Tom's has this to say:
 

 
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/a [...] ,5248.html
 
As a generally loyal AMD fan, who built 3 Athlon X2 systems this past year for home use (and who is still debating getting an 8750 as a holdover), I have to say I'm mildly disappointed that we won't see 3.0 and 3.2 Denebs on launch, as the rumor mill claimed.
 
Also, I can't see AMD keeping the B3 9750 and 9850 around in 95 watt versions if Deneb's going to have much higher performance. If Deneb's die shrink with SOI can't change things, then I guess we'll all have to hope AMD's marketing for Bulldozer finally pans out in two years.
 
AMD the budget CPU maker of choice for those of us so old school we still like our pins on the CPU and not the motherboard    !
 
Seriously, I love ATI/AMD chipsets and ATI GPU's but AMD's fallen into the same market they had with the K62. It's as if the Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 never happened.  
 
This makes me think I should go triple core 8750 and overclock it to 2.8 on a new Gigabyte board rather than wait for Deneb. The way things are going, an 8750 at 95 watts just might be viable against AMD's best until Bulldozer changes things.
 
Yes, I know Intel will have better, but I don't like Intel chipsets any more than I like Nvidia's (which is not at all).
 

Hm, I smell smoke...

Are you sure about the L3 cache for the early Denebs? that doesn't seem like a correct figure. I thought that it was the L2 cache that was increased.A TDP rating of 95 watts is good though.
Oh wait I do see another link here.From here it does say 6MB L3 cache.
 
 
http://www.hardware.info/en-US/news/#gQlK
 
On the story Wednesday 11:15 a.m. 4/30/08 -First 45nm Phenom in November.It says they are going to introduce during the meantime a 2.6 Ghz Phenom X4 9950 and energy efficient 9150e and 9350e processors.

 
sounds like the same deal as a 90nm A64 vs 65nm - slightly lower tdp, no real benifits...
 
Why dont you like Intel chipsets? There THE best chipsets, Intel has a reliable platform overall, AMD has a shaky one at best... for now but improving rapidly now that they make there own chipsets now.

 
Well, I don't like the premium cost of Intel motherboards, but the main reason I don't like Intel chipsets is they fail in regards to both IGP performance and in regards to video playback quality.
 
I usually get a good motherboard with a decent IGP, just in case I have to default to it if a card fails and I'm RMA'ing it. Though I play games, I also watch DVD's (will watch Bluray soon too), watch unlicensed fansub animes and also do some graphics and video editing.  
 
Intel falls behind compared to both ATI and Nvidia in that regard. I've had compatibility problems with Nvidia chipsets, so I"ve basically preferred ATI/AMD. My only P4 has an ATI X200 board, and I have 690V, 690G and 780G boards for our Athlon X2 builds.
 
Yes, I don't think Deneb will be a loser, but it won't be Bulldozer, so I don't see any problems considering a budget 8750 until Bulldozer arrives in two years time. I am disappointed in not seeing at least 3.0 stock, but it could be due to SOI.
 
AMD is only shaky in regards to the Phenom. It's an average processor. AMD chipsets are great. ATI GPU's are quite good and if we had to use an IGP, we don't have to worry that it can't do the job as far as video playback is concerned. G35 is horrible as far as that's concerned.
 
 

 
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3299 - AMD boards with issues using the high end AMD chips - id prefer the price premium of an Intel motherboard knowing that it will work correctly, and atleast Intel learnt from the heat issues and regulation cooling, besides - the premium goes towards a better performing system, and what gamers use integrated graphics?

 
There's nothing wrong with the 780G chipset. Some motherboard manufacturer's chose not to provide support for the 125 watt 9750 and 9850 on their 780G boards.  
 
Does a Q6600 work in every Intel motherboard? Does a Wolfie or a Penryn? Whenever I check Newegg, whether Intel or AMD, I see boards listed by CPU supported. Then, when I buy a motherboard and CPU, I check the manufacturer's CPU support list.
 
Sometimes it's lack of a bios that means a motherboard doesn't support a particular CPU. Other times, it's voltage issues. The 780G is getting a bad rap here because it's an HTPC, SOHO and light gaming IGP not designed for the higher wattage quad cores.
 
They do support the watts and voltage of the 95 watt quad and triple cores. Quite good budget boards.  
 

 
Is every PC built for gamers, or for gaming? We have one gaming PC with a 3870x2, one mainstream  PC with a 3850, a kid's PC with the 780G integrated graphics and an HTPC with an X200 IGP (eventually will be replaced with another 780G or higher).
 
I would not trust Intel integrated graphics on our HTPC, or for our kid's light gaming (games like Fate, which is E 10+) and school work. In every generation since IGP arrived, Intel's had lousy graphics. When a discrete GPU is not needed, at least I want to know the IGP supports H.264 and can handle everything we throw at it video wise.
 
