Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 9950 BE goes 125W

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Power
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 27, 2008 12:12:03 AM

Yes, our friends at AMD are still concentrating on lowering power. I would assume that they are perhaps following what I thought would be the "Phenom course." We all know that Opteron K10 is rated lower than Phenom K10 so it stands to reason that as CTI kicked in they would be able to lower power for Phenom. Chris et al over at AMDZone are reporting that AMD has even gotten a 6500 X2 which would be at least 3.3GHz in a BE SKU.

I still feel that they need to push Griffin to its limits but having 9950 at 125W means that they are inching up to 3GHz at reasonable power. ANd since people are measuring 9950 revs at less than 140W AMD may get a 3GHz or 2.8GHz Phenom out at even 65nm this year (they have to make sure that enthusiasts don't destroy their chips). I'm sure the tough times aren't helping much as of course they need test benches to produce CTI-improved chips before going mass.

I am disappointed though in the uptake of Puma but it may have to do with the fact that AMD hasn't released the ZM88 yet. That is where they should be aiming. 2.5GHz mobile is where it's at. But I can see the the justification in that desktops aren't dead yet and will still represent the high end because GPUs still need mid towers with good cooling at the extreme high end.

I guess they may be able to use the improvements for Deneb and may have something to do with why AMD is waiting to show 45nm desktops. But I can say that Agena didn't have ANY leaks about perf or OCing, so that's a good thing. It's been reported that AMD has gotten pre-packaging stage down to under 2 months so a Q4 Deneb at 2.86GHz\95W is really possible with this announcement.

I just hope they don't drop the ball with mobile again as I'm sure they realize the bottom line importance of Shanghai. After all, MS' stock is crap but they still make $1B\mo in profits.

Hooray?

More about : amd 9950 125w

August 27, 2008 12:21:26 AM

It should never have been rated at 140W in the first place, according to reviews it actually consumes slightly less lower than the 9850BE, not sure what AMD was thinking there.
August 27, 2008 12:22:11 AM

Too little, too late.

Phenom has already lost the war. AMD will have to rely on Deneb to secure a foothold against Intel.
Related resources
August 27, 2008 2:41:23 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Too little, too late.

Phenom has already lost the war. AMD will have to rely on Deneb to secure a foothold against Intel.



I used to hate the comparison of the CPU market to a war. It's not a war. It's just business. And AMD will probably not change the brand just yet. I would have called an MCM from AMD a failure. Native quad core is harder as Intel said. If you can say that ALL applications are compiled to recognize the L1 dual loads(for INT), then it could also be considered a failure. We all know by now that Intel has better optimizations because they have the majority. It's perhaps why SSE5 is a gamble as people expect SW to be optimized for Intel maybe so they can say, ha ha.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2008 3:00:33 AM

AMD has not lost the war yet.The war would be lost if AMD went out of business or stopped producing CPU's and it would be bad for consumers in my opinion.I remember Tom's Hardware showing a comparison of the older AMD X4 9850 BE at 2.5 Ghz to the upcoming mid range Core i7 at 2.93 Ghz.
The 2.93 Ghz Core i7 performed better by about 33% and this was substantial.However the review left out the mainstream $300 2.66 Ghz Core i7 and the high end 3.2 Ghz Core i7.

If AMD can put out a Phenom X4 at stock speeds of 3.0 Ghz it would be a 20% improvement over the 9850 BE which could very well have similar performance to the 2.66 Ghz Core i7 at stock speeds.

A 2.86 Ghz Deneb would also probably have similar performance to a 2.66 Ghz Core i7.


August 27, 2008 4:22:37 AM

jj463rd said:
AMD has not lost the war yet.The war would be lost if AMD went out of business or stopped producing CPU's and it would be bad for consumers in my opinion.I remember Tom's Hardware showing a comparison of the older AMD X4 9850 BE at 2.5 Ghz to the upcoming mid range Core i7 at 2.93 Ghz.
The 2.93 Ghz Core i7 performed better by about 33% and this was substantial.However the review left out the mainstream $300 2.66 Ghz Core i7 and the high end 3.2 Ghz Core i7.

