Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ouch - The new AMD CPU's are slower than the Q6600!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 10, 2008 3:30:55 PM

According to The rumor feed the new AMD CPU's are actually slower than the good old Q6600. So how the hell can they even compare to Intel's Nehalem?

What will AMD's catch be with this new generation? Low power consumption? Low cost?

Yeesh looks like the die shrink didn't really do anything for AMD. I was going to wait for the Deneb but why bother now? I will be switching to Nehalem when it becomes available.

Thoughts?
November 10, 2008 3:45:24 PM

Why don't they ever post a picture of the internal memo in question? This has to be the 2nd or 3rd "internal memo" that claims either Deneb is awesome or sucks. Show us the memo...let us read it and see what it says. Blank out the name(s) in the memo, but let us read it. Is it that hard to post the "memo"?

Also, why in the world would AMD send an internal memo with comparisons of Deneb and Q6600? AMD would not be sending any memo comparing their CPUs with Intel's, and Intel would not either. They would usually compare their next generation with their own previous generation. Why? For the same reason if this was a real memo. If it was leaked out, it could potentially be devastating. So, why send out an internal memo out?

I call BS on this. Unless the blogger can show the memo, it's all fantasy as far as I am concerned. Blank out the name(s) involved, if necessary. Otherwise, I would wait until more "trusted" 3rd party performance results are available.
November 10, 2008 3:51:02 PM

I heard a rumor that MNDante is actually Dick Cheney. I totally saw an internal whitehouse memo about it. Sorry, can't share it - classified.
Related resources
November 10, 2008 3:53:39 PM

I don't believe in any of these rumored memos. Once we have some more benchmarks from independent sites I'll be interested.
November 10, 2008 3:58:19 PM

snarfies1 said:
I heard a rumor that MNDante is actually Dick Cheney. I totally saw an internal whitehouse memo about it. Sorry, can't share it - classified.

That is NMDante, not MNDante. (for New Mexico - Not Minnesota)
And I'm actually Steve Jobs, not Dick Cheney. I come into PC forums to steal ideas for my next iMac and MacBook line.
November 10, 2008 4:14:28 PM

Well I assume it's to hide the source since you can trace where the memo came from even if you blank out the names, etc.

Why would Microsoft mention Linux in their memo? Why would Intel mention AMD? No idea, but they do.

Check some of the other rumors on that site. Some already came true.
I also followed the guys rumors when he posted on betaleaks and rumorsource. Even if 30% of your rumor's come true, then it's all good and this guy has a much better track record than that. Plus he is not a fanboy like the Inq, so not all of his stuff is anti Nvidia and pro AMD.

Btw, how do we know that NMDante really isn't Dick Cheney?
a b à CPUs
November 10, 2008 4:18:05 PM

This is utter BS. And I'm Sarah Palin. Make sure to check me out on the tube on tuesday.
November 10, 2008 4:25:25 PM

tehlexinator said:
Well I assume it's to hide the source since you can trace where the memo came from even if you blank out the names, etc.

Why would Microsoft mention Linux in their memo? Why would Intel mention AMD? No idea, but they do.

Check some of the other rumors on that site. Some already came true.
I also followed the guys rumors when he posted on betaleaks and rumorsource. Even if 30% of your rumor's come true, then it's all good and this guy has a much better track record than that. Plus he is not a fanboy like the Inq, so not all of his stuff is anti Nvidia and pro AMD.

Btw, how do we know that NMDante really isn't Dick Cheney?


I have yet to see an Intel memo that specifically mentions AMD's product compared to Intel's products.
I have seen Intel mention AMD, but mostly repeating what is found in other sites, ie. The Register, The Inquirer, CNET, etc.

So, if Intel is sending memos about AMD's performance vs. Intel's, I have not seen one yet.

And I'm not Dick Cheney...I know how to shoot a gun, don't have heart problems, and I'm an old white guy. :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
November 10, 2008 4:44:32 PM

Well, there are questionable benches on some asian sights, but they seem to test the new phenoms at 2.3 GHZ (same speed as the 9600) and one compared that to a Q6600 (which is at 2.4GHz). Considering though that I've never heard of half the suppliers that make up their test systems I take those results with a grain of salt. The one thing that seems interesting though is that one site showed a picture of the new phenom that had fewer pins, which I'm guessing is going to be the new AM3, but it does look like it would fit in an AM2+ board, which is presumably what they tested it on.

Looks like AMD is moving up the 45nm launch to this month, so we'll see what happens. Don't jump to any conclusions until you see some reliable, or at least semi-reliable, test results. It would be nice to see some real reviews soon, but for now you just have to wait and see.
November 10, 2008 5:11:04 PM

It's slightly slower? Slower in what? Slower in games? Slower in benchmarks? slower in real life aps? Slower in Pi?

