Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Triple-Core Phenom 8600 Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 18, 2008 5:53:51 PM

oh dear.... they suck....
February 18, 2008 6:04:06 PM

If you thought four cores were slow, wait 'till you see this! :) 
Related resources
February 18, 2008 6:06:16 PM

If the Cinebench score serves any indication of real world performance, Toliman 2.3Ghz falls behind E6750 in multi-CPU calculation, and falls even behind Phenom 9600 in terms of single core performance.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/02/12/intel_core_...

Weird though, that Phenom 2.3Ghz scores about the same as Toliman 2.3Ghz in Super Pi.
February 18, 2008 6:20:06 PM

yomamafor1 said:
If the Cinebench score serves any indication of real world performance, Toliman 2.3Ghz falls behind E6750 in multi-CPU calculation, and falls even behind Phenom 9600 in terms of single core performance.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/02/12/intel_core_...

Weird though, that Phenom 2.3Ghz scores about the same as Toliman 2.3Ghz in Super Pi.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/Material/revimages/cpu/Phenom/superpi_1.jpg


SuperPi is single threaded! :kaola: 
February 18, 2008 6:32:03 PM

epsilon84 said:
Old news, and a single bench? SuperPi no less, which isn't even multithreaded... no wonder it sucks.

You can get a much better idea of performance here:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=622354
http://www.erenumerique.fr/test_processeur_amd_phenom_x...

At 2.3GHz, multithreaded performance is about on par with higher clocked C2Ds (E6750, E6850), but single threaded performance is quite poor, as can be expected.



The links you shown above talked about SIMULATIONS of the Phenom triple-core based on the Phenom X4 9600, not the real Triple-core 8600...
February 18, 2008 6:42:46 PM

X-Files said:
The links you shown above talked about SIMULATIONS of the Phenom triple-core based on the Phenom X4 9600, not the real Triple-core 8600...


True, by disabling a core. Windows sees it as 3 CPUs.



How does that differ to a 'real' tri core, which also has a disabled core? ;) 
February 18, 2008 6:47:14 PM

epsilon84 said:
True, by disabling a core. Windows sees it as 3 CPUs.

http://www.erenumerique.fr/images/21/20071123/x3.jpg

How does that differ to a 'real' tri core, which also has a disabled core? ;) 

Probably the "real" tri core is worse?

Geez, what's next? 6 cores? You know, Tri-FX or something.
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2008 7:01:07 PM

Roll up, roll up Thunderman...................


We need your input now.............
February 18, 2008 7:05:15 PM

Hellboy said:
Roll up, roll up Thunderman...................

We need your input now.............


I can do a passable impersonation. :lol: 

"AMD will destroy Intel with native tri core technology! Three cores are more than enough to frag Intel double cheeseburger quads which aren't even real quads! Intel BK Q109! AMD4Life!"

:kaola: 
February 18, 2008 7:25:42 PM

Quote:
Well if their cheaper than Intels E6750, it will sell no doubt.
Its a surefire way to unload a ton of bugged quads.....cheap...


Except that the E6750 is being phased out, and by the time tri-core is released, it'll be competing against a faster E8400 at the same price as the existing E6750 (after all the damn price gouging subsides, obviously).

a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 18, 2008 7:31:09 PM

Hard to understand without good engilsh translations but from what I can see its not much better than a E6750 which makes it just normal.

Oh well. I guess they will be cheap oir at least close to the cost of production.
February 18, 2008 7:41:34 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Hard to understand without good engilsh translations but from what I can see its not much better than a E6750 which makes it just normal.

Oh well. I guess they will be cheap oir at least close to the cost of production.


Did you try Google translations? It makes it fairly understandable at least. ;) 

February 18, 2008 7:46:59 PM

I'll wait for some more official tripple cripple benchmarks.
February 18, 2008 7:51:51 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I'll wait for some more official tripple cripple benchmarks.


What, you prefer double cheeseburgers instead? :kaola: 
February 18, 2008 7:53:29 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I'll wait for some more official tripple cripple benchmarks.