If AMD can put out a Phenom X4 at stock speeds of 3.0 Ghz it would be a 20% improvement over the 9850 BE which could very well have similar performance to the 2.66 Ghz Core i7 at stock speeds.

A 2.86 Ghz Deneb would also probably have similar performance to a 2.66 Ghz Core i7.


Talk about wishful thinking!

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15015&page=1

I don't see any Phenom (or Deneb for that matter) getting close to Nehalem. Especially with 'Turbo Mode' enabled.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 27, 2008 4:45:07 AM

BaronMatrix said:
I used to hate the comparison of the CPU market to a war. It's not a war. It's just business. And AMD will probably not change the brand just yet. I would have called an MCM from AMD a failure. Native quad core is harder as Intel said. If you can say that ALL applications are compiled to recognize the L1 dual loads(for INT), then it could also be considered a failure. We all know by now that Intel has better optimizations because they have the majority. It's perhaps why SSE5 is a gamble as people expect SW to be optimized for Intel maybe so they can say, ha ha.


Naitive is truly harder. But its also a risky move that AMD did @ 65nm. Intel never said Naitive @ 65nm was impossible rather not as profitable. Now AMD may think "lets prove Intel wrong" and so forth but if they did do a MCM with updated K8s they could have possibly held of on Naitive for 45nm and experienced better results and better sales and profits.

SSE5 is interesting because I checked Intels roadmap for instructions and they only plan on adding up to SSE4.2 with Nehalem and thats it. After that they ahve something with a new name.

jj463rd said:
AMD has not lost the war yet.The war would be lost if AMD went out of business or stopped producing CPU's and it would be bad for consumers in my opinion.I remember Tom's Hardware showing a comparison of the older AMD X4 9850 BE at 2.5 Ghz to the upcoming mid range Core i7 at 2.93 Ghz.
The 2.93 Ghz Core i7 performed better by about 33% and this was substantial.However the review left out the mainstream $300 2.66 Ghz Core i7 and the high end 3.2 Ghz Core i7.

If AMD can put out a Phenom X4 at stock speeds of 3.0 Ghz it would be a 20% improvement over the 9850 BE which could very well have similar performance to the 2.66 Ghz Core i7 at stock speeds.

A 2.86 Ghz Deneb would also probably have similar performance to a 2.66 Ghz Core i7.


Problem is that thats not good IPC if it is. And they have lost this round as Deneb is supposed to come out next meaning that Barcy based Phenoms (Agena) will more than likely be phased out and everything will go towards getting Deneb ramped up much like Penryn is slowly taking over Conroe for Intel.

Deneb will be a good chip it seems but I don't think its going to compete multithreaded wise against Nehalem. Maybe the next arch from AMD, K11?, will be able to. But how far away is that?
August 27, 2008 4:45:41 AM

epsilon84 said:
Talk about wishful thinking!

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15015&page=1

I don't see any Phenom (or Deneb for that matter) getting close to Nehalem. Especially with 'Turbo Mode' enabled.


Personally, I foresee "turbo mode" causing a lot of headaches that could potentially outweigh the feature's benefits. For one thing, shutting down cores and then overclocking the remaining cores is going to introduce a much more pronounced temperature gradient across the processor that would normally be seen. This will cause stress risers due to differing rates of thermal expansion on the physical chip and could potentially cause durability issues. There will also be increased thermal cycling due to cores switching on an off.

I don't agree with you on your assessment of Phenom either. I doubt very much that the Deneb Phenoms will be able to match Nehalem clock for clock, but I suspect that a 3 GHz Deneb will have comparable performance to the 2.66 GHz Nehalem for likely less money.
August 27, 2008 4:47:12 AM

epsilon84 said:
Talk about wishful thinking!

