Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Phenom 9100 May Be A Home Run

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 11, 2008 7:14:36 PM

The upcoming Phenom 9100 will be the budget king for Quad Core CPU's. It is expected to cost $100-140 and will certainly get many looks from budget system builders who want to sell quads on thee cheap.

Word has it they will overclock from their 1.8Ghz to about 2.6Ghz.
February 11, 2008 7:16:57 PM

I wouldn't really trust "word has it", but if it does turn out to be true, it will actually make recommending Phenom's worthwhile for low budget quad systems. Time will tell though, we'll have to see how this roles out, who knows.
February 11, 2008 7:32:42 PM

$100 - $140 you say? Does AMD wanna go bankrupt? Seriously, they're better off selling X2s at those prices...

Sorry, I find that rather hard to believe.
Related resources
February 11, 2008 7:51:42 PM

I could see a 1.8 at around 140, their 2.2 is at 199.99 on newegg. If somehow they can get a 1.8 out their for 100-140 (140 sounds more plausible), and actually have the ability to OC them to around the architectural limit we've seen with phenom (2.6/2.7), than it might be worth it. Still not better than a Q6600, but for 100-140, a great budget quad.

But binning also comes into concern, who knows what these 1.8 ghz processors would be like, we'll have to wait and see. Time will tell.
February 11, 2008 7:58:28 PM

Well, considering that they will be the B3 revision, hopefully they will have a decent overhead and will hit 2.4-2.6GHz... not too shabby for $140 quad-core.
February 11, 2008 8:36:18 PM

Id still rather pay $199 for the e8400 which will hit 4ghz.
February 11, 2008 8:44:23 PM

Obviously a e8400 at 4ghz is sexy. But for those who need a quad for rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding...It's not bad at 140 a pop, and if they hit 2.4-2.6...It'll make it more worth it.

But personally, I'd never go for anything but a q6600....I do media encoding/3d modeling/video editing and much more...lol. But for 140, a great recommendation for those wanting a quad core on a very low budget....That is only if it Oc's to around 2.4-2.6...Than AMD will have their own golden goose, which imo would make them sell quite a lot by the truckload.
February 11, 2008 8:58:54 PM

so are four AMD cores at 2.6ghz better than 2 Intel cores at 4ghz?
February 11, 2008 9:02:35 PM

Obviously HELL NO to some. But for 140 bucks? which would always be a dual core? the ability to get a quad? even if it is a phenom, if it can OC to 2.4-2.6...It makes it a very worthy buy for low budget phenoms. Keep in mind that encoding, rendering, media production, folding@home..All benefit and scale with pretty much double the performance if you go from 2 to 4 cores. So still a very valuable buy..IF, they don't mess it up and it can indeed clock that high.
February 11, 2008 9:12:52 PM

Seems like a winner for people who needs those extra cores. Otherwise the E8400 is much, much better.
February 11, 2008 9:18:23 PM

Intel Dual @ 4 ghz or AMD Quad @ 2.6...........Video editing - AMD, gaming - Intel.
February 11, 2008 9:21:38 PM

Indeed. That would be a worthy benchmark to see IMO, a 4 ghz e8400 that uses raw horse power to make up for it's lack of 2 additional cores, against a 2.6 phenom in a encoding environment where the more cores you have, the more the time is cut in half. I think it would be quite close...But the Phenom would have the edge. When it comes to tasks that are specifically design for 4 cores, 3d rendering, x264 encoding, folding...Phenom would have the lead...But not by much, and considering if it did cost 140 and was able to hit 2.4-2.6...It'd make it a justified purchase that I would recommend to consumers wanting a budget quad.
February 11, 2008 9:24:19 PM

All it takes for intel to compete are a few prices drops coupled with introduction of a new top-ender extreme.


You cannot launch much of a fight from the low end and expect to gain significant ground. Worrying times for AMD.
February 11, 2008 9:30:06 PM

Amiga500 said:
All it takes for intel to compete are a few prices drops coupled with introduction of a new top-ender extreme.


You cannot launch much of a fight from the low end and expect to gain significant ground. Worrying times for AMD.

