Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Kuma Phenom 6500 BE soon to be released?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Overclocking
  • AMD
  • Dual Core
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 8, 2008 3:27:40 PM

http://en.expreview.com/2008/09/08/amd-kuma-phenom-x2-6...

Given that it's a dual-core, this could probably one serious overclocking chip :D . 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...

More about : amd kuma phenom 6500 released

a b à CPUs
September 8, 2008 4:09:47 PM

2.3GHz should as fast as faster than 3.2Ghz athlon......

now, with that it should be same as c2d clock for clock, atleast compared to e6xxx series.
September 8, 2008 4:33:41 PM

I'll wait for the benchmarks before making any speculations on performance.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 8, 2008 5:13:37 PM

I hope to see the benchmark proving this right. 3mb l3 does help, but if it's going to make it behave like a 3.2, let's see.
September 8, 2008 5:37:44 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2008 5:39:22 PM

I wonder if these chips are going to actual dual cores or a phenom with 2 cores disabled. It dont make sense to me that the dual core version is going to have a lower clock than the quad. Makes me think that these chips will be just be chips that where not good enough to be a x4, then failed to make the cut to be a x3.
September 8, 2008 5:53:00 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I'll wait for the benchmarks before making any speculations on performance.


+1
September 8, 2008 5:57:02 PM

ASS-U-ME

It's fun.
September 8, 2008 7:52:01 PM

if those benchmarks are accurate, then that's not all that bad. it's not at the top of the benchmarks, but it's only clocked at 2.3Ghz and is almost equal to core 2's clocked 200-300Mhz faster.
September 8, 2008 8:11:38 PM

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
September 8, 2008 8:29:19 PM

From what I've been reading those benchmarks look accurate. The problem is c2d has been hailed the best thing sliced bread, so benchmarks like these have been going un-noticed
September 8, 2008 8:42:45 PM

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.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 9, 2008 12:42:42 AM

Nik_I said:
if those benchmarks are accurate, then that's not all that bad. it's not at the top of the benchmarks, but it's only clocked at 2.3Ghz and is almost equal to core 2's clocked 200-300Mhz faster.



Hard to be accurate when its just a Phenom X4 with 2 cores disabled.

So based on that there are tw ways this could go.

1. Its slower than whats listed because I have heard that the NB is at a lower speed than that of a Phenom X4

or

2. it is faster than that simulation.

But thats the thing of simulations. You can run them 100000000 times and it could always end up different than what you got.
September 9, 2008 12:06:59 PM

How do you know, 2 cores are disabled? Maybe these are native dual cores. That's not impossible.
September 9, 2008 10:02:00 PM

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


Nobody knows for sure whether these will be native duals or not yet, but if you took the time to actually read the articles that were linked here you will see that they clearly state that they simulated the performance by disabling two cores on a Phenom X4. That is why Jimmysmitty was saying that it's hard to be sure how accurate the benchmarks are.

From the pcgameshardware article:
Quote:
We simulated the Phenoms X2 GE-6600 (2.3 GHz), GE-6500 (2.1 GHz) and GE-6400 (1.9 GHz) by deactivating two cores of a Phenom X4 via MS Config.
September 10, 2008 1:55:43 AM

Nik_I said:
if those benchmarks are accurate, then that's not all that bad. it's not at the top of the benchmarks, but it's only clocked at 2.3Ghz and is almost equal to core 2's clocked 200-300Mhz faster.


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.
September 10, 2008 2:49:31 AM

What isnt moot is when AMD inevitably comes out with their 45nm of this chip. Since therell be no more Intel renditions, just minor tweaks coming from Intel, unless its a quad, this is the one to watch for. Time will tell
September 10, 2008 2:56:54 AM

epsilon84 said:

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.
September 10, 2008 3:48:32 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
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.


Go to AMDZone if you can't handle the truth. Its not a stretch to figure that a 65nm Phenom X2 will run slower, hotter, and overclock less than a 45nm C2D: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19...

Unless this chip miraculously pulls 25W under load, overclocks to 4GHz on air and costs under $90, I fail to see how what I stated can be claimed as 'FUD'.
September 10, 2008 4:17:18 AM

epsilon84 said:
I fail to see how what I stated can be claimed as 'FUD'.


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.
September 10, 2008 4:19:50 AM

Im somewhat in the middle on this. Yes its 65nm, but does anyone know how itll oc? No. Could this end up being a total miracle? No. To say one way or another is wrong from the git go.
September 10, 2008 4:22:32 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Im somewhat in the middle on this. Yes its 65nm, but does anyone know how itll oc? No. Could this end up being a total miracle? No. To say one way or another is wrong from the git go.


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.
September 10, 2008 4:24:16 AM

My opinion is that this chip will be AMDs fastest dual core, thus the 6500 naming. How fast? Who knows?
September 10, 2008 4:32:53 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
My opinion is that this chip will be AMDs fastest dual core, thus the 6500 naming. How fast? Who knows?


I'll be interested to see how well it stacks up against Intel's fastest 65nm dual core (the E6850 I believe).
September 10, 2008 5:02:56 AM

Yea, competiton again? Thatll be nice to see
September 10, 2008 5:17:30 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
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.


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/cpu/display/intel-wolf...

September 10, 2008 5:22:58 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
My opinion is that this chip will be AMDs fastest dual core, thus the 6500 naming. How fast? Who knows?


6500 is the model number, AFAIK its not a '6500+' PR rating, the same way a Phenom 9500 is not a '9500+' processor.

September 10, 2008 5:46:54 AM

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
September 10, 2008 5:54:09 AM

epsilon84 said:
6500 is the model number, AFAIK its not a '6500+' PR rating, the same way a Phenom 9500 is not a '9500+' processor.


This PR thing always baffled me too. Think the top end number for the Athlon 64 was 4000+ wasn't it? But then the X2's came out at 3800+. But at least with most of the X2's the PR number is equal to twice the core clock. 6000+ for the X2 with 3ghz cores, 6400+ for the 3.2ghz cores. Then you get the ones that are the same number, but different core speed.

If it's a native dual core, it'll probably pull a lot less power than the TDP is rated. My 65w athlon X2 4200+ only pulled about 45w under prime95 stress tests. Also that is what Sisoft Sandra displayed as it's power usage. For some reason with the my Phenom's Sandra XII hasn't been able to get the power numbers. Don't know if it's the chip in this case or the board.

But, I'm not gonna take any performance numbers till someone gets ahold of a real chip. Could perform better or worse.
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2008 6:25:50 AM

epsilon84 said:
This chip is based on the 65nm Phenom core, in all likelyhood it'll be a salvaged Phenom quad with two non working cores.


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


Just_An_Engineer said:
Nobody knows for sure whether these will be native duals or not yet, but if you took the time to actually read the articles that were linked here you will see that they clearly state that they simulated the performance by disabling two cores on a Phenom X4.
[/quote]

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.
September 10, 2008 7:57:08 AM

sarwar_r87 said:

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.


In terms of baseline performance it's probably a decent representation, or at least as good a representation as we can get until the actual chips emerge. I could definitely see there being a substantial difference in the thermal performance (and hence overclockability) between a quad with two cores out versus a native dual. A quad with 2 cores out will have a higher heat flux on one side of the chip and will not be cooled as efficiently by the heatsink as compared to a native dual core where the heat flux would be more balanced across the heat spreader.

Again, we're back to the issue that we don't know what the actual physical configuration is yet. This should be an interesting one to watch.


September 10, 2008 8:39:14 AM

epsilon84 said:
If you want to call logic 'FUD', thats your prerogative.


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.
!