination of a higher multiplier and a higher FSB. I don't know that it could, but I do wonder.

And yes, I would like to see a review that used a top end mobo and ram that ran at the rated DDR2 1066 speed instead of using ram that can't even be brought up to DDR2 800. While that won't help the Phenom itself, it could mean higher scores in the benchmarks.
February 5, 2008 7:58:58 PM

WOW, yet another USELESS THG article!!!

I am tired of THG Intel-favored opinions. I have written many times here at the forum and to the site staff that one cannot simply toss some (WRONG) results to justify an OPINION.

THG again shows mistakes in their tests, proving their COMPLETE LACK of knowledge of what they are doing. They insist on using the wrong version of Sandra to benchmark this new AMD arch, just as an example.

I can't even be tagged as a fan of any of those brands - my computers aren't even x86 anyway... I like reading CPU news, but only when they are at least trustable. I thought THG was, but I was wrong...

No more THG for me. As for you BLIND people who still believe in THG's articles, my regrets.

P.S. Just checked intel.com to see a self-add banner citing THG... Maybe Intel money is driving the authors here....
February 5, 2008 8:27:20 PM

There are several overclocking articles written on the 9600BE. This one is by far the worst that I read. I agree with the above critique about no 1066 memory and no reference clock adjustments. Some of the other articles do both. Some have had more success raising the ref. clockm while some had more with the multiplier alone. Most of the articles say the same thing. The 9600BE is a complete gamble. You may get one that OC's to 3.2... or you may get one that won't even OC to 2.4.

I bought one of these to test out. Mine doesn't even run stable at the stock 2.3ghz speed. Every so often I get a BSOD about a secondary processor not responding in the allocated time. I figure the chip I got has at least one flaky core. I've RMA'd it to newegg and hopefully my next one will have better results.

When it does work it works very well... and the difference in overall system response is much better than my 6400BE. Benchmarks only say and show so much. I prefer the actual "look and feel" test as opposed to raw numbers.
February 5, 2008 8:32:04 PM

Is THG reporting news in an Intel favored way, distorting reality, or is reality that Intel is doing awesome compared to AMD and THG is just reporting what reality is? I tend to think it's more towards the latter.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 5, 2008 9:09:43 PM

Slobogob said:
I'm shocked. How can a company be so stupid?

I speculated about it in december when i made my thread about the release of the 9600 BE and sadly AMD made every mistake they could. (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/246610-10-phenom-black-edition-announced-2007)

1. They used the B2 stepping. That's borderline insane.
2. They priced it way to high.

I've read this article and the conclusion was quite familiar. AMDs CPU products are no longer competitive at their current price. That is quite alarming.
(http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=11)
(http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-shootout_11.html#sect0)

A good way to see the real value of something is ebay. I've monitored Phenom prices there and if the bidding starts at 1€ it usually stops at around 140-150€ - no matter if it's the 9500 or 9600. This indicates that people are not paying for the performance of the processor but for the product name or better "they buy it just to have it". It's like someone bidding 450€ for a Pentium D 840 EE. Most core 2 duos are faster at stock than those PD EEs but they get bought because they are unique, like collectors items. The same is true for the Phenom.
The gap between 2 and 4 cores and the performance difference between the two is seriously messed up. A x2 (windsor or brisbane core) CPU costs me roughly 50€ while a Phenom CPU costs close to 160€. That's quite a steep increase considering a performance increase of about 5%-10% comparing core to core.
Intels Q6600 costs about 190€ while a 6550 or 6750 cost only 130€ or 150€ (The E6600 is no longer sold by Intel!). They perform on par core to core but the markup is not nearly as high as that seen with AMD.

I know the platform of AMD is a little cheaper. A feature rich am2+ board is cheaper than most comparable socket 775 boards, but that shouldn't and can't outweight the odd processor prices.
The power consumption is another issue and another field AMD has lost to the competition, that needs to be taken into account regarding the price. (See links)

What should a Phenom cost? What is it really worth? 120€ (175$)? 140€ (200$)? Or more like 100€ (145$)?