I'd say this is AMD's plan for survival, not for making tons of money.
February 12, 2008 7:09:11 AM

Kamrooz said:
Indeed. That would be a worthy benchmark to see IMO, a 4 ghz e8400 that uses raw horse power to make up for it's lack of 2 additional cores, against a 2.6 phenom in a encoding environment where the more cores you have, the more the time is cut in half. I think it would be quite close...But the Phenom would have the edge. When it comes to tasks that are specifically design for 4 cores, 3d rendering, x264 encoding, folding...Phenom would have the lead...But not by much, and considering if it did cost 140 and was able to hit 2.4-2.6...It'd make it a justified purchase that I would recommend to consumers wanting a budget quad.


http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=717&p=6

If Cinebench R10 is any indication, it appears that an E8400 @ 4.4GHz starts matching the rendering horsepower of a Phenom @ 2.6GHz.



Wish there was some encoding benchmarks as well though! Something to keep in mind is that the E8400 has full SSE4 support, whereas Phenom only has the drastically cut down SSE4.a. This could tip the balance in the favour of the E8400 if the encoder is optimised for SSE4.
February 12, 2008 8:07:17 AM

The initial 9100e will be a b2 since it will be released before AMD starts shipping b3. The 9150e (based on b3) will be more interesting.

I wonder though, if there is some truth to Phenoms trouble with Core2, is the 91xx series just another way to sell chips that are even more defective than the 9500/9600 line? And i doubt the prices will be as low as many expect since that would leave almost no room for the triple-core cpus.
February 12, 2008 9:36:13 AM

I think they are going the wrong way with bins.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2008 10:05:24 AM

I think it unlikely the headroom will increase much but suggest the thermals will improve markedly.

I'd also suggest they are likely to improve the idle power draw quite a bit too ... new steppings all seem to address that one a little.

Might be a good value processor if that is the case.

With the new Penryn's being a bit harder to OC for noobs (because of the 1333 FSB) the advantage might erode a bit ... lol.

The new X-bit labs article on the 9x00 series suggests so ...

Still, the new Penryns are powerhouses and have improved on all fronts.

AMD have a way to go and us Beta testers are getting grumpy !!
February 12, 2008 11:59:51 AM

Reynod said:
With the new Penryn's being a bit harder to OC for noobs (because of the 1333 FSB) the advantage might erode a bit ... lol.



99% of users do not OC.


Although AMD's black edition and Overdrive may change that somewhat.



Anywayz, my point is - using overclockability as a guide for market direction is dodgy ground IMO.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2008 12:23:12 PM

If it could OC to 2.6Ghz, the 9100 would be a great buy at $140. If it sells for $100, I would buy one in a heart beat.
February 12, 2008 12:32:50 PM

If the rumours are true, it could certainly look promising!
Intel probably wouldn't have much (if anything) to compete in that price bracket so it could clean up OEM sales and basic machines, perhaps HTPC's and the like :) 
Not enough for me though, I want something clocked faster! :D 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 12, 2008 12:40:05 PM

Don't worry. Intel plans on releasing newer quads at a lower clock. I have seen one, the Q6400 clocked at 2.13GHz. Should be priced lower to compete. But still I love my Q6600.
February 12, 2008 12:55:46 PM

This is probably the stupidest idea AMD ever proposed. sub-200 USD for a quad? What about Phenom's own manufacturing cost / developmental cost? What about their own tri-core? What about their dual cores? AMD is pushing on their ASP so much that I can hardly see them being profitable.
February 12, 2008 1:04:51 PM

Id still buy a C2D which are faster than the Phailure.
February 12, 2008 1:34:18 PM

Ycon said:
Id still buy a C2D which are faster than the Phailure.


In Video work? I think not.
February 12, 2008 2:02:04 PM

yomamafor1 said:
This is probably the stupidest idea AMD ever proposed. sub-200 USD for a quad? What about Phenom's own manufacturing cost / developmental cost? What about their own tri-core? What about their dual cores? AMD is pushing on their ASP so much that I can hardly see them being profitable.



If you consider the speculations that the Phenoms 3rd core is flawed, selling 1.8ghz quads could be better than scrapping the entire chip.

My GUESS is that these 9100s are chips that just didnt do so well at higher clocks.

I dont think this is gonna be a good chip for OC.
February 12, 2008 2:17:47 PM

I think the 3rd flawed core has more to do with manufacturing variance than design.

I also think the alleged "1.8Ghz to 2.6Ghz" is dubious, unless we're talking about extreme overclocking. In order for Phenom 9100 to reach 2.6Ghz, it has to go from 200 x 9 to 290 x 9. That's a huge jump if you ask me.
February 12, 2008 2:20:39 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I think the 3rd flawed core has more to do with manufacturing variance than design.