"tripple cripple"

lmao

thats good.
February 18, 2008 7:58:53 PM

I wonder what the graphic for a Tri Core Crossfire-X setup would be like. Would the metallic Spider be missing one leg? :lol: 

February 18, 2008 8:09:20 PM

umm.... if you count the 3 cores, and the 4 GPU's (in 3870x2s) by my calculations... yes? still, you can hide that behind it faiirly easily XD
February 18, 2008 8:11:09 PM

Way to diversify the budget CPU market even further AMD!!!!!

Phenom 8000 series. Actually it's probably a better buy than the crappy overheating Quads. They probably will overclock better with the bad core disabled... What have people been sayin? Core(2) of the Quad-Core is the problem?

Anyone want to bet they don't make a BE version of it. Embarass the hell out of their Quad-Core Phenoms.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 18, 2008 8:20:01 PM

triple cripple. that's bound to catch on. This is just like George W, should keep amd around awhile just for laughs!
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 18, 2008 8:25:32 PM

next up: Phenom X1! it has cores 0,1, and 3 disabled. You turn on your pc and the proc lets out a big fart. But it's only $5 shipped from newegg!
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2008 8:26:39 PM

epsilon84 said:
I can do a passable impersonation. :lol: 

"AMD will destroy Intel with native tri core technology! Three cores are more than enough to frag Intel double cheeseburger quads which aren't even real quads! Intel BK Q109! AMD4Life!"

:kaola: 



Lol,

You can guess now that hes putting his little brain in to gear trying to retribute another flaming of AMD.....

I cant believe that a company can have this much bad luck... Its like paying 600 million dollar for a race horse thats turned blind, lost one of its legs, has constant diahreoh ( the **** ), has sores on its back, no tail, lost all its teeth and still tries to race in the Kentucky Derby.....

So here we go

2900 series video card - loud and slow compared to an over a year old card
3800 series - still slow compared to a 3 month old one let alone a year old one (8800gtx)
3870 x 2 - just pips the 8800 ultra after 2 3870 processors and over a year of new technology

Phenom , more like Sempron
Tri core - well forget it...... a faulty quad core which when a quad core works is faulty anyway !!!!!!! How much faulty can we stand....

Phenom - more bugs than the Chinese has in the Pentagon...


I would say that yes the Phenom as posted in another thread is possbile the worst processor release...

There is none available in the trade, so I can't even begin to try one, and I would if i could get my hands on one.
The promises, the lies, the bugs and speed problems for this little beauty have been beaten by a year old Quad 6600..

Drop the Phenom, make something else, you have lost so much credibility on this baby that most of us just dont care anymore.... Re use the ATI Banner, Call your Processors ATI Equinox Quad or ATI Phase processors or something by AMD , dont call it a Black Edition... Just make it overclockable from day one....and change the AMD logo to something other than that green colour monstrosity you have now.....

February 18, 2008 9:00:23 PM

BSMonitor said:
Way to diversify the budget CPU market even further AMD!!!!!

Phenom 8000 series. Actually it's probably a better buy than the crappy overheating Quads. They probably will overclock better with the bad core disabled... What have people been sayin? Core(2) of the Quad-Core is the problem?

Anyone want to bet they don't make a BE version of it. Embarass the hell out of their Quad-Core Phenoms.


Heh, I wouldn't be surprised. AMD has two K8 BEs, the 5000+ and 6400+, they may decide to do the same with Phenoms, one for tri, one for quad.

If indeed Core2 (not Intel :p ) is the problem and tri-cores end up disabling that core then we may well see some overclocked 3GHz tricores.
February 18, 2008 9:10:06 PM

ragemonkey said:
"tripple cripple"

lmao

thats good.



hehe...

If we use it in the future, we should convert over to the correct spelling, "Triple Cripple". But I'm happy either way.
February 18, 2008 9:13:30 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
hehe...

If we use it in the future, we should convert over to the correct spelling, "Triple Cripple". But I'm happy either way.

I think you just coined a new term for the AMD triple-core cpu.

Triple Cripple. :bounce: 
February 18, 2008 9:59:39 PM

I don't see why everyone is so down on AMD for going with the tri-cores.


If AMD dropped their dual core lineup down to total rock bottom (Sempron) , replacing the majority with x3s, then they would suddenly have a bottom end that can compete with Intel at a slightly higher price point.


