AMD Phenom X3 CPU's are out at newegg

dobby

Distinguished
May 24, 2006
1,026
0
19,280


yeah, i guess the wallet got a bit tight, although that would mean that it is not just failed yield,
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


http://en.expreview.com/2008/03/31/core-2-duo-e7300-vs-phenom-x3-8600-who-wins/
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0327/20080327012301.shtml (full review in Chinese, has more benchmarks)

EPIC FAIL - especially at the current prices. It needs to be around $100, not $165 - $195. It fails miserably in single/dual threaded software and still loses in multithreaded software when compared to the Wolfdale based C2Ds (E7x00/E8x00).
 

blackpanther26

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2007
757
0
18,990


I'm guessing that is total cache 512KB x 3 and 2MB L3 wichh is 1.5MB L@ total and 2MB L3.
 
^ good to see you back Skittle

Its expensive cause it just released, just wait 2 weeks and it'll be cheap.

My guess is that it's expensive because AMD has good yields on the quads. The triple-cores are just quads with one core fused off, so if they have to blow fuses on a perfectly good quad to meet the demand for X3s, then X3 prices will be nearer to those of the quads. AMD doesn't want to intentionally have to take a hit on their revenues just because the demand on certain CPUs isn't optimal.
 
If they drop the price I can see they would be a good rig for encoding ... a cheap workhorse machine ... so you can spend more time on the main rig gaming ... LOL.

I will wait till the price drops a bit.
 

reconviperone1

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2006
1,048
0
19,280

Me three, get it me three(i know its lame but i couldnt resist
 

quantumsheep

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2005
2,341
0
19,790
Maybe if we all bought AMD they might have enough moolah to actually create a decent chip...





On second thoughts, Intel is by far the better manufacturer atm. EVERYONE BUY INTEL
 

Mathos

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
584
0
18,980
Those numbers don't look like an epic fail. They just need to lower the price. And the review site needs to upgrade their AMD testbed to something that is AM2+. Every single one of those processors was clocked higher than 2.3ghz except for the e4500.
 

dagger

Splendid
Mar 23, 2008
5,624
0
25,780
Newegg prices are always outrageous when the product first arrives....
and those reviews were horse crap.........something was wrong there......we all saw the review months ago that showed the tri's were nearly as fast as the quads in multi-threaded apps......so something was definately wrong with those recent tests.


How can tris be nearly as fast as quads in multithreaded tests? It's a 3:4 ratio. And they charge high prices for new items everywhere, not just Newegg. Nothing's wrong here.
 

njalterio

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2008
780
0
18,990
I find it interesting that the tri-cores are still considered to be a part of Phenom 9000 series, which so far has been reserved for AMD's quad cores.
 


It depends on how many threads a "multithreaded" application spawns. If it spawns two compute-intensive threads, any chip with 3 or more cores will have similar performance. The two program threads will run at 100% on two cores and then the OS's background tasks will run on the other core or cores. Most of the programs tested in consumer-type sites are games, which tend to have one or two heavy threads and then little else to run on the CPU.

Even programs that have many compute-intensive threads may not run much faster on a quad than they do on a triple-core chip. It all depends on the memory bandwidth available and needed as well as cache usage and other system resource contention issues. A good case to demonstrate this is running SPECfp_rate on a dual Clovertown Xeon system. Performance scales well up to four threads if the OS schedules the four threads to run as two on one CPU and two on the other CPU, so the FSB bandwidth is utilized optimally. But once you cross the 4-thread barrier, the FSB starts to get hammered something fierce and you get much smaller increases in performance when scheduling more threads, even when there are idle cores available.
 


x264 scales near linearly with # of cores available. A mild 3.0ghz Q6600 will blow the pants off one of those crippled phenom's.
 

Xpyrofuryx

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2006
335
0
18,780
Uhm Okay, those reviews are CRAP. They are using a regular AM2 board, not AM2+. I dont trust those reviews, wait for more credible ones to come. A few weeks ago there were ones showing it being a great buy. They definately need a AM2+ hell I think the best thing about the Phenoms is the HT 3.0
 
^ so what about all of AMDs promises of "compatibility" and "drop in replacement" ... I thought that (and the whole 4 core thing) was the best thing about phenom/barcelona.

I for one applaud anyone who shows how the phenom performs on the AM2 platform... Its user base is far greater than AM2+
 

Xpyrofuryx

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2006
335
0
18,780
But, the performance differs, yes the chip will work flawlessly in a AM2, and thats what AMD was saying, and thats true. But the true performance of a Phenom comes out in a AM2+ board.