I also think the alleged "1.8Ghz to 2.6Ghz" is dubious, unless we're talking about extreme overclocking. In order for Phenom 9100 to reach 2.6Ghz, it has to go from 200 x 9 to 290 x 9. That's a huge jump if you ask me.


I think we are looking more at 2.25 GHz or so on the overclock. Either way I don't think it's going to be an overclocking chip. It's bargain basement chip for encoding and graphics design.

I don't think this is big news...

What market is it going to be a home run in? Gaming? 4 Cores at 1.8 GHz will perform even worse than the 2.4 GHz K8. Rendering? Perhaps, we will have to wait on the Q6400 price point. Overclocking? If they could run it at 2.6 GHz it would be sold at 2.6 GHz.
February 12, 2008 2:39:33 PM

Kamrooz said:
Obviously a e8400 at 4ghz is sexy. But for those who need a quad for rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding...It's not bad at 140 a pop, and if they hit 2.4-2.6...It'll make it more worth it.

...


but who in there right mind would build a low budget machine for high powered work? I would bet that 90% of the people that are serious about rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding would also be the kind of people to spend over $1000 on a PC or upgrade an existing machine. thus they would not build a budget machine, negating the usefulness of the Phenom 9100.

The type of people that would use the Phenom 9100 are the people that use their PC for basic work (office ) and in their cases the Phenom 9100 would provide little to no benefit. they would be better off saving money and going duel core

also if you need power : you would go with the Intel platform because you could then upgrade later. the Q6600 outperforms the Phenom leaving you with lots of open doors .. Plus the Core 2 is tested and stable. lots of people are having stability problems with the Phenom which is what you don't want if you are doing rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding .
February 12, 2008 2:50:48 PM

for a cheap spider-htpc,yes I would.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2008 3:12:29 PM

engrpiman said:
but who in there right mind would build a low budget machine for high powered work? I would bet that 90% of the people that are serious about rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding would also be the kind of people to spend over $1000 on a PC or upgrade an existing machine. thus they would not build a budget machine, negating the usefulness of the Phenom 9100.

The type of people that would use the Phenom 9100 are the people that use their PC for basic work (office ) and in their cases the Phenom 9100 would provide little to no benefit. they would be better off saving money and going duel core

also if you need power : you would go with the Intel platform because you could then upgrade later. the Q6600 outperforms the Phenom leaving you with lots of open doors .. Plus the Core 2 is tested and stable. lots of people are having stability problems with the Phenom which is what you don't want if you are doing rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding .

Hmm, perhaps those who want to do some anemic megatasking on the cheap might consider the 9100 :pt1cable: 
February 12, 2008 3:35:14 PM

engrpiman said:
but who in there right mind would build a low budget machine for high powered work? I would bet that 90% of the people that are serious about rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding would also be the kind of people to spend over $1000 on a PC or upgrade an existing machine. thus they would not build a budget machine, negating the usefulness of the Phenom 9100.


When I was in college I wanted to do video work, but simply didn't HAVE that kind of money. This may have been a nice solution for me. Instead I managed to get by with my socket 939 single core (X2 wasn't out yet, and I managed to get the only 939 board Asus made that didn't support X2, argh). Mind you, even then I wouldn't have touched the thing with its current issues...
February 12, 2008 3:37:23 PM

"anemic megatasking"

So, in other words, average multitasking.....
February 12, 2008 4:15:29 PM

engrpiman said:
but who in there right mind would build a low budget machine for high powered work? I would bet that 90% of the people that are serious about rendering/multimedia/encoding/folding would also be the kind of people to spend over $1000 on a PC or upgrade an existing machine. thus they would not build a budget machine, negating the usefulness of the Phenom 9100.

The type of people that would use the Phenom 9100 are the people that use their PC for basic work (office ) and in their cases the Phenom 9100 would provide little to no benefit. they would be better off saving money and going duel core


I deal with customers all the time that are looking for the cheapest possible solution to these problems. Why?

Because the money they save ends up in their pocket.

And customers who are getting bonuses after saving money are far more prone to by phenom machines over the more expensive intel machines, when all they need is a quadcore machine.
February 12, 2008 4:27:27 PM

Kamrooz said:
IF, they don't mess it up...