I agree 100% except the statement about being cheaper. For the same price as a AM2+ mobo you can get a P35 that is compatable. At least one that is decent with nice features such as dual PCI Express and 6+ SATAII ports. I don't do cheap unless its for those who only use internet. For enthusiasts most AM2+ mobos are around the same price as a P35/X38 mobo.

caveira2099 said:
WOW, yet another USELESS THG article!!!

I am tired of THG Intel-favored opinions. I have written many times here at the forum and to the site staff that one cannot simply toss some (WRONG) results to justify an OPINION.

THG again shows mistakes in their tests, proving their COMPLETE LACK of knowledge of what they are doing. They insist on using the wrong version of Sandra to benchmark this new AMD arch, just as an example.

I can't even be tagged as a fan of any of those brands - my computers aren't even x86 anyway... I like reading CPU news, but only when they are at least trustable. I thought THG was, but I was wrong...

No more THG for me. As for you BLIND people who still believe in THG's articles, my regrets.

P.S. Just checked intel.com to see a self-add banner citing THG... Maybe Intel money is driving the authors here....


Wow. Thing is that most sites have even shown that when OCed to 2.6GHz (Phenom 9900) it is not able to beat a Q6600. No the difference was only 0.3% overall but that goes to show that the Phenoms IPC is not as great a C2Q. Basically in order to get the same performance in an application with a Phenom as a Q6600 you would need a 2.7GHz Phenom which sounds about right.

THG is not Intel biased. Hell when I came here when AMDs X2's were on top all the articles would talk about how Intels offering didn't beat AMDs. There were a few now and then back then where Intel would keep up but not beat them. Its an ENTHUSIAST site. Whatever performs will be whats the most prefered. Hell right now for the price a 3870X2 beats in some and keeps up with a 8800 Ultra but form about $300 less giving it the prefered GPU. But before that the 8800 Ultra was the top and prefered.

BTW why don't you post us a link showing that banner? I didn't see any when I went to Intels site. Just their own stuff.

And just to compare, I have my Q6600 OC'ed to 3GHz(25% OC) and the CPU Voltage is at 1.248v. I like how they show that not every Phenom BE will OC to a specific speed, unless you are really lucky, where as pretty much every Q6600 is able to. Too bad they didn't OC it as well to the same speeds to test the IPC's for each CPU. The truth hurts. Phenom isn't competative really. Not a bad upgrade from a older X2 but still not the performance you would expect.
February 5, 2008 9:54:50 PM

This result was entirely expected... B3 needs to come and fast and be able to hit ATLEAST 3.0GHz. I think it's sad that AMD's new tech is still slower clock-for-clock than Intel's 18-month old technology...
February 5, 2008 9:59:12 PM

spongebob said:
Or perhaps a Tom's employee who just started a thread about a THG article? :??: 


Since the forum post was online pointing to the link a few minutes before the link was actually available on the site... I'd say you are correct. (I was online in the forums just at that moment and had just hit refresh. Saw the new post... but the link didn't go anywhere for a few minutes.)
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2008 10:04:34 PM

I think AMD should scrap Phenom already and/or start working on the next CPU architecture.
February 5, 2008 10:05:17 PM

QX9770 - The Empire Strikes Back.

Don't know if anyone made that joke yet.
February 5, 2008 10:14:39 PM

I don't expect B3 to be 3.0Ghz capable. If we're lucky, maybe the second iteration of 45nm of K10, but probably not B3 and/or 1st gen AMD 45nm.
February 5, 2008 10:15:32 PM

Good god, even I have better results out of my 9600BE. Running 2.6core 2.4nb at 1.248v according to Everest still with no problem. And the sad part is some of the benchies he's running would be affected by the extra bandwidth from boosting the memory controller, though it wouldn't help as much with the game benchies, well guess that would depend how memory intensive some games were though..

Oh yeah, and as long as the nb/IMC is left at 1800Mhz t the base memory speed will be 750Mhz or around there. My memory has been running at 800Mhz since I put the NB up to 2.0ghz, it may be due to what setting he uses for memory speed in the bios though. I know with the k9a2 platinum you either need to set it to 1:2 for ddr2 800 or auto works as well. For 1066 you need to set it manually to the next higher setting and up the ram voltage to the specs for the ram. IF he's running stable at 2.6ghz on the gigabyte board, I'd have to suggest using the following settings in the P-states menu on the k9a2 platinum.