It doesn't matter that Intel cannot do tri-core. AMD couldn't do quad core at all till Q4 last year... doesn't mean everyone slagged Intel does it?
February 18, 2008 10:14:07 PM

Amiga500 said:
I don't see why everyone is so down on AMD for going with the tri-cores.


I think some people are concerned that a quad core doesn't compete with Intel, so why would a tri-core.

However, if the tri-cores do indeed clock in the 2.5ghz to 2.8 ghz range I see a future and demand for them.
February 18, 2008 10:25:57 PM

BSMonitor said:
Way to diversify the budget CPU market even further AMD!!!!!

Phenom 8000 series. Actually it's probably a better buy than the crappy overheating Quads. They probably will overclock better with the bad core disabled... What have people been sayin? Core(2) of the Quad-Core is the problem?

Anyone want to bet they don't make a BE version of it. Embarass the hell out of their Quad-Core Phenoms.


Why bother comparing the triple cores to C2D? If each core is 17% to 25% better than an Athlon X2, then they're an incremental improvement for the AM2 upgrade market, plus a reasonable budget OEM CPU. I can see a salesman at Best Buy telling a customer that the lower priced AMD is better than the higher priced Intel box because it has 3 cores (he'll probably be named Nigel).

I'd thought they might be clocked higher than a B2 but I was wrong. The fastest triple core announced is 2.5 gigahertz, while the fastest B2 Phenom will be 2.6. So, they don't want to cut into their main market all that much. Don't hold your breath hoping that reported "second core" issue means they'll have enough headroom to overclock.

Hey TC, "triple cripple" LOL

Do you have an archive of jests you directed at the Prescott? Or are you channeling the grumpy dying architecture of your 939 Opteron? Sort of the "Sunshine Boys" of tech comedy?

If the triple cores aren't solely B2, then I'm tempted to get one to replace the two older X2's. I'll wait till 45nm Phenom at 3.2 and then see if it' worth it to go that route with a 790 board or just follow the herd and go with the least expensive Intel quad. It all depends on how much my conscience is acting up and what the regulators have determined regarding that OEM rebate program.


February 18, 2008 10:28:00 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I think some people are concerned that a quad core doesn't compete with Intel, so why would a tri-core.


Its not supposed to compete with intel QUAD cores. Its supposed to compete against Intel dual cores.


Tri-cores form the low end of AMD's lineup, dual cores form the low end of Intels. This time last year Intel's top end featured quad cores and AMD's just dual - AMD using tri now is as fair as Intel using quad then. Yes, AMD cannot compete at the top end (heck, they can barely get to middle), but this offers them a chance to tie down the low end pretty good.





Quote:

However, if the tri-cores do indeed clock in the 2.5ghz to 2.8 ghz range I see a future and demand for them.


If... if if if.

It doesn't look like tri are gonna be officially released at said clockspeeds any time soon. Sure you could OC - but in that case you'd be better going for an Intel anyway.

I think AMD are relying on the average dumb customer - "3 is better than 2 right?"
February 18, 2008 10:44:48 PM

Tripple cripple was funny at first, its sltsdy been overused, let it die in this thread please. "where the beef?", "Bo know's!", yadda yadda
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 18, 2008 10:59:42 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I think some people are concerned that a quad core doesn't compete with Intel, so why would a tri-core.

However, if the tri-cores do indeed clock in the 2.5ghz to 2.8 ghz range I see a future and demand for them.


If this is so then you know Intel will (And I believe is already planning to) release lower end cheaper than the Q6600 quad cores. The Q6600 is right now an enthusiast and will be a mid range chip once the Q9xxx series hits. I have seen some specs of the Q6400 which will be a stock 2.13GHz. My guess is that when it hits or if it has it will be priced $25-$50 dollars lower than the Q6600. Although I will always prefer the Q6600 I can see the Q6400 being a great cheap budget OC'er.
February 19, 2008 12:42:15 AM

Why do the Chinese always run these benchmarks first? Or is it just that these are fake?
February 19, 2008 12:50:29 AM

starcraftfanatic said:
Why do the Chinese always run these benchmarks first? Or is it just that these are fake?