February 12, 2008 4:31:30 PM

It will be a "home run" in t-ball.
February 12, 2008 4:33:30 PM

cnumartyr said:
I think they are going the wrong way with bins.


YOU ARE WRONG! AMD KNOWS WHAT CONSUMERS WANT! THEY WANT SLOWER PROCESSORS, NOT FASTER!


I share the concern of others, can they profit on this product?

2.6ghz overclock? I doubt it. If it could clock that high they'd probably sell it as a black edition and make more money.
February 12, 2008 4:54:04 PM

I think this chip would be for a entry-level workstation chip and would be more suited to work in Maya than Crysis or COD4. If you think about it, a $60 price differential could easily turn into a $3000 price differential when taking a graphic studios' needs into account. This could also be an option for collage students who have little cash, and could actually need the four cores now. I have a Q6600 because I won't buy another computer in a long time. One of the only things that kept my old computer alive is SSE instruction set. The first one. I can see many collage kids who would actually need this instead of what I have.
February 12, 2008 5:27:05 PM

so when are these $100-$140 phenoms supposed to arrive????
February 12, 2008 5:30:14 PM

ahslan said:
so when are these $100-$140 phenoms supposed to arrive????


Right before they fail miserably in the market.
February 12, 2008 5:33:50 PM

Phenom 9700 2.4Ghz is $300+ (availabilty)
Phenom 9600 2.3Ghz is $240 (Newegg.com)
Phenom 9500 2.2Ghz is $200 (Newegg.com)
Phenom 9400 2.1Ghz is $170-180 (Unconfirmed CPU)
Phenom 9300 2.0Ghz is $150-170 (Unconfirmed CPU)
Phenom 9200 1.9Ghz is $140-150 (Unconfirmed CPU)
Phenom 9100 1.8Ghz is $100-140 (Future CPU)


Intel Q6600 is $260


Likely the budget buyer would want cheap CPU and mobo combination. The q6600 would cost as much as Phenom 9100 + $100 mobo and 1GB of RAM!

That is almost a whole PC.

Budget builders will have eyes on this.
February 12, 2008 5:36:47 PM

Someguyperson said:
I think this chip would be for a entry-level workstation chip and would be more suited to work in Maya than Crysis or COD4. If you think about it, a $60 price differential could easily turn into a $3000 price differential when taking a graphic studios' needs into account. This could also be an option for collage students who have little cash, and could actually need the four cores now. I have a Q6600 because I won't buy another computer in a long time. One of the only things that kept my old computer alive is SSE instruction set. The first one. I can see many collage kids who would actually need this instead of what I have.



I agree with you on the college kids thing.
February 12, 2008 5:51:44 PM

in the B3 stepping the TLB bug will be fixed and the the overclocking potential will be the same as they are now, but in B4 stepping they will put stress upon the overclocking potential of the processor...just imagine that phenom 9100 overclocked to 3.0ghz ( i will definitely but that processor)...
February 12, 2008 6:12:13 PM

Tri-Core CPU's will be clocked higher so will be priced higher than Quads. Though I feel they are squeezing the Tri-Cores out of the game.
February 12, 2008 6:37:09 PM

stonecold91 said:
in the B3 stepping the TLB bug will be fixed and the the overclocking potential will be the same as they are now, but in B4 stepping they will put stress upon the overclocking potential of the processor...just imagine that phenom 9100 overclocked to 3.0ghz ( i will definitely but that processor)...


I'll believe that when I see it.
February 12, 2008 6:46:48 PM

sedaine said:
The upcoming Phenom 9100 will be the budget king for Quad Core CPU's. It is expected to cost $100-140 and will certainly get many looks from budget system builders who want to sell quads on thee cheap.

Word has it they will overclock from their 1.8Ghz to about 2.6Ghz.


How in the world did we get a two page thread from complete speculation?!

As for everything AMD has done of late, let’s wait and see what happens.

One thing I am certain about is Intel will not let AMD own the ‘low’ end… they’ll drop prices on something to stay competitive. So if this is true, bonus to us all!

February 12, 2008 7:55:08 PM

stonecold91 said:
in the B3 stepping the TLB bug will be fixed and the the overclocking potential will be the same as they are now, but in B4 stepping they will put stress upon the overclocking potential of the processor...just imagine that phenom 9100 overclocked to 3.0ghz ( i will definitely but that processor)...



The reports were that there would be no B4 stepping. The next one was C-X - a 45nm version.

!