AMD isn't better than Intel in some aps, that didn't change. It will not OC as well as Q6600. But what does it say? The AMD is clocked higher to begin with? If both chips can run 3.6 ghz, one starts at 3ghz the other at 2.6 ghz, then yes, the 2.6 ghz is an overclock wonder, but don't they both get to the same in the end.

That's what AMD and Intel need to do, clock one at 1ghz. Then let people OC it to 4 ghz. The OC'ers will be happy.
November 10, 2008 5:23:55 PM

Not sure overclockers are that stupid lol
November 10, 2008 5:34:19 PM

Please believe it and pass it around. I want to buy AMD at $1 a share before Deneb hits the shelves.

Thanks.
November 10, 2008 5:55:52 PM

Malovane said:
Please believe it and pass it around. I want to buy AMD at $1 a share before Deneb hits the shelves.

Thanks.


lmao....just what i was thinking. :kaola: 
November 10, 2008 6:25:24 PM

NMDante said:


And I'm not Dick Cheney...I know how to shoot a gun, don't have heart problems, and I'm an old white guy. :kaola: 


Hmm, that sounds exactly like something Dick Cheney would say!

P.S..
Please don't shoot me!
November 10, 2008 7:09:36 PM

step back from the cage and

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
November 10, 2008 7:14:07 PM

Yes and no. I wouldn't really be surprised if the die shrink has done nearly nothing for AMD's IPC: cache size could have made a difference and I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has done some minor things like adjusting the number of entries in TLBs. So, unless AMD has been hiding something, I'm expecting the main significance of these changes to be an (eventual) improvement in clock speed and an improvement in AMD's costings.

Now, given that this is a new process, I would expect it to take AMD some time to get yields up at the higher clock speeds, but that there will be an eventual improvement in the availability of higher clock speed parts and maybe some decrease in prices on the middle and lower speed parts.

OTOH, do I believe that this memo is genuine? Not really. Nothing in it is different from what an outside oberver would conclude from knowing the background. It doesn't add any new insight.
Quote:
obfuscate the consumer
is pretty illiterate, and you would expect that an educated person wouldn't make that kind of mistake (but you'd often be wrong). It also seems that the author doesn't accept AMD's recent marketing thrust; given that this kind of thing can be career death, it is at least a slightly surprising thing to go into print with.

Quote:
the overclocking potential of the CPU’s is once again dwarfed by the overclocking potential of the Q6600


Again a surprising statement; not a surprising "fact", but surprising to look at in that way. Given that one way of looking at overclocking potential, is as the amount of margin that shipped parts have inherent in them. From that point of view, and given the context, it is massively unsurprising that AMD is having to ship parts with less unutilised margin than Intel. In fact, assuming that AMD is being succesful at this (ie, not getting excessive rates of returns), you could say that this is a sign of success; in spite of having a less good hand to play, AMD is succeeding at playing it as well as could be expected (not that this is what overclockers want to hear).

Quote:
the memo kept mentioning how the CPU’s will get a performance boost when used in conjunction with the new sockets

OK, some good news, at last, I suppose...But oddly, percentages aren't mentioned. I would have expected anyone making this kind of case to be saying "and, of course, we have to remember that the existing clock speed parts overtake (eg) Q6600 when the (eg) 10% boost from the new platform is available" (except that I expect the speed boost from the platform to be lower than that)

Quote:
which lead me to believe that all these internal tests were done using already existing sockets, which means that even AMD does not have the new AM3 or G34 socket ready

Or that the initial CPUs are packaged in the existing packaging. Given that its a bit of a pain to get a new part into a new package if you don't already have the target package in production on another producty, this would be unsurprising. But it could indicate that AMD have had to devote all resources to getting Deneb out in time to rain a little on Intel's parade and haven't yet been able to put enough R & D resource onto the new platform, which be a little worrying, but hardly surprising.
November 10, 2008 9:00:34 PM

Some random person writes a post on a blog, with no proof what so ever! I didn't even think anyone had actually been given a Deneb for testing yet? and when they do it's usually some random chinese site trying to impress us all with supid Super PI benchmarks, wow like that's the definitive benchmark on how a CPU performs :sarcastic: 

Even Thunderman links to more reliable information :lol: 
November 10, 2008 9:55:13 PM

not biting on this. why bother posting without a source? sorry.. credible source.
November 10, 2008 10:03:58 PM

NMDante said:
Why don't they ever post a picture of the internal memo in question? This has to be the 2nd or 3rd "internal memo" that claims either Deneb is awesome or sucks. Show us the memo...let us read it and see what it says. Blank out the name(s) in the memo, but let us read it. Is it that hard to post the "memo"?

