Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom X3 hits 3.3Ghz .finally its a phenomenon

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 23, 2008 12:07:41 PM

this is it.finally phenoms hit 3.3GHz
as usual, its my duty to bring these stuffs up front.(hope AMD sponsors me for helping them) :D 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/04/23/amd_phenom_...

More about : phenom hits 3ghz finally phenomenon

April 23, 2008 12:26:17 PM

hope a mod bans you for sponsering them,
just kidding but i would rather get a e8200 still.
April 23, 2008 12:28:38 PM

Pretty good-looking.
Especially at 3.0GHz :) 
Related resources
April 23, 2008 12:29:40 PM

so would i.but the future is multithreaded.its nice to see the green guys are at least trying!anyway, my next build would be the 9850BE
April 23, 2008 12:32:16 PM

Did you even read the article? They didn't even like it. They said it wasn't worth buying.
April 23, 2008 12:38:03 PM

well atleast at hit 3ghz.there was lots of worries that phenoms dont go above 3 ghz!
April 23, 2008 12:39:01 PM

gpippas said:
Did you even read the article? They didn't even like it. They said it wasn't worth buying.



:lol: 
April 23, 2008 1:08:25 PM

uhhh, phenominally bad, looks like it still gets spanked by (dual core)E8400's @3.2Ghz on most real world games and apps let alone OC'ed Intel quads which are conveniently omitted and it idles of 50C OC'ed? Thats not good. My Q6600 idles at 39C-42C @ 3.5Ghz and its the older non G0 stepping. There is something very wrong with this architecture.
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2008 1:10:42 PM

Nice Article:

Quote:

In applications where the triple core Phenom has the potential to show its muscle, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 waltzes in and mops it up in quite spectacular fashion. It’s a shame, because we were expecting the Phenom X3 8750 to be a good value proposition for the enthusiast. However, if you’re looking to upgrade a current socket AM2 system, we’d recommend spending that little bit more and getting a quad-core Phenom – it’s absolutely worth it



So if I may put out a quick summary: If you already an AM2 board, it's worth buying a Triple. If not? <shrug>
April 23, 2008 1:16:20 PM

gpippas said:
Did you even read the article? They didn't even like it. They said it wasn't worth buying.

were you reffering to me? or A61?

becaus i said that i would get a e8200 becasue of what was said in the review, not becasue im affiliated with intel.

however i have to admit its is good that AMD are at least hitting the 3ghz, but that means Jack in the grand scheme of thing. i just wish they got there act together. the thing that put me off is the there phemon and spider and something else, it more confusing then getting a Phone on a orange contract. i guess its a ploy like Centrino.

i think these higher speed is a By product of one less core, albeit deactivated. thus the power and heat that would be used/created (respecively) can be put to higher performance.

i dont think building a phenom system right now is a good investment.
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2008 1:25:03 PM

I'd much rather see a retail X3 at 3GHz than that an X3 that can be overclocked to 3GHz. I suppose it's a start. I hope that what AMD says about the 45nm Phenoms at 3.2GHz is true.

However, an X3 would be great for a budget system, business machine, or an HTPC with a 780G mobo.
April 23, 2008 1:27:59 PM

Simply put, the phenom is AMD's Netburst P4. Even the great Intel makes mistakes. So it's easy to understand why the smaller company could make a mistake as well.
April 23, 2008 1:41:26 PM

So in games a 2.66GHz E6750 is faster than a 3GHz Phenom X3. And in other apps an equally clocked Core 2 Duo is on par with the X3. And the X3 draws a good bit more power and puts off more heat. And it doesn't overclock nearly as well as Core 2.

Keep those prices low AMD...
April 23, 2008 1:44:28 PM

cah027 said:
Simply put, the phenom is AMD's Netburst P4. Even the great Intel makes mistakes. So it's easy to understand why the smaller company could make a mistake as well.


never thought of it like that, still doesnt mean you shoudl buy one.
April 23, 2008 2:35:10 PM

cah027 said:
Simply put, the phenom is AMD's Netburst P4. Even the great Intel makes mistakes. So it's easy to understand why the smaller company could make a mistake as well.


Except that
a) AMD cannot afford such mistakes because they're the smaller company
b) The better chip actually came out first this time.
c) Intel has yet another killer in the form of Nehalem. AMD's A64 stopped there.