CPU FID=10, VID=23, DID=divide by 1
NB FID=8, VID=24, DID=Divide by 1

Those are the exact p-state settings that I am currently running, on bios 1.1b3 I was doing 2.7ghz on bios 1.2 but with the performance hit of the TLB fix.

I've had no luck ocing with anything set to divide by 2 or higher, this is also how the C&Q is able to use .25 multies.

It also helps as to whether C&Q is disabled in the bios settings, as well as disabling spread spectrum. Both of those will have an impact on OC stability with this processor, especially with a crappy psu like my raidmax.
February 5, 2008 10:15:37 PM

cnumartyr said:
QX9770 - The Empire Strikes Back.

Don't know if anyone made that joke yet.


I thought it was "QX9770 - the paper tiger"?
February 5, 2008 10:26:11 PM

SEALBoy said:
This result was entirely expected... B3 needs to come and fast and be able to hit ATLEAST 3.0GHz. I think it's sad that AMD's new tech is still slower clock-for-clock than Intel's 18-month old technology...

AMD won't reach 3.0 Ghz with their 9xxx series.
Just look at their other 65 nm processors. Not even their Athlon x2s go into 3Ghz territory and that's only a dual core chip. The naming scheme of their chips are another indicator. If a 9500 is clocked at 2.2 Ghz and a 9600 clocks at 2.3, the fastest one will be a 9900 at 2.6 GHz. Maybe there will be a Phenom FX with 2.7 or 2.8 once they start ramping 45nm, but AMD won't and can't go beyond that.
The more i look at it, the more i start to believe that 65nm was only a stop-gap measure for AMD. Aside from the fact that any process is temporary, the plan seems to be to get as much out of it, as possible - from an economic point of view.
Their 90nm process is tweaked like nothing they ever had and delivers the fastest processors they make. The 65nm process saw no improvments like the older 90nm one. It seems they only have 65nm chips to be able to produce cheap and they shifted their focus from performance chips to high yields and cheap chips until they reach 45nm. That's just my theory though.
February 5, 2008 10:36:56 PM

Quote:
Like AMD's first Black Edition model, the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, the overclocking potential is so low that the unlocked multiplier is almost not worthwhile. This calls the entire concept of the Black Edition in general into question.


THEY bolded this part of their conclusion.


This is what us factboys have been trying to tell you.
February 5, 2008 10:41:52 PM

While this seems pro-Intel, all the other articles seemed to be pro-AMD. Why's that?
February 5, 2008 10:47:10 PM

Quote:


I guess they tend to wreck the idea of "Opinions" or "Discussions"

But then...

This is just my opinion.


Don't worry about that.

Every single time a product is superior to another, someone with a twisted emotional bond to the inferior product comes out of the woodwork and prays his believe.
There are and will always be people like that. Some just didn't take the time to take a good look at what they are talking about, while others, that have bought the inferior product, feel like they have to justify their aquisition.

I can't say if it is just as difficult with cars or lawn mowers as it is with processors, but telling good and bad sources of information apart can be difficult. In the case of intel and amd most reputable review sites seem to be in line with what THG wrote.
There are always details people will cling to, just to make sure it doesn't look like a fair comparison or a solid conclusion, but the facts are there and they can not be misinterpreted by those that are truly interested.

Reading responses by those "morons" just makes me miss the "ignore poster" button a lot of forums offer. It would not only help those interested in facts and discussions, but the ignorant believers too, which in turn could just switch off all posts containing facts or information contrary to their believes. Well, not that i think they would switch them off...
February 5, 2008 10:52:25 PM

Evilonigiri said:
While this seems pro-Intel, all the other articles seemed to be pro-AMD. Why's that?


Maybe because bias only exist in the mind of the readers? :p 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 6, 2008 1:06:03 AM

Quote:
Our review sample of AMD's Phenom 9600 Black Edition offered overclocking potential of 17%, but to achieve this, we had to set the core voltage quite high, at a level we would not recommend for long-term use.