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15015&page=1

I don't see any Phenom (or Deneb for that matter) getting close to Nehalem. Especially with 'Turbo Mode' enabled.


the setup they used though. the nehalem system had DDR3 while the phenom was still running DDR2. does DDR3 make a differents? i don't know but it would be interesting to see how a deneb equiped with DDR3 would measure up. i would also like to see the 2.6Ghz nehalem on that review.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 27, 2008 4:54:20 AM

^The memory wont make much of a difference in most desktop apps. In some memory intensive programs yes. But the memory bandwidth that Nehalem is putting out would be the same on a 2.66GHz Nehalem CPU because they all will use the same 192bit DDR3 memory controller.

But alas we have yet to see a sample for Deneb sent out. I just hope to jebus they don't do in house crap like they did with Phenom. Thats just a huge mistake.
August 27, 2008 4:55:35 AM

godmode said:
the setup they used though. the nehalem system had DDR3 while the phenom was still running DDR2. does DDR3 make a differents? i don't know but it would be interesting to see how a deneb equiped with DDR3 would measure up. i would also like to see the 2.6Ghz nehalem on that review.


I doubt that the memory speed would make much of a difference. I agree that it would have been nice to see the 2.66 GHz Nehalem here. Honestly I don't really see the reason why the 9950 was even included in the review as it should pretty much go without saying that $1000 processors are going to be much faster than $250 ones.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 27, 2008 5:04:35 AM

^That *should* be the $530 dollar one not the $1000 dollar one.

It was there for comparison purposes really if anything.

But why people don't like to see that I have no idea. Its like "Hey here is what Phenom can do and here is what C2Q or Core i7 can do make your choice". But instead its seen as useless.
August 27, 2008 5:14:55 AM

jimmysmitty said:

But why people don't like to see that I have no idea. Its like "Hey here is what Phenom can do and here is what C2Q or Core i7 can do make your choice". But instead its seen as useless.


Maybe we should put a Celeron on there too then just to show how much better Nehalem is. Never mind that the Celeron will cost 1/5th as much and that no potential celeron customer would even be thinking about Nehalem. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to compare processors that in entirely different market segments. We know that the much more expensive processor is going to be significantly faster. That's why it's more expensive.
August 27, 2008 5:54:34 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Personally, I foresee "turbo mode" causing a lot of headaches that could potentially outweigh the feature's benefits. For one thing, shutting down cores and then overclocking the remaining cores is going to introduce a much more pronounced temperature gradient across the processor that would normally be seen. This will cause stress risers due to differing rates of thermal expansion on the physical chip and could potentially cause durability issues. There will also be increased thermal cycling due to cores switching on an off.

I don't agree with you on your assessment of Phenom either. I doubt very much that the Deneb Phenoms will be able to match Nehalem clock for clock, but I suspect that a 3 GHz Deneb will have comparable performance to the 2.66 GHz Nehalem for likely less money.


I'm sure Intel has thoroughly tested Turbo Mode before deciding it was ready for prime time. I'm not that worried about temperature loading across cores and such, since the 'overclocking' is only mild, one or two speed bins. Then again, I'm not an expert, so what would I know? Maybe Intel bit off more than they can chew and will face massive recalls, stranger things have happened, though I still find it highly unlikely. ;) 

As for your 2nd point, the top Deneb bin is 2.8GHz, not 3GHz - well thats whats been rumoured anyway, we can't be sure until it actually launches. Add ~15% to the 9950BE score (accounting for the 5 - 10% IPC improvements from Deneb), subtract ~10% from the Nehalem 2.93GHz score, and you're still looking at a ~25% deficit between a 2.66GHz Nehalem and a 2.8GHz Deneb, at least in multithreaded apps. Deneb should be more competitive in single threaded performance, but thats becoming less important nowadays since basically all CPU intensive apps (encoding, rendering, compiling, DBs etc) are multithreaded.
August 27, 2008 5:57:59 AM

epsilon84 said:
It should never have been rated at 140W in the first place, according to reviews it actually consumes slightly less lower than the 9850BE, not sure what AMD was thinking there.