Also, why in the world would AMD send an internal memo with comparisons of Deneb and Q6600? AMD would not be sending any memo comparing their CPUs with Intel's, and Intel would not either. They would usually compare their next generation with their own previous generation. Why? For the same reason if this was a real memo. If it was leaked out, it could potentially be devastating. So, why send out an internal memo out?

I call BS on this. Unless the blogger can show the memo, it's all fantasy as far as I am concerned. Blank out the name(s) involved, if necessary. Otherwise, I would wait until more "trusted" 3rd party performance results are available.


I have to concur Dante. Frankly, I am of a mind to just delete this thread and all the other "rumor without proof" threads ala Inquirer/Fudzilla. I would add the caveat that even if a 'blogger' could produce a 'copy' of any such memo, it would still fall into the catagory of 'B.S.' Sharikook is a blogger.

Now, if a trusted site, THG, Anand, HH etc posted such proof, that would be a different story.

On the topic of deleting these type of posts, I wont. These posts do have value as examples/proof of who can be trusted and who can be ignored
November 10, 2008 10:33:41 PM

turpit said:
On the topic of deleting these type of posts, I wont. These posts do have value as examples/proof of who can be trusted and who can be ignored


I was just thinking along those same lines, that is, that threads like these flush out the AMD fanboys.

Similarly there were a few threads some months back that had wildly inaccurate rumors concerning the gaming performance of Nehalem that flushed out the Intel fanboys.

And they have great entertainment value, which is perfect when I am bored at work.


So please don't delete em oh Turpit of the disconcerting avatar, they are useful to me. :p 

P.S. why don't I have a "show signature" checkbox anymore?
November 11, 2008 12:02:04 AM

turpit said:
I have to concur Dante. Frankly, I am of a mind to just delete this thread and all the other "rumor without proof" threads ala Inquirer/Fudzilla.
On the topic of deleting these type of posts, I wont. These posts do have value as examples/proof of who can be trusted and who can be ignored


If you think this post is bogus, really why not delete the thread? I like to read rumor sites. I used to frequent betaleaks while it was good, I still like the Fud and I really enjoy The rumor feed. Rumors are just that, rumors. But I do think it's fun to discuss them. Also if your rumors tend to come true, well that's even better.

If you play Warhammer you would know that the changes he said would be coming have been recently confirmed by the developers. One of them has anyway.

He said the Opti's come out November, and hey that has been confirmed now, while Fud reported them coming out in October.

He said TES 5 is coming in 2010, this was confirmed days later by gamesindustry.biz.

He said Windows 7 will launch with DX10.1, and that has been confirmed as well.

Back when he posted on Beta Leaks he posted a lot of info on the 4850 and 70 that turned out exactly how he said it would.

I have followed the guys leaks for a while and like to read his writing. If you don't, then sorry that I bring it up. I just think these kinds of rumors are fascinating.

November 11, 2008 12:25:04 AM

tehlexinator said:
If you think this post is bogus, really why not delete the thread? I like to read rumor sites. I used to frequent betaleaks while it was good, I still like the Fud and I really enjoy The rumor feed. Rumors are just that, rumors. But I do think it's fun to discuss them. Also if your rumors tend to come true, well that's even better.


I think most people here like to read the rumor sites but I doubt that many of us take them seriously. This particular rumor you posted about appears less believable than most. Given that the current 65nm 9950's @ 2.6Ghz are pretty much on par with the Q6600's @ 2.4Ghz, the prospect of a faster 2.7Ghz Deneb being slower than a Q6600 is questionable to say the least.
November 11, 2008 2:14:28 AM

The current Phenoms are slower than the Q6600. What sane person, no....what sane BUSINESS would put out a new chip that is not only slower than the competitions last generation/most popular chip, but slower than their OWN **** which is....slower than the competitions stuff.

Confusing eh? Dosent make sense, and neither does this rumor. Its not even worthy of the "rumor" title, its just **** spewing ****. Sounds like something that the "octocore FX-92 with intergrated Havok FX" guy made up. Sucks that thread got deleted.
November 11, 2008 3:35:16 AM

tehlexinator said:
According to The rumor feed the new AMD CPU's are actually slower than the good old Q6600. So how the hell can they even compare to Intel's Nehalem?

What will AMD's catch be with this new generation? Low power consumption? Low cost?

Yeesh looks like the die shrink didn't really do anything for AMD. I was going to wait for the Deneb but why bother now? I will be switching to Nehalem when it becomes available.

Thoughts?





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

I don't think so......
November 11, 2008 3:46:39 AM

petevsdrm said:
I was just thinking along those same lines, that is, that threads like these flush out the AMD fanboys.