1.4V? That isn't high, that isn't even adding coal to the fire. C'mon guys, MORE POWER!
February 6, 2008 3:01:04 AM

yeah, thats what I was thinking, but then again how do you explain those power consumption figures jumping so high after the voltage mod.
February 6, 2008 3:22:25 AM

broke_s said:
yeah, thats what I was thinking, but then again how do you explain those power consumption figures jumping so high after the voltage mod.


Looks like 2.6Ghz might be the last efficient clockspeed before the power consumption spike up. Definitely doesn't look good. :pfff: 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2008 3:34:42 AM

That is crazy to see 150watts (higher than even a QX9650 at its stock 3.0GHz or OC'ed to past 3GHz)for it.

I would have liked seeing it OC'ed using the FSB but isn't the point of a BE (or EE in Intels case) not having to use the FSB to be able to OC without creating more heat? Or am I just crazy?

I mean why go to the trouble of raising the FSB it the multiplier is sitting there and able to be changed? Sure if you want to reach a higher clock speed but if just moving the multi up by .5 caused a voltage increase of that much doing both might result in the same thing. I really wounder how hot it got at 150w. Would be interesting to see.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 3:59:36 AM

Overall, AMD needs to go back to the drawing board and find a way to improve their chips to at least to at the same level as Intel. I mean, if a 2.4Ghz Phenom offered the same performance as the Q6600, it would be a different story, but it's not the case.

PS: Yes, I'm copying and pasting this response. I'm too lazy to type it out again.
February 6, 2008 4:36:44 AM

Slobogob, ya needs to stop being a intel boy and wake up. Sorry someone had to cut the intel cheese around here.

Quote:
Just look at their other 65 nm processors. Not even their Athlon x2s go into 3Ghz territory and that's only a dual core chip.

Better tell my $99 5000+ x2 black edition its NOT running at 3.1ghz on stock vcore cause um, the OS, bios and all benches say it is! Idle at 29c max temp load at 45c on crappy Asus Mars cooler. At the very least know something about the cpu your talking about FIRST hand please. Oh and its not the odd one either near ALL 5000+ are hitting 3ghz+ on stock vcore. Mine is on a Biostar TA770 mobo that has TONS of features for $80. Hm add 2gb corsair 6400c5 dhx for $60 and you got a killer setup that beats intel performance per $.$230 for all, vs $270 for just for the q6600 hmmmm. Not everyone wants a near $300 cpu, $250 mobo and $450 card powered by a near $200 psu. Some of us arent rich or have bills to pay and want a pc that can game hard, while still being able to eat and pay the electric bill.

At any rate Im done .........far to many close minded Intel boys. BTW just bult a q6600 for a friend, while its nice and fast. Its far from twice the cost better for just the main components ($280 more for his then my mobo cpu and ram).


Amd STILL has the mid range, thats a fact. Like it or not.

Phenom is NEW tech. Quad is OLD tech revamped, and its just two dual cores side by side not NATIVE quad. Its gonna hit the wall way sooner! Add to that the socket changes each core change and ya thats value for ya.

P.S. the article posted q6600 numbers with no refrence tow here they came from, mentions intel every other paragraph and did very little to properly test the Phenom. Lets take a new core, with reduced mem speed and HT, and put it against a mature platform near its end. OK now thats a great review. Just type Toms H intel fanboys in google. hahahaha there is your answer. No time spent on what the phenom offers, its advaned power savings (sure they arent 100% but atlest they are doing it).

News flash, Pehnom B3 is and has been set for END of this year. So thats why they arent out yet sheeeeesh. To say B3 wont hit 3ghz is a JOKE! Its at 2.6ghz AT RELEASE.



haha just noticed ALL the hot words for advert here that say pc or cpu lead to a add for guess who -INTEL. Enough said.
February 6, 2008 5:11:56 AM

Xtreeme said:
Better tell my $99 5000+ x2 black edition its NOT running at 3.1ghz on stock vcore cause um, the OS, bios and all benches say it is!


A 500mhz OC is great for an AMD chip, but nothing at all for any core2 to hit.