Well what can you say, its Made In China :kaola: .
February 19, 2008 1:01:28 AM

You know what else would be interesting? Seeing how a Phenom 8600 compares to an X2 6400+. AMD is not just competing against Intel, it is potentially competing against itself in this regard. Just like the E6750, the X2 6400+ will have similar multithreading performance (perhaps a touch lower) but due to higher clocks will significantly outperform the Phenom 8600 in single threaded tasks.
February 19, 2008 1:31:34 AM

On the bright side, the 8600 doesn't have a TDP of 125 watts :) 
On the dark side, It's probably going to get it's butt handed to it by the new quads in performance and power usage.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 19, 2008 1:36:31 AM

I just wounder what kind of reprecussions having one core disabled. After time do you think it could cause leakage maybe?
March 31, 2008 8:19:00 PM

A quick hypothesis: Alan Wake looks like it could be the game of the year in H2 2008. Alan Wake is designed to use 3 CPUs to best effect. AMD and the Alan Wake developers get together to offer "Wake-enabled" PC certification. Hey presto: The developers get AMD support and AMD has the most competitive processor for the job.

Thoughts?
March 31, 2008 9:13:09 PM

andymw said:
A quick hypothesis: Alan Wake looks like it could be the game of the year in H2 2008. Alan Wake is designed to use 3 CPUs to best effect. AMD and the Alan Wake developers get together to offer "Wake-enabled" PC certification. Hey presto: The developers get AMD support and AMD has the most competitive processor for the job.

Thoughts?

If it's true, no different to Intel and Nvidia slapping their logos all over the load screens and boxes games...
I'd care more about the performance than the company marketing it :) 
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 31, 2008 9:25:36 PM

LukeBird said:
If it's true, no different to Intel and Nvidia slapping their logos all over the load screens and boxes games...
I'd care more about the performance than the company marketing it :) 


This much I agree with. The only downside is that non PC enthusiats(such as normal users and such who buy Alienware and so on) might take it that a specific PC company being advertised might perform better when this has been proven untrue in many cases. Kinda like when Doom 3 would perform better on a ATI GPU then a NVidia, or at least for some time.

The only case of this I have yet to see this untrue was HL2. It ran the best on an ATI 9800XT as compared to a FX5900. But in most cases a company having its label slapped on it just means they put some cash/free items, i.e. CPUs/GPUs, for the company to develop the title. Not that it will perform better.

This is kinda like how most high end games, i.e. Crysis, have a logo stating that it runs best on a $8K Alienware. I laughed when I saw that on the back of my Crysis box.

If gaming performance is anything like it currently is and what we have seen fo far a Q6600 will run Alan Wake better than a Phenom X3/X4 at certain speeds. And when OC'ed the Q6600 alone will have good FPS.

On that note, anyone see anything new about them developing Max Payne 3? I saw a bit on it from a while ago and really wish they would make another one as it has always been a good series.
April 1, 2008 12:36:40 PM

"What kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?"
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2008 1:58:08 PM

Quote:
I find those benches hard to believe considering the ones I saw showed that the tri core was almost as fast as the quad. I'll wait for benches from a more reliable source.



Dont you mean the Quad was as slow as the Tricore :hello: 
April 1, 2008 3:34:00 PM

Quote:
I find those benches hard to believe considering the ones I saw showed that the tri core was almost as fast as the quad. I'll wait for benches from a more reliable source.


What benches did you see? The Fudzilla 3DMark scores using an IGP? :lol: 
April 2, 2008 11:34:47 AM

Phenom is not that bad. When B3 stepping is out the Phenom X4 9850 BE is finally on par with the Q6600 and when O/C to 3GHz it takes on the QX6800. AMD Phenom dose a lot better when the application takes 4 threads than 2 or 1. A sign of a true quad I think. And The X3 is a good way not to just waste money by tossing it. What would you do if you are building a CPU with 4 cores and you find one of the cores are bad. Would you tose it away and loss money or disable to core itself? Prescot is worse than Phenom.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2008 12:21:08 PM

It's a new age CPU for Joe Public buying PC's off WalMart shelves along with their daily groceries.