I really hope AMD can indeed pull a Core 2 on us... Nehalem and whatever comes after that could be AMD's undertakers.
April 23, 2008 4:35:03 PM

For AMD to "pull a Core 2" they would have to implement some radical design changes to their current architecture, or perhaps even create a new one from scratch. Unfortunately I don't see anything of the sort on their roadmap.

Right now it looks like 45nm is going to have to be really good for AMD to remain at all competitive once Nehalem is released.
April 23, 2008 4:43:32 PM

A_Dying_Wren said:

c) Intel has yet another killer in the form of Nehalem. AMD's A64 stopped there.

How do we know that? :lol: 
There is nothing to say with regard to either AMD or Intel's future products other than speculation.
And look how far that gets everyone... :whistle: 
:sol: 

April 23, 2008 4:44:27 PM

Double post...
April 23, 2008 5:13:44 PM

area61 said:
well atleast at hit 3ghz.there was lots of worries that phenoms dont go above 3 ghz!



Yeah, a lot of worries that AMD's quads can't clock high enough to compete with Intel's lowest clocking quad.

However, that's still the case. In order to hit 3ghz with it's revolutionary design AMD must used advanced techniques like turning a core off.
April 23, 2008 5:36:28 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Yeah, a lot of worries that AMD's quads can't clock high enough to compete with Intel's lowest clocking quad.

However, that's still the case. In order to hit 3ghz with it's revolutionary design AMD must used advanced techniques like turning a core off.

Well 9850BE's have hit 3Ghz (and higher), so the 'turning off core' option isn't the only way to get to 3Ghz! ;) 
April 23, 2008 5:43:15 PM

LukeBird said:
Well 9850BE's have hit 3Ghz (and higher), so the 'turning off core' option isn't the only way to get to 3Ghz! ;) 


Yeah, phase-change cooling on a B3 works too... JK.


They must not be getting a lot of them, because they're still binning them at lower speeds.
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2008 5:48:03 PM



Cant wait for the 9,999 MHz systems on ebay...

Excellent...
April 23, 2008 6:16:59 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Yeah, a lot of worries that AMD's quads can't clock high enough to compete with Intel's lowest clocking quad.

However, that's still the case. In order to hit 3ghz with it's revolutionary design AMD must used advanced techniques like turning a core off.

No.
The 3 cores are -defective- quadcores.

On the DFI forums people have been passing 3Ghz on air for some time with the old B2 Quads.

With DFI MB's I always get better OC's (and @ lower volts) than other MB's useing the same CPU/RAM as other people.
A good MB and PC Power & Cooling PSU is worth the extra money....put your Intel CPU onto one and see.

See my profile for the game LAN setup I run with 50% OC on air with stock volts.
April 23, 2008 6:41:50 PM

ZOldDude, I dont believe thats true.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 23, 2008 6:46:47 PM

I say big deal. Without even reading the article, I'm not impressed. X4/X3 is basically the same as the X2, just a little wider. X2's clock limit seemed to be ~3.2-3.3GHz air, 3.5ish on water.

Phenom isn't bad, but it does need to go higher in clock speed for them to compete better with Intel. To do this AMD needs to lengthen the pipeline (this is bad, and will make it like netburst.) or change the manufacturing process. Moving from 90nm to 65nm didn't do anything for clock speed, heres to hoping that 45nm will go better.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 23, 2008 8:31:49 PM

LukeBird said:
How do we know that? :lol: 
There is nothing to say with regard to either AMD or Intel's future products other than speculation.
And look how far that gets everyone... :whistle: 
:sol: 


I agree with you on some points. But so far Nehalem has been showing pretty powerful. Powerful enough to perform full physics calculations with graphics and no GPU. Now I know that nVidias whatever beat it, and I would expect a GPU to beat a CPU in terms of graphics performance. But what this could mean is that Nehalem will be powerful enough to calculate the physics in real time and allow the GPU some air to vreath. Of course I will take it with a grain of salt but a guy can hope right?

ZOldDude said:
No.
The 3 cores are -defective- quadcores.

On the DFI forums people have been passing 3Ghz on air for some time with the old B2 Quads.

With DFI MB's I always get better OC's (and @ lower volts) than other MB's useing the same CPU/RAM as other people.
A good MB and PC Power & Cooling PSU is worth the extra money....put your Intel CPU onto one and see.

See my profile for the game LAN setup I run with 50% OC on air with stock volts.


The Phenom X3's are just Phenom X4's with a bad core? No way. I thought it was Native TriCore design!!!!!!!!

