Although it will not be available before the second quarter of 2008, we decided to take an early look at the performance of AMD's upcoming triple core Phenom 8000 series. Read on for a comparison of Phenom performance at one, two, three and four cores.
Dear Visitor. The page you requested couldn't be found - If you followed a link from another Website please inform their Webmaster. If you happen to get this message while browsing Tom's Hardware Guide please inform the Webmaster of Tom's Hardware Guide.
I still visit Tom's Hardware regularly however the reviews over the past say 4-6 months really seem to have missed the boat. Is it just me or have others found the comments / questions answered by reviews to be poor?
I don't think there is much surprise in this article. Wow the tri core performs between the dual and quad in thread optimized code! Shocker! Wow, in semi optimized code the Tri and Quad perform very similar wow! I mean come on.
Here are some bigger questions IMO:
1) Cache. Will the Tri core have access to the same cache as the Quad? Thus in applications which require a large cache, will the increased cache hit rate make up for the loss of a core?
2) Overclocking! Let's face it if you don't overclock or are on a tight budget, AMD is likely your choice. Yeah it gives up some 200-600MHz to the C2D but for a given amount of cash, AMD has a solid position. Once you begin overclocking this all changes. The C2D simply blows AMD away (Or if you have several hundred to spend on the CPU). For example, I bought X2 5600 w/ 1Meg cache. $100 bucks delivered back before the abundance of C2D options. OC'd it to 2.95G. 690 chipset, AM2 socket. Current quads are a bad upgrade choice. Well this tri may be perfect! One less core, less heat, better OCing, yes yes?
*note* I did read the article, heat production was still up indicating that the core was likely running to some degree. However you didn't even attempt OCing!
Anyway, Tom's is no longer my first stop for "solid" reviews because these reviews simply don't answer the important questions.
I still visit Tom's Hardware regularly however the reviews over the past say 4-6 months really seem to have missed the boat. Is it just me or have others found the comments / questions answered by reviews to be poor?
I don't think there is much surprise in this article. Wow the tri core performs between the dual and quad in thread optimized code! Shocker! Wow, in semi optimized code the Tri and Quad perform very similar wow! I mean come on.
Here are some bigger questions IMO:
1) Cache. Will the Tri core have access to the same cache as the Quad? Thus in applications which require a large cache, will the increased cache hit rate make up for the loss of a core?
2) Overclocking! Let's face it if you don't overclock or are on a tight budget, AMD is likely your choice. Yeah it gives up some 200-600MHz to the C2D but for a given amount of cash, AMD has a solid position. Once you begin overclocking this all changes. The C2D simply blows AMD away (Or if you have several hundred to spend on the CPU). For example, I bought X2 5600 w/ 1Meg cache. $100 bucks delivered back before the abundance of C2D options. OC'd it to 2.95G. 690 chipset, AM2 socket. Current quads are a bad upgrade choice. Well this tri may be perfect! One less core, less heat, better OCing, yes yes?
*note* I did read the article, heat production was still up indicating that the core was likely running to some degree. However you didn't even attempt OCing!
Anyway, Tom's is no longer my first stop for "solid" reviews because these reviews simply don't answer the important questions.
Simply Disappointed.
Well considering they have yet to recieve a real tri core from AMD, OC'ing will not fare any better. It is the same 9900 they have been using so even with 1, 2 or 3 cores disabled it will more than likely OC the same.
Once THG gets a real tri core they will try OC'ing it but there is no guarantee it will do any better just like B3 has no guarantees.
I still visit Tom's Hardware regularly however the reviews over the past say 4-6 months really seem to have missed the boat. Is it just me or have others found the comments / questions answered by reviews to be poor?
I don't think there is much surprise in this article. Wow the tri core performs between the dual and quad in thread optimized code! Shocker! Wow, in semi optimized code the Tri and Quad perform very similar wow! I mean come on.
Here are some bigger questions IMO:
1) Cache. Will the Tri core have access to the same cache as the Quad? Thus in applications which require a large cache, will the increased cache hit rate make up for the loss of a core?
2) Overclocking! Let's face it if you don't overclock or are on a tight budget, AMD is likely your choice. Yeah it gives up some 200-600MHz to the C2D but for a given amount of cash, AMD has a solid position. Once you begin overclocking this all changes. The C2D simply blows AMD away (Or if you have several hundred to spend on the CPU). For example, I bought X2 5600 w/ 1Meg cache. $100 bucks delivered back before the abundance of C2D options. OC'd it to 2.95G. 690 chipset, AM2 socket. Current quads are a bad upgrade choice. Well this tri may be perfect! One less core, less heat, better OCing, yes yes?
*note* I did read the article, heat production was still up indicating that the core was likely running to some degree. However you didn't even attempt OCing!
Anyway, Tom's is no longer my first stop for "solid" reviews because these reviews simply don't answer the important questions.