Xtreeme said:
Phenom is NEW tech. Quad is OLD tech revamped, and its just two dual cores side by side not NATIVE quad. Its gonna hit the wall way sooner!


What wall would that be? Obviously not a frequency wall as any current Intel quad will run 3+ghz while AMD is struggling to break 2.5. Glued together cores FTW.
February 6, 2008 5:19:46 AM

ah but they ARENT really quads. Wait for intels real quad to make that judgement. IF amd glued two duals the facts show they too would be hitting 3.2ghz. Also you make it sound like all intel quads hit 4ghz at release. They too started at lower mhz. Put two a64 x2 in a dual socket mobo you got a intel quad basically, its just not the same as all on one die. 4 cores on one die is harder to produce, costs more, and bigger loss when 1 core is bad or even 2. Intel took the easy $ way not the best for the future way. 4ghz is "near" end for current Intel quad core I think.

Did anyone mention the phenom is stronger per mhz then A64? Has better power managment. How about the importance of a shared L3 cache for multi core cpus? They are making some gains, contrary to this review.

BTW, my windsor 3800+x2 hits 2.5ghz no problem stock vcore aswell. 500mhz on a64 is actually easy on the newet cores.
February 6, 2008 5:25:40 AM

Xtreeme said:
ah but they ARENT really quads.


No you're wrong. They're REALLY quads.

Xtreeme said:
IF amd glued two duals the facts show they too would be hitting 3.2ghz.


I agree. It's too bad that AMD didn't glue 2 K8's togeher. They would be more competitive than AMD's native quads.
February 6, 2008 5:26:59 AM

oh they are native quads? Explain how intel has 4 cores on one die please. They must have magically done this last week. hehe. Bet they even have the L3 sharing data between all 4 cores and everything. Man that was fast.
February 6, 2008 5:30:25 AM

Xtreeme said:
oh they are native quads? Explain how intel has 4 cores on one die please. They must have magically done this last week. hehe. Bet they even have the L3 sharing data between all 4 cores and everything. Man that was fast.


Did I say anything about native quads? I just said Intels quads are superior performing quads. And no Intels quads don't communicate between there L3 cache. They use there L2 cache for that.
February 6, 2008 5:32:08 AM

yep the l2 is dedicate per core on native quad they use the l3. Intel will too, jsut like coping the IMC. They ARENT tech quads, they are Dual-Dual core. Just like the Dual socket mobos amd made the 4x4 platform. Just Intel glued them together in one socket. If you have any info to the contrary please elaborate.
February 6, 2008 5:36:07 AM

Xtreeme said:
They ARENT tech quads, they are Dual-Dual core. Just like the Dual socket 940 mobos amd made. Just in one socket. If you have any info to the contrary please elaborate.


No, you're right they are dual-dual cores in one package. But those 4 cpus cores in one package perform better than AMD's native quad. I think that if AMD had produced dual-dual athlon x2's then they might come much closer to competing with Intels core2quad
February 6, 2008 5:44:31 AM

I agree, they would have performed closer. But amd is known for taking a jab at moving ahead. The a64 is a example, most thought before release it was gonna break amd, instead they leaped ahead and beat intel silly for 3 years streight. Native quad is new turf once again, and I feel its far to early to make harsh judgments on new engineering.

I have had intel rigs, I dont hate intel. I just dont like their bandaid solutions. P3 with rambus failed. Rambus was pushed on p4 due to its inefficient pipeline and architecture it NEEDED the bandwidth. They could have used DDR but why rambus>? Hm buisness is why. Then it was sdr or ddr and we rambus users were left out in left field AGAIN. No biggy. Oh here comes the new Intel Northwood B oh crap my mobo dont support that cpu. IT stops at Williamette- Burnt again thanks intel. Get northwood B board, and BAM nows theres prescott and HT to bandage the again bad architecture that is bandwidth starved and waistes cpu cycles on branch mispredicts!!!! Oh no not this time intel its A64 time. Well that last 2x as long. Now I have a am2+ that is good for again atleast 2x as long as the 775 socket boards cause oooops you need 3 phase power and boards that support quad. Bummer, didnt see that coming.