Just watch and see ... a dumb salesperson's dream ... an extra core plus it is cheaper than the dual core.

Hmm ... 3Cores "core3" gotta be better than core2 ... pfftt... how confusing ... think I'd better get the extra in case I need it (rationalising the labels on the boxes). Gee ... I'm clever ... <leaves shop with smile>

core2 ... core3 ... core2 quad ... triple core ... quad core ....

This should finally confuse just about everyone.

Chuck in a "quantispeed" just for measure ... heh heh.

The poor customer.

No wonder it is so funny to reply to those "Need new Build Advise" threads ... but we try ... because we were all noobs once ...

I hope the marketing spin helps them recycle plenty of these out into the world.

I hear you need to put an extra screw on the right hand side of the motherboard when you fit the 8xxx series cpu's ... the boxer motor is a bit lumpy with the 4th piston missing ... tends to cause the case to rattle a bit otherwise.

I Suggest you sticky this advice
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 2, 2008 1:24:31 PM

blackpanther26 said:
Phenom is not that bad. When B3 stepping is out the Phenom X4 9850 BE is finally on par with the Q6600 and when O/C to 3GHz it takes on the QX6800. AMD Phenom dose a lot better when the application takes 4 threads than 2 or 1. A sign of a true quad I think. And The X3 is a good way not to just waste money by tossing it. What would you do if you are building a CPU with 4 cores and you find one of the cores are bad. Would you tose it away and loss money or disable to core itself? Prescot is worse than Phenom.


I don't see anything pointing to tru quad. Most of the multi threaded apps have performed best on the Q6600 whit a few memory intensive ones doing better on Pheonm.

And please stop refering to prescott. Its an old architecture and had some great benefits to Intel in terms of technology to use.

Phenom is not bad its just not the great chip we were told by AMD to expect.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 2, 2008 1:29:30 PM

Reynod said:
It's a new age CPU for Joe Public buying PC's off WalMart shelves along with their daily groceries.

Just watch and see ... a dumb salesperson's dream ... an extra core plus it is cheaper than the dual core.

Hmm ... 3Cores "core3" gotta be better than core2 ... pfftt... how confusing ... think I'd better get the extra in case I need it (rationalising the labels on the boxes). Gee ... I'm clever ... <leaves shop with smile>

core2 ... core3 ... core2 quad ... triple core ... quad core ....

This should finally confuse just about everyone.

Chuck in a "quantispeed" just for measure ... heh heh.

The poor customer.

No wonder it is so funny to reply to those "Need new Build Advise" threads ... but we try ... because we were all noobs once ...

I hope the marketing spin helps them recycle plenty of these out into the world.

I hear you need to put an extra screw on the right hand side of the motherboard when you fit the 8xxx series cpu's ... the boxer motor is a bit lumpy with the 4th piston missing ... tends to cause the case to rattle a bit otherwise.

I Suggest you sticky this advice


I think what truly will be confusing is the naming. The Phenoms start at 9500 and it dgoes to 9550. well Inte has the Q9550. They might get the chips confused and mix them up.

Ahht that will be fun.
April 2, 2008 1:43:21 PM

Hellboy said:
Roll up, roll up Thunderman...................


We need your input now.............

Is he even still here?
April 2, 2008 2:41:28 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I don't see anything pointing to tru quad. Most of the multi threaded apps have performed best on the Q6600 whit a few memory intensive ones doing better on Pheonm.

And please stop refering to prescott. Its an old architecture and had some great benefits to Intel in terms of technology to use.

Phenom is not bad its just not the great chip we were told by AMD to expect.


I loved his comments about OC'ing the Phenom.

Most review sites could only get the Phenom to hit 2.7 or 2.8 from 2.5 on reasonable voltages.
I did see one get to 3.0 on a massive 1.6v, but they did not do all of the benchmarks at that speed.
Again, even that is a voltage well over spec and likely to damage the CPU with continued use.

Then on the other hand, the Q6600 can usually hit 3.6 on reasonable voltages from 2.4.
To top that off, the Q6600 will be dropping in price in about 2 1/2 weeks.
!