I'd consider a mainstream Intel CPU if ATI still made Intel chipsets. I wasn't upset and didn't blame ATI when the X200 board with a P4 630 couldn't support a C2D upgrade, but when I built new systems to replace that and the old i865 Northwood, I went AMD because the X2's were inexpensive and the 690 chipsets were the true phenomenally good products from AMD.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Look at the bright side of things.The Deneb won't be revolutionary but AMD's upcoming Deneb's will have more cache similar to what Intel's Core 2 Duos and Quads have (hopefully there will be much greater improved performance than the current Phenoms with this),they have changed the process so the chips will use less power and they will run a little faster.They might even overclock much better than the current K10 Phenoms.
No one here (I think) has seen benchmarks of the upcoming Deneb compared to Intel's higher end current Quads or for that matter the upcoming Nehalem.
So we will just have to wait and see.
 
From what I read AMD's Istanbul was supposed to be increased to a 12 core beast to compete with a future Intel 8 core processor.
 

A 5% tweak, a higher overall clock and yes, hopefully a better OC would be nice to see

Hey yipsl, why does every thread involving you somehow always gets sidetracked into ANOTHER discussion about your upgrade plans? Yes dude, we know you love AMD/ATI and won't comtemplate evil Intel, but please, if you make a thread about Deneb, at least stick to the topic!
 
My thoughts on this:
I'm surprised AMD isn't going to push the TDP envelope, 2.8GHz at 95W means 3GHz+ at 125W should be possible. Unless something else is holding the clockspeeds back, I don't see why AMD isn't going all out. I mean, they can hardly claim they are going the 'energy efficient' route since 95W is hardly 'green' by any stretch, why not just release a faster 125W and not get ridiculed as much by the press and reviewers when it inevitably gets compared to 3GHz+ Nehalems?

Will there be enough for them to bin? Thatd be my question as to why they wouldnt do it

 
Well I'd certainly hope so, since this is basically all AMD will have to compete against Nehalem for the next 1.5 - 2 years until Bulldozer hits.
 
It appears AMD is just conceding the higher end CPU market for now, and is shifting the focus towards the mainstream level, as well as trying to sell the 'platform' instead of just the CPU. In their current financial state, it probably makes the most sense. Trying to stay on the bleeding edge is costly, they simply don't have the resources to battle Intel on all fronts and are prioritising in markets that can generate the most revenue.

 
Not every, but perhaps too many. Sorry about that. This thread is sort of my disappointment that Deneb won't be 3.0 or 3.2, and won't be 65 watts. 95 watts at 45nm? Is this an SOI issue?
 
Frankly, I wasn't going to upgrade until Deneb. When people ask upgrade advice I said 'wait for Deneb or get an 8750' (which actually outshines the 9850BE for overclocking).  
 
The comments on the motherboard was because Apache_lives seems to think, like too many people here, that every PC needs to be a gaming rig. Maybe if there's only one in the household and gamers dwell there, but my experience shows that there are reasons to go IGP, when the IGP is stellar.
 
Intel's held gaming back with their IGP's. If developers only had to code for ATI and Nvidia IGP's at the low end, then we'd at least see more PC gaming over consoles. When Intel IGP's are the low end, there is no hope for improvement.
 
Plus, Intel's really lousy at H.264 decoding. Maybe G45 will change that, but I won't hold my breath.
 

 
3.0 seems to be the sweet spot that will please enthusiasts and the mainstream OEM's. They're not getting it at stock. Whether they will overclock as well as the 8750's and some 9850BE's remains to be seen, but not everyone overclocks. I don't.
 
If they do overclock, then I don't expect much beyond 3.2 out of 45nm with SOI. I guess they aren't increasing the pipelines and pushing the thermals Prescott style as rumored.  
 
If AMD wants to go past the OEM market and loyal fan base, they'll need a better CPU and that won't happen for a couple of years. At least ATI makes good chipsets and both IGP and discrete GPU's.

I think AMD would be best served if they named their next product, quiet surprise

 
Wait what? Since when do you plan to use a IGP for your gaming rig? I understand your loyalty but dude Intels chipsets (yes even the IGPs) are the best I have ever used. They pack all the same features and allow easier and better OC's and are more stable than nVidias. nVidias are only good for SLI really.
 
Now for a HTPC I understand but who would use a IGP over a low-mid range GPU, like a HD2600 or 8600, especially since it will help with the encoding and such? And they wont cost much more.
 
Intels mobos are not that bad in price. The top teir Intel mobo is the same price roughly as a equivalently equiped AMD AM2+ mobo. But the mest is normally the one step down such as the P35 was over the X38.
 
But if you use the IGP just for "in case of" it wouldn't matter which one you get since you will be getting a new GPU withing a week or two.
 
As for the OP, I think it is SOI. I was thinking it seemed harder to do but we will see how well they OC compared to the Phenoms. If they are crap in OC that could be SOI.
 
Oh and I like having no pins on the CPU. Less chance for them to get bent. Plue the BGA(ball grid array) gives more of a contact surface for the CPU.

They game better than you think. Why buy a 2600 when you dont have to?

That depends entirely on your expectations. Personally, I think all IGPs suck for gaming (some worse than others *cough* Intel *cough). They are useful for many other things, but a 6600GT (a mid range GPU from 2004) still beats the crap out of a 780G, which I think puts things into some perspective about the 'uber' gaming performance of that platform. If you don't mind playing older games, its fine, but it struggles to run newer games at playable framerates.
 

To get playable framerates on newer games?  I think thats a pretty good reason.
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 85-11.html
 
As I said earlier, its sufficient for older games though:
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 85-10.html