Amd is coming out with native quad so Intel gets out the bandages again, gotta glue to cores together till we can copy the IMC and L3 + make more cash till native is out. And then we can sell yet more Intel boards and chipsets by yet again forcing a socket or cpu power change.

I been around all these cpu generations being a system builder. I build what they want, but doesnt mean I dont notice trends.

And Im still waiting for a Intel oclocking cpu, that is unlocked multi. Even EE dont have it, now how laim is that? Intel doesnt even aprove of oclocking in the least, yet its you oclockers that buy their stuff. Ironic no?
February 6, 2008 5:59:52 AM

Xtreeme said:
I have had intel rigs, I dont hate intel. I just dont like their bandaid solutions. P3 with rambus failed. Rambus was pushed on p4 due to its inefficient pipeline and architecture it NEEDED the bandwidth. They could have used DDR but why rambus>? Hm buisness is why. Then it was sdr or ddr and we rambus users were left out in left field AGAIN. No biggy. Oh here comes the new Intel Northwood B oh crap my mobo dont support that cpu. IT stops at Williamette- Burnt again thanks intel. Get northwood B board, and BAM nows theres prescott and HT to bandage the again bad architecture that is bandwidth starved and waistes cpu cycles on branch mispredicts!!!! Oh no not this time intel its A64 time. Well that last 2x as long. Now I have a am2+ that is good for again atleast 2x as long as the 775 socket boards cause oooops you need 3 phase power and boards that support quad. Bummer, didnt see that coming.


I agree with alot of your points but currently and for the past 2 years, Intel has the performance and efficiency lead. I've had both Intel and AMD rigs but right now I use Intel. During Presscott I used AMD. AMD has screwed people before too. 4x4 and socket 939 come to mind.

Xtreeme said:
Amd is coming out with native quad so Intel gets out the bandages again, gotta glue to cores together till we can copy the IMC and L3 + make more cash till native is out.


Your forgetting the 2 year part in between that time when Intel's native Core2 destroyed anything AMD had in dual core. Then Intel came out with quad before AMD had anything to answer with. If you wanted a quad you bought an Intel.

Xtreeme said:
And Im still waiting for a Intel oclocking cpu, that is unlocked multi. Even EE dont have it, now how laim is that? Intel doesnt even aprove of oclocking in the least, yet its you oclockers that buy their stuff. Ironic no?


We overclockers use Intel because they overclock better. Intel doesn't have to directly support overclocking, the motherboard manufacturers take care of that.
February 6, 2008 6:03:46 AM

caveira2099 said:
WOW, yet another USELESS THG article!!!

I am tired of THG Intel-favored opinions. I have written many times here at the forum and to the site staff that one cannot simply toss some (WRONG) results to justify an OPINION.

THG again shows mistakes in their tests, proving their COMPLETE LACK of knowledge of what they are doing. They insist on using the wrong version of Sandra to benchmark this new AMD arch, just as an example.

I can't even be tagged as a fan of any of those brands - my computers aren't even x86 anyway... I like reading CPU news, but only when they are at least trustable. I thought THG was, but I was wrong...

No more THG for me. As for you BLIND people who still believe in THG's articles, my regrets.

P.S. Just checked intel.com to see a self-add banner citing THG... Maybe Intel money is driving the authors here....


And so just what kind of a RISC proc are you posting from?

(I really don't expect a reply...)
February 6, 2008 9:26:36 AM

Xtreeme said:
Slobogob, ya needs to stop being a intel boy and wake up. Sorry someone had to cut the intel cheese around here.


I was actually tempted to post an anwer but given the fact that your post starts with false assumptions already, i decided to spend my time more wisely. As i stated earlier, there is no need in lecturing believers.
February 6, 2008 9:47:09 AM

Xtreeme said:
ah but they ARENT really quads.


Yes, they are REALLY quads. There's no rule somewhere that says it has to be monolithic to be a quad.

Spare us the fanboy defenses. AMD's "Black" overclocking processor has no headroom and still can't beat the "double cheeseburger". So if Intel's products are so low-tech, but AMD when OCed to the max can't even beat Intel's slowest quad-core, what does that say about AMD's products?
!