Simply Disappointed.
I have to agree.
The reviews have been really lacking.
With the Tri-Core Phenom I can understand the limits because they did not have one to test.
So the results are somewhat limited.
They simply show the painfully obvious.
I would still love tot see THG publish a REAL Athlon vs Phenom article.
The previous one was a joke. (OC'd Phenom vs UnderClocked Athlon)
Let's See a Stock Phenom vs a Stock X2-6400.
Let's OC both to reasonable levels.
What are the results.
Core vs Core Test - Yet another joke.
This fails to recognize that when more cores are enabled the L3 cache becomes less efficient.
By running the X2 slow, it fails to account for the fact Phenom performance scales less per Mhz than the X2.
So while it may be faster @ 2.4ghz with a single core, that will drop as speeds reach 3.0Ghz and Beyond.
It will drop when you have more cores enabled.
I must sadly admin that I like the THG forums, I love the monthly Video Card Roundup, the news links are useful, but the actual articles are really slipping.
---------------
If its good in theory but not in practice,
its not good theory.
I think the only thing this review shows is how much a second core helps single threaded applications by offloading background tasks (networking etc.) from where the app is running.
I think the only thing this review shows is how much a second core helps single threaded applications by offloading background tasks (networking etc.) from where the app is running.
And along the same lines, it shows the advantage for tri has over dual being equal to the advantage quad possesses over dual for dual core optimised software.
Actually seeing this properly, I'm actually quite tempted by a tri-core ... depending on how they do once released anyway.
Hmmm this could be the recession chip. With the economy slowing down this could be exacty what AMD needs.......kina ironic if you think about it. Cheap CPU, good performance. McDonalds could add it to their dollar menu.
Well considering they have yet to recieve a real tri core from AMD, OC'ing will not fare any better. It is the same 9900 they have been using so even with 1, 2 or 3 cores disabled it will more than likely OC the same.
Once THG gets a real tri core they will try OC'ing it but there is no guarantee it will do any better just like B3 has no guarantees.
Exactly.
AMD is simply floundering. All this points to is very poor yields of the Agena core. A 2.6GHz chip was supposed to be available in November. Now reviewers of the Tri-Core chip still do not have samples weeks from release? 3 months after the 2.6GHz chips were supposed to be available?
Hell, we are only 6 months away from another new Intel architecture. By the time anyone can get a 2.6 GHz AMD quad-core, Intel will have Penryn 3.2GHz quads in the bargain bin.
Of course knowing Intel, we won't see Nehalem in desktops until there is a competitive reason to do so. So maybe Penryn won't be really cheap for a while.
poor amd just can't catch a break. it still cost the same to make a tri- just as a quad-core. the best they can do is sell at cost or maybe 1-3% margin. i thank amd for their athlons, but competition between amd and intel is coming to an end... and their (amd) biggest downfall is releasing testing samples to any joe & jane that wanted to do a review.
"we were disappointed to see that Phenom support was virtually nonexistent."
What a laugh, I did the research myself. Its low, but no "Virtually non existant". 59 out of 162 mobos are Phenom ready
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] earch-here
The Tom's article that at first was called "Phenom fails compatibility test" then changed to "Most AM2 Motherboards Not Phenom Ready" should have been called "We fail to make a proper selection of AM2 mobos".
And the really interesting read that could have been "Phenom on old AM2" hasn't seen the light yet.
poor amd just can't catch a break. it still cost the same to make a tri- just as a quad-core. the best they can do is sell at cost or maybe 1-3% margin. i thank amd for their athlons, but competition between amd and intel is coming to an end... and their (amd) biggest downfall is releasing testing samples to any joe & jane that wanted to do a review.
actually, you're wrong
if AMD will sell the toliman with a defective core.. then its LOSE AN AGENA (due of low yields ), BUT TO SELL IT AS TOLIMAN
thats better than sell nothing.
"we were disappointed to see that Phenom support was virtually nonexistent."
What a laugh, I did the research myself. Its low, but no "Virtually non existant". 59 out of 162 mobos are Phenom ready
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] earch-here
The Tom's article that at first was called "Phenom fails compatibility test" then changed to "Most AM2 Motherboards Not Phenom Ready" should have been called "We fail to make a proper selection of AM2 mobos".
And the really interesting read that could have been "Phenom on old AM2" hasn't seen the light yet.
They choose 10 mobos, give me a break...
I will agree that 10 mobos is short and your review was fantastic but the mobos they chose were the ones that are used most. Meaning that these mobos are the one that most people have. Kinda like the Asus P5K-E is one of the most widely used P35 mobo.
They did state that they will go back and check it again. Maybe there will be a better amount this time.
- If you followed a link from another Website please inform their Webmaster. If you happen to get this message while browsing Tom's Hardware Guide please inform the Webmaster of Tom's Hardware Guide.