I also love how the DFI boards somehow give them the OC ability of 3GHz+ yet noone has posted any proof of that here.

ryanthesav said:
ZOldDude, I dont believe thats true.


Dude son't listen to him. I called him out on it on a post a while back and he never has posted a CPU-Z validation or a screenshot showing his case with air and the clock speed. I think its 100% FUD until I am proven wrong.

Oh I also like how the Q6600 is stock. @2.4GYHz vs the B3 X3 Phenom @ 3GHz there is a .7FPS difference. Wow.
April 24, 2008 4:13:46 AM

take a look at the HT though it' at 1GHz.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 24, 2008 4:35:35 AM

blackpanther26 said:
take a look at the HT though it' at 1GHz.


I looked at both and the first was at 2GHz. The second was at 1.1GHz although it should have been at 2.2GHz. Not sure why its not showing it at 2.2GHz but thats what it should be. Could just be that CPU-Z isn't working right for the Phenom X3s since they are new chips.

But either way I would have prefered to see this on a AM2 mobo as well. But oh well.

a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 24, 2008 6:06:24 AM

What exactly are you guys not believing? That the Phenom can hit 3GHz, or that DFI boards are better overclockers? (or both for that matter...) While I personally haven't been overclocking any Phenoms, I do know that HardOCP has reported hitting 3GHz with a couple of X4's. (I think they said one hit 2.8, while two others hit 3.0) I do believe that some Phenoms can hit 3GHz, I have no idea what motherboards Hard was using.
April 24, 2008 10:05:34 AM

bummer
April 24, 2008 12:18:53 PM

endyen said:
THG did a better review. According to them, a 2.4ghz tri-core is 4% slower than the x2 6400. The x2 is 3.2ghz. Looks like phenom isn't that bad after all. The tri-cores might even be good value.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-athlon,1918.html

Totally agree with you there chap, the X3 did look pretty nice.
At the present time with few properly multi-threaded apps, it's a nice compromise. But It'll be a short-term market, as the moment decently threaded apps appear, an X4 will have a greater margin over the X3.
Looks promising though :D 
April 24, 2008 1:09:03 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I agree with you on some points. But so far Nehalem has been showing pretty powerful. Powerful enough to perform full physics calculations with graphics and no GPU. Now I know that nVidias whatever beat it, and I would expect a GPU to beat a CPU in terms of graphics performance. But what this could mean is that Nehalem will be powerful enough to calculate the physics in real time and allow the GPU some air to vreath. Of course I will take it with a grain of salt but a guy can hope right?



The Phenom X3's are just Phenom X4's with a bad core? No way. I thought it was Native TriCore design!!!!!!!!

I also love how the DFI boards somehow give them the OC ability of 3GHz+ yet noone has posted any proof of that here.



Dude son't listen to him. I called him out on it on a post a while back and he never has posted a CPU-Z validation or a screenshot showing his case with air and the clock speed. I think its 100% FUD until I am proven wrong.

Oh I also like how the Q6600 is stock. @2.4GYHz vs the B3 X3 Phenom @ 3GHz there is a .7FPS difference. Wow.


i havent posted in a while but i have to reply to this one: "I also love how the DFI boards somehow give them the OC ability of 3GHz+ yet noone has posted any proof of that here." no because its posted on another forum. Oh no wait, if u didn't see it here it can't ever have possibly happened. There is a world outside of tom's u know, and tom's aint the most technically proficient forum as it is.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 24, 2008 1:58:52 PM

spoonboy said:
i havent posted in a while but i have to reply to this one: "I also love how the DFI boards somehow give them the OC ability of 3GHz+ yet noone has posted any proof of that here." no because its posted on another forum. Oh no wait, if u didn't see it here it can't ever have possibly happened. There is a world outside of tom's u know, and tom's aint the most technically proficient forum as it is.


Considering how many "OC'ing a XXXX chip" and what will cool what chip better yada post you would expect someone who gets a Phenom to OC to 3GHz+ to post here with specs and so forth. I am not saying its not believable. I know some boards will OC better with more stability than other mobos but except for this chip I have yet to see anyone get a Phenom above 3GHz, albiet running cool and on a stock voltage.