Aren't they coming out with a 95 watt 9850BE? I wonder why they bother, if Deneb is so close. Ideally, what I want to see is a 45nm Phenom at 65 watt that's at least 2.4 gigahertz.

I can't decide whether to get an 8750 or 9650 on Sept. 15. I've been waiting all summer to put something on the Gigabyte 780G board I bought last spring. Do you think Kingston DDR2 800 would slow it down all that much?

It will go into an HTPC once I can get my hands on a Deneb with the latest DDR3 board, so it only need be in my box for 4-6 months.

Any advice?

As for Deneb vs. Nehalem. I'm sure a 2.8 Deneb will do well against a 2.66 Nehalem, while beating the older Intel quads. I'm quite sure that Nehalem will be more overclockable, so the benchmark site competition will "really" be Nehalem 3.2 overclocked to 4 vs. Deneb overclocked from 2.8 to 3.2.

I'm sticking with AMD next round too. I don't need to have the best, just the best bang for my buck and I'm sure that Deneb boards will be cheaper, Denebs will be cheaper and a total AMD/ATI platform will continue to work for me through 2012 or so at the least (i.e. the next 3 upgrades: X2 to B3, B3 to Deneb and Deneb to future architecture).





August 27, 2008 6:02:55 AM

if amd can not lower power they can not increase clock speed

no clock speed increase no cpu sales

logical to decrease power usage to add more cores or increase clock speed


dude! amd is so yesterday - its funny pumo or puma who cares, they need to get competive. the way things are changing so fast i am not sure amd will be amd in 3 years.
August 27, 2008 6:05:44 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Maybe we should put a Celeron on there too then just to show how much better Nehalem is. Never mind that the Celeron will cost 1/5th as much and that no potential celeron customer would even be thinking about Nehalem. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to compare processors that in entirely different market segments. We know that the much more expensive processor is going to be significantly faster. That's why it's more expensive.


Its there as a reference point. The 9950BE is the fastest AMD CPU currently available, pricing is irrelevant in this case.

You see high end GPUs being compared to mainstream GPUs all the time, and I don't see any outcry of complaints.
August 27, 2008 6:16:37 AM

yipsl said:
Aren't they coming out with a 95 watt 9850BE? I wonder why they bother, if Deneb is so close. Ideally, what I want to see is a 45nm Phenom at 65 watt that's at least 2.4 gigahertz.


Thats the first I've heard of it. I agree, it doesn't seem worth pursuing with Deneb around the corner.

Quote:
As for Deneb vs. Nehalem. I'm sure a 2.8 Deneb will do well against a 2.66 Nehalem, while beating the older Intel quads. I'm quite sure that Nehalem will be more overclockable, so the benchmark site competition will "really" be Nehalem 3.2 overclocked to 4 vs. Deneb overclocked from 2.8 to 3.2.


As always, you assume too much, assess too little ;)  (no offence intended). Previews point to a ~7% IPC gain for Deneb, which would put it roughly equal to Kentsfield per clock, and slightly short of Yorkfield. Nehalem overclocking is still no guarantee at this point, especially with the non EE versions with locked multis. We still don't know what effects overclocking the QPI bus may have. Intel has labeled it 'dangerous', but I'm sure they'll label FSB overclocking 'dangerous' as well... so who knows.
August 27, 2008 7:06:16 AM

epsilon84 said:
Thats the first I've heard of it. I agree, it doesn't seem worth pursuing with Deneb around the corner.


Maybe it was the Inquirer, or Fudzilla. I remember hearing about it last May. Haven't heard anything since. I'd have thought AMD would stop selling B2's but they're still in the market, as are what looks to be B2 "business" versions at Newegg. It sounded to me like AMD plans on keeping 65nm Phenom around to fill in the gaps if Deneb doesn't have good yields.

At any rate, I heard the 95 watt 9850BE talk back when everyone was dissing the thermals and 780G boards were dying because people tried to use 9850's without checking the CPU support lists for their boards.

epsilon84 said:

As always, you assume too much, assess too little ;)  (no offence intended). Previews point to a ~7% IPC gain for Deneb, which would put it roughly equal to Kentsfield per clock, and slightly short of Yorkfield.


