AMD Kuma Phenom 6500 BE soon to be released?

http://en.expreview.com/2008/09/08 [...] 0-be-pics/

Given that it's a dual-core, this could probably one serious overclocking chip . Still I doubt it'll top a E8600 since those can OC up to 4.6ghz and beyond.

Still I hope this one's a winner...

I'll wait for the benchmarks before making any speculations on performance.

Bottom Line Telecommunications listed that there will be 500 arriving on 12th, but there are already 525 pre-orders. We'll see when it hits on Newegg.

+1

Phenom x2 GE6600@2.3Ghz is more or less 3Ghz athlon x2...wins some...loses some

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle [...] 425&pgno=1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid [...] 00/?page=1

EDIT:fixed data

If that's a baby clocked at 2.3, guess what one of those clocked at 2.5 or even higher will? and as it's a BE, what will the OC be.

Let's wait and see what will happen in the next few days, the 12th you say, a few more days

If somehow this chip can get 2.8MHz by adjusting multi on pre-SB750 boards, then it should be cool with the price of $109. I would have gotten this one to play had I not bought 9850 already.

And, Crysis doesn't seem to utilize more than two cores.

How do you know, 2 cores are disabled? Maybe these are native dual cores. That's not impossible.

Thats my main issue with it - why is it clocked so low? AMD could have easily clocked it at 2.5GHz and it would outperform all K8 X2s, instead its barely matching an X2 6000+, if that, yet costs $10 more.

The fact that it competes fairly well clock for clock against older 65nm Conroe chips is moot since those are EOL and no longer being sold, Intel has long since moved on to 45nm.

The E5200 @ 2.5GHz for $90 is a much better buy IMO. Faster, cooler, cheaper, better overclocker.

Considering that nobody has actually gotten one of these new AMD dual cores yet and tested it, you have no idea how well it will overclock or how hot it will run. All of the reviews that have been posted thus far have been people disabling 2 cores on a Phenom quad core to simulate the new chip. Stop spreading FUD and wait until you actually see a real review.

You're presenting your opinion as fact with no actual data to back it up. That's why it's FUD.

Your opinion may end up being correct, but until there have been reviews of the actual processors in question to confirm or refute that it's just speculation.

You may also want to refrain from accusing anyone who disagrees with your opinions of being an AMD fanboy. I've actually owned many more Intel systems than AMD systems. I just tend to give the Intel fanboys more of a hard time these days as they are more often than not the ones acting like jerks.

Exactly what I'm saying. We don't know yet. It may very well end up being a very good overclocker due to the reduced thermal load versus the quad core K10's. On the other hand it could end up like the 6400BE that can hardly overclock at all.

I'll be interested to see how well it stacks up against Intel's fastest 65nm dual core (the E6850 I believe).

If you want to call logic 'FUD', thats your prerogative. I really don't need your appraisal to think for myself. This chip is based on the 65nm Phenom core, in all likelyhood it'll be a salvaged Phenom quad with two non working cores.

FACT: Intel's 45nm HKMG process is far more power efficient than AMD's SOI 65nm process. A Q9300 @ 2.5GHz pulls ~50W under load, a 9850BE @ 2.5GHz pulls 100W+.

FACT: The chip has a 95W TDP. Whilst I don't expect it to actually consume 95W (just as a 65W TDP Wolfdale doesn't pull anywhere close to 65W) its safe to say it will run hotter than a 2.5GHz Wolfdale C2D, which pulls ~25W under load: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] html#sect0

Thats a good opinion too, but it could also be construed just as Ive stated. Correcting my opinion with your opinion proves nothing. Lighten up sheeesh. Its possible is all Im saying, as you are by saying what youve said. Otherwise, Id like a link. But I really dont want one unless youve one handy. Dont be so serious

really???? it sounds like ur stating a fact when no1s yet knows what it is......

indeed it is stimulated. but y would that not be able to reflect the real performance. if it IS a native dual core then can it be possible for performance to decrease? i think performance should increase if it changes at all.

I suppose a better descriptor for your "logic" that has no factual basis to back it up would be "ignorance".

Honestly, do you even read the articles you link to as support for your arguments? That article from X-bit states that a 125W AMD 6000+ runs only 7 deg C hotter than a 65W E8500 at load and is actually 5 deg C cooler at idle. A 95W AMD 6500 should be a fair bit cooler than the 125W 6000+ so it may very well end up running cooler than the 45nm Wolfdales.

CPU power consumption is not even worth comparing as the AMD processors will be consuming extra power for the IMC that the Intel processors won't. You would have to look at total system draw and even that won't give a fair representation due to the differences in the motherboards.

As for overclocking, we have no idea how well the AMD 6500 will overclock yet as nobody actually has one to test. It could end up being a good overclocker or not. We don't know yet, which is why I've been saying that everyone should wait for the real benchmarks.