Plus its mainly that ZeOldDude makes claims like a 50% OC on air yet post no proof other than what he puts in his sig. But if you want to believe that too then be my guest. But until I see proof of a 50% OC on air like that I will hold my judgement on anything he says.
April 24, 2008 3:38:46 PM

People don't tend to post about phenom (or athlon...) overclocking over here mainly due to the fact that all they'll get in reply is simply "Oh, but if you'd gotten an intel eXXXX/qXXXX you could have gotten so much more performance"

Constructive criticism or suggestions for improving what they've managed is a lot easier to find on other forums.
April 24, 2008 3:59:12 PM

coret said:
People don't tend to post about phenom (or athlon...) overclocking over here mainly due to the fact that all they'll get in reply is simply "Oh, but if you'd gotten an intel eXXXX/qXXXX you could have gotten so much more performance"

Constructive criticism or suggestions for improving what they've managed is a lot easier to find on other forums.


that obviously seems true.some people dont bother to get the actual message but stupidly cry whether "you have read it or not","its not worth buying" and so on. :cry:  :kaola: 
April 24, 2008 4:42:44 PM

coret said:
People don't tend to post about phenom (or athlon...) overclocking over here mainly due to the fact that all they'll get in reply is simply "Oh, but if you'd gotten an intel eXXXX/qXXXX you could have gotten so much more performance"

Constructive criticism or suggestions for improving what they've managed is a lot easier to find on other forums.



The reason for that is because we have all posted our Athlon overclocks a few years back. That was also when we realised that the clock limit for K8 was about 3.4ish ghz no matter how expensive the cooling system. There s nothing left to gain and 90nm to 65nm didn't increase the headroom either.

For Phenom its problem is that it is too closly related to K8 so it shouldn't really surprise anyone that it can't clock much higher than 3ish ghz. So once again nobody has anything to gain from other overclocks other than that they should aim for 3ghz if they are lucky and if not settle for about 2.8ghz.

As for the "Oh, but if you'd gotten an intel eXXXX/qXXXX you could have gotten so much more performance" they are just annoying idiots. Yes it is a known fact that C2D/Q is higher performing but unless anyone specifically asks what they should/could buy nobody needs to be told. Also we all know a Q6600 can hit 3.6ghz on air its not a miracle that yours did so guess what we don't need to rate your build. We don't care. Oh and if anyone wants advise on building a new system instead of creating another "yes its another choose my parts because I'm too lazy thread" read one of the other countless threads that have all the information you need, your system will no doubt end up the same as everybody elses any way.

Oh and only a complete idiot would buy a Phenom X3 at the current price bracket. Everything around it has superior performance and for a little extra you can have a 9850 X4.

End of rant
April 24, 2008 4:44:12 PM

coret said:
People don't tend to post about phenom (or athlon...) overclocking over here mainly due to the fact that all they'll get in reply is simply "Oh, but if you'd gotten an intel eXXXX/qXXXX you could have gotten so much more performance"

I would have to agree. I know I'm guilty of this sometimes.

Too bad it's true :hello: 
April 24, 2008 5:30:04 PM

AMD has one processor that is worth OCing, the X2 5000+ BE.

Everything else has very little headroom.


Intel processors have oodles of headroom, hence why we mention them when we talk about OCing.
a b à CPUs
April 25, 2008 6:49:28 AM

But coret has a point ... if we don't help people who post by being constructive then the forums are a waste of time and become a pissing competition between fanbois.

We should treat all strangers and those with low post counts with courtesy.

And keep working on a cheap cure for AMDitis ... the rash is spreading up my arm.

Intel's cure is too expensive Paul.

April 25, 2008 8:26:05 AM

When AMD created the Phenom, they created something powerful, but the TLB bug which the processor has been suffered from has given AMD a cold blow, unfortunately.

I think that the Phenom is a good processor and I personally think that they have done something very good with the Phenom and something which has troubled me when it comes to my positive opinions towards the Phenom is when CustomPC said that many games have a tendency to crash with the new Phenom. What has happened? Is Phenom still a bad choice for gamers or have they fixed the bugs?

Maybe one doesn't choose Intel for the great performance only, maybe it's because Intel is the best choice for gamers at the present?

What do you people know about the Phenom and how good does it work when it comes to todays pc games? Is it stable? How about old games?
April 25, 2008 9:46:34 AM

gpippas said:
Did you even read the article? They didn't even like it. They said it wasn't worth buying.