I always assume too much? Well, I am an AMD fan, but that's less because I think they're going to "win" vs. Intel (don't see it as a win-lose situation), than because they fit into my price range.

I like CPU's with pins and dislike motherboards with pins (half joking there), and I just plain like the underdog. AMD does have great chipsets and graphics. Intel motherboards just seem overpriced (then there's Nvidia, who's boards are really overpriced for what you get).

When AMD stops bleeding cash by getting ATI paid for, then they'll have money for more research, but they'll still be number 2 with a relatively small market share. They can still turn a profit. Maybe then I'll buy some stock.

Too bad Deneb should just beat the Q6600 and fall short of Yorkfield. If it's 13% short at stock, it will be deja vu all over again. Still, Nehalem is the one to beat in 2009.

The 4 gigahertz on air for Nehalem was at Tom's (and other places) back at the end of July:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-nehalem-cpu-bloo...

At any rate, we will see. I'm not a fan of Intel, but I'll admit when they do a good job and it looks like Nehalem is a winner. Deneb will end up in OEM PC's at big box stores and in budget gaming and graphics fanboy systems like mine.

Let's hope AMD's next architecture is a real winner.

Think I'll just get the 9650. Buying a triple core, no matter how easily overclockable sounds like buying a three legged retriever (more of a charity case than a duck hunting investment LOL).
August 27, 2008 7:30:05 AM

amd needs to beat a 3.2ghz q6600 in my book

any idiot can run a q6600 at 3ghz almost and can with a stock cooler!

toss on a good cooler and 3.3-3.4ghz is do able with low end intel to nvdia

if intel sells these for $180 - what is left for amd?

yeppers the $100 and less market! but intel has some nice $100 chips too!
August 27, 2008 7:31:06 AM

id never touch a current phenom quad core, and a tri core?!? not with a 100 foot pole, especially the considering the cost of q6600. i think amd should get out of the quad core market for a while, id love to see a 45nm Phenom x2 BE @ 3 ghz.
August 27, 2008 7:34:52 AM

the new mobo that allows overclocking in 3.2ghz area with the lates quad is very interesting.

if amd could get the quad crossfire drivers going - 4 water cooled 4850's in spyder set up with 3.5ghz would be cool!

i came clost to getting one a month ago! but with my q9650 running 4.4ghz on water i have to many toys!
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2008 9:35:28 AM

Jeez ... BM is on a roll with this one.

I want a 10050 BE Thanks ... nothing less

Actually my Q6600 doesn't run multiple apps very smoothly either ... there might be something to that issue you know.

It seems to "stutter" a bit.

:) 

August 27, 2008 9:59:14 AM

thepinkpanther said:
id never touch a current phenom quad core, and a tri core?!? not with a 100 foot pole, especially the considering the cost of q6600. i think amd should get out of the quad core market for a while, id love to see a 45nm Phenom x2 BE @ 3 ghz.


Well, I have a Gigabyte 780G motherboard already. No interest in buying a new motherboard before AM3 vs. the next Intel. The only reason I was interested in the 8750 is that it's supposedly easily overclockable to 2.8 without voltage changes.

I don't usually overclock, but virtually everyone here recommends it. Whatever I buy in September will go into an HTPC by spring when I go Deneb. Either will work well in that case.

Why would anyone build an Intel system right now with all the changes right around the corner? I can see not buying AMD for those who want the absolute best, but I can't see building a soon to be outdated Intel system, whether or not it's quad core.
August 27, 2008 2:49:41 PM

Wow, what a dust up. Why is it bad for AMD to fully use CTI to improve transistors? Any improvements made should trickle down to Deneb as it's mainly a shrink of the same arch with more L3.

That means if prior to this announcement a 2.6GHz Deneb was at 125W, it will nwo drop to 95W more than likely, especially if they get good Opteron yields. I figured that power would drop before 45nm.