They said it wasn't worth buying for two reasons:

1. Too close in price to the B3 quads.

2. A dual core Intel CPU performs as well for a bit under the 8750's price.

They showed that it overclocked really well, which is all that enthusiasts seem to want. If AMD manages to drop the price a bit, then it might become popular. Right now, it's an upgrade for AM2/AM2+ boards that will have B3 support.

Don't see a bios yet for my wife's ASUS 690G that supports the B3's. MSI won't do a bios for my 690V board to support them. All in all, I'll wait till Deneb. That way, we should see a much cooler stock 3.0 or 3.2 that should overclock well.

homerdog said:
For AMD to "pull a Core 2" they would have to implement some radical design changes to their current architecture, or perhaps even create a new one from scratch. Unfortunately I don't see anything of the sort on their roadmap.

Right now it looks like 45nm is going to have to be really good for AMD to remain at all competitive once Nehalem is released.


45nm Deneb on SOI should be adequate, but it will still be a budget CPU compared to Nehalem. But don't despair, AMD is finally working on Bulldozer:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080422104006...

Quote:

At the most recent conference call with financial analysts AMD’s president and chief operating officer Dirk Meyer said that the next-generation micro-architecture and processors on its base code-named Bulldozer were in development with first samples due in 2009. What Mr. Meyer did not say is when the final central processing units (CPUs) were scheduled to arrive, a piece of information that both analysts and investors are curious to know.


I'll hazard a wild guess that AMD will bring out Deneb 45nm in December and will sample Bulldozer by June. Then, they'll probably push Bulldozer out the door by Q1 2010.
April 25, 2008 9:57:45 AM

Yipsl .... just so assuage my curiousity, which 690g board is it your wife has?
April 25, 2008 12:31:43 PM

Reynod said:
But coret has a point ... if we don't help people who post by being constructive then the forums are a waste of time and become a pissing competition between fanbois.

We should treat all strangers and those with low post counts with courtesy.

And keep working on a cheap cure for AMDitis ... the rash is spreading up my arm.

Intel's cure is too expensive Paul.




I agree. Coret mentioned something to me in a PM, I didn't agree with everything he said, but I do agree that we need to help people rather than let their call for help turn into an AMD vs. Intel flame war. I'm partially guilty for this happening.
April 25, 2008 1:43:26 PM

Well certainly if someone is asking for help then we should do our best to provide it, but this thread is just a discussion on the new tri-cores from AMD. If someone needs help with something they are more than welcome to start a thread :) 
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 25, 2008 6:00:58 PM

Quote:
Intel's cure is too expensive Paul.


I disagree. Intel now has the 21x0 line out, for about $75. While they are not quad cores, they do an excellent job. If you double the money to $150, you can pick up the 6550. I haven't checked, but I'd be willing to bet it compares will to the Phenom, better once its overclocked. Intel does have cheap offerings, they just aren't quads. But seeing as Intels duals compete so well, why worry about that?

Quote:
I think that the Phenom is a good processor and I personally think that they have done something very good with the Phenom and something which has troubled me when it comes to my positive opinions towards the Phenom is when CustomPC said that many games have a tendency to crash with the new Phenom. What has happened? Is Phenom still a bad choice for gamers or have they fixed the bugs?


I've never heard of this problem. The TLB "bug" would be unrelated to this as well AFAIK. The only problem with the chips that I'm aware of is the problem already mentioned. They were supposed to be drop in replacements on AM2 boards, and for some, this will not be possible.

April 25, 2008 6:28:29 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
Intel's cure is too expensive Paul.


I disagree. Intel now has the 21x0 line out, for about $75. While they are not quad cores, they do an excellent job. If you double the money to $150, you can pick up the 6550. I haven't checked, but I'd be willing to bet it compares will to the Phenom, better once its overclocked. Intel does have cheap offerings, they just aren't quads. But seeing as Intels duals compete so well, why worry about that?

Also consider that Intel is actually turning healthy profits, something that cannot be said for AMD. Phenom might be cheap, but that doesn't mean it's cheap to make. AMD is interested in keeping its market share up right now at the expense of making money, but eventually they are going to have to either raise prices or significantly improve their yields.
April 25, 2008 10:05:25 PM

When its all said and done AMD has made improvements and they didnt have to steal the tech to do it.
April 26, 2008 8:23:02 AM

jerseygamer said:
When its all said and done AMD has made improvements and they didnt have to steal the tech to do it.


Well written! AMD has good engineers.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 26, 2008 7:23:28 PM

Meh, IBMs are probably better.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!