There was a post on xtremesystems that stated that the 4GHz OC was achieved with a C2 Deneb.

I expect the new Stars Griffin to show up by the end of the year since they need it for Fusion. Kuma should be Shrike's CPU albeit undervolted. If those are accurate TDP numbers, there will definitely be a 3GHz mobile chip at 45nm.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2008 2:56:07 PM

I can't see Deneb beating a Kenty ... frankly the hypothetical numbers just don't add up ... let alone a Yorky.

There are just too many architectural changes needed to increase the IPC ... bolting on cache can't do it alone and a twiddle here and there.

*low battery indicator lights up*

But I do hope it is a great performer ... I do ... need some sleep ...

Keep us posted though !!

The "Any idiot" comment is a good point ... why would you go past overclocking a Kenty ... cheap and gutsy. Too easy. AMD has to come up with a chip capable of beating a 3.2Ghz Kenty for $20 less.

Then they are back in the game at least from an overclockers recommendation ... would you agree??




a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 27, 2008 3:11:55 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Maybe we should put a Celeron on there too then just to show how much better Nehalem is. Never mind that the Celeron will cost 1/5th as much and that no potential celeron customer would even be thinking about Nehalem. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to compare processors that in entirely different market segments. We know that the much more expensive processor is going to be significantly faster. That's why it's more expensive.


Well elts see. The best quad I can get from AMD is the 9950BE. From Intel its the Q6600 (They had the QX6800 and QX9770 for reference) and soon a Core i7 @ 2.66GHz but most sites are getting the higher end one @ 2.93GHz. So instead of a place showing me what will possibly be the best option for me I should just rely on different benchmarks per CPU company? Meh I don't mind it the way it is. It just shows what AMD has to go up against next.

August 27, 2008 3:40:26 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Maybe we should put a Celeron on there too then just to show how much better Nehalem is. Never mind that the Celeron will cost 1/5th as much and that no potential celeron customer would even be thinking about Nehalem. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to compare processors that in entirely different market segments. We know that the much more expensive processor is going to be significantly faster. That's why it's more expensive.


Well, actually, it does make sense to compare Core i7 to Phenom, since both are the latest tech that both companies have to offer. Why would that be unreasonable? Sure, you can talk about what markets they're aimed at, but from a tech standpoint it's perfectly fine to compare what is the maximum performance that both companies are able to offer with their latest archs.

It's not as if you were comparing Core i7 to K8 (what you could, from a price/performance standpoint).

(PS: BTW, some Phenoms are more expensive than a Q6600 and they usually don't perform better)
September 2, 2008 2:17:26 AM

What's the box number for the new phenoms?
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2008 5:12:03 PM

dattimr said:
Well, actually, it does make sense to compare Core i7 to Phenom, since both are the latest tech that both companies have to offer. Why would that be unreasonable? Sure, you can talk about what markets they're aimed at, but from a tech standpoint it's perfectly fine to compare what is the maximum performance that both companies are able to offer with their latest archs.

It's not as if you were comparing Core i7 to K8 (what you could, from a price/performance standpoint).

(PS: BTW, some Phenoms are more expensive than a Q6600 and they usually don't perform better)


i completely agree with you. but u have to keep in mind that phenom can handle 4 thread while core i7 can do 8....phenom would be handicapped to begin with.
September 2, 2008 5:31:07 PM

I'm disappointed. It's great to see lower power usage, but people buying the top-of-the-line stuff don't care about power, they care about raw performance.

I would have loved to see, in addition to the 2.6 ghz 9950 BE 125 watt, a 2.8ghz part at whatever wattage they need to do it at.
a c 124 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 5, 2008 3:15:48 PM

Anybody snagged one of the combo Phenom deals on the Egg? - I'd love to see some benchies with Premiere ....

Phenom 9950BE + Biostar 790gx = $239
Phenom 9950BE + Foxconn 790gx = $279

Winter's coming and if the pols don't do anything about fuel I might need an extra heat source this winter - lol
!