Similarly there were a few threads some months back that had wildly inaccurate rumors concerning the gaming performance of Nehalem that flushed out the Intel fanboys.

And they have great entertainment value, which is perfect when I am bored at work.


So please don't delete em oh Turpit of the disconcerting avatar, they are useful to me. :p 

P.S. why don't I have a "show signature" checkbox anymore?


Show sig is still here, its called "display your signature"
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 11, 2008 4:01:50 AM

enigma067 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

I don't think so......


You still fail. Sorry. But try something else. We have gift baskets waiting in the lobby. Please pick on out, I am sure you will be pleased with the selection. We hav "Fail" and "Epic Fail" available.

Thank you and have a great day,

THG Forum
November 11, 2008 9:25:12 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
I think most people here like to read the rumor sites but I doubt that many of us take them seriously. This particular rumor you posted about appears less believable than most. Given that the current 65nm 9950's @ 2.6Ghz are pretty much on par with the Q6600's @ 2.4Ghz, the prospect of a faster 2.7Ghz Deneb being slower than a Q6600 is questionable to say the least.


The only way it could be slower is comparing at highest stable overclocks. If a Deneb 3.0 can only overclock to 3.6 stable, but a Q6600 can overclock to 3.8 stable, then the Q6600 might win, if the Deneb's IPC isn't all that much better than B3 Agena.

Can't wait till Deneb actually arrives. Can't afford to upgrade this coming year after all, but I still enjoy seeing the benchies and reading the "AMD's dying 'cause their CPU's aren't as good as..." threads.

The only thing that will hurt AMD this spring is a lull in annual income tax return upgrades. Too much uncertainty right now, even with a stable job. I still plan on getting a new ATI GPU, but not till next September. Then the drivers should be optimized for the June 2009 cards.
November 11, 2008 10:27:42 AM

Sure, then the AMD fails at OC. But that's not what most people do, especially in the server market.

There are a few ways to determine the "best" cpu. One is the fastest CPU, fastest with full stable air cooling OC, water OC, etc etc. You get the clue, unless you define it, it could be true and could as well be false.

We don't know if he performs as well, if he overclocks well, if they tested it in a intel program, etc. They could even say a q6600 oc beats a stock amd. They aren't telling a lie, it's just not an interesting story.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 11, 2008 10:37:56 AM

yipsl said:
The only way it could be slower is comparing at highest stable overclocks. If a Deneb 3.0 can only overclock to 3.6 stable, but a Q6600 can overclock to 3.8 stable, then the Q6600 might win, if the Deneb's IPC isn't all that much better than B3 Agena.

Can't wait till Deneb actually arrives. Can't afford to upgrade this coming year after all, but I still enjoy seeing the benchies and reading the "AMD's dying 'cause their CPU's aren't as good as..." threads.

The only thing that will hurt AMD this spring is a lull in annual income tax return upgrades. Too much uncertainty right now, even with a stable job. I still plan on getting a new ATI GPU, but not till next September. Then the drivers should be optimized for the June 2009 cards.


Problem is that their ATI division cannot hold them up for long. The cost for R&D is pretty much recovered for their sales since they don't FAB the GPUs, TSMC does.

The Foundry whatever may help but if they don't do better in the CPU area it will be bad for them.

I'm not looking from a technological standpoint here, more of a financial standpoint. They can have one area doing great but if the other area, their biggest area, is bombing it wont help much.

A good example is Ford. They have been doing better in recent years. But their Aston Marton wasn't doing well and was pulling them down. So they sold it off but still own a portion of it, enough to make decisions but not let it affect their overall sales.
November 11, 2008 11:05:13 AM

I think NMDante IS Dick Cheney!!! Why else would he know so much not only about Intel, but have intel on AMD as well?? heheh

I think were so close to finding out how fast AMDs solution is, unless its someone weve heard of, and theyre posting lots of numbers, its at this point worthless tripe, true or not, because theres nothing to prove/disprove in all this
November 11, 2008 11:08:25 AM

jimmysmitty said:
A good example is Ford. They have been doing better in recent years. But their Aston Marton wasn't doing well and was pulling them down. So they sold it off but still own a portion of it, enough to make decisions but not let it affect their overall sales.


Aston Martin was generating good profits when Ford sold it. :??: 
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2008 11:34:20 AM

tehlexinator said:
If you think this post is bogus, really why not delete the thread? I like to read rumor sites. I used to frequent betaleaks while it was good, I still like the Fud and I really enjoy The rumor feed. Rumors are just that, rumors. But I do think it's fun to discuss them. Also if your rumors tend to come true, well that's even better...



<decloak>

I agree it's OK to post rumors, just so long as it's clearly stated to be so. Though I would personally prefer a little bit of discretion: If some random blogger writes a story saying that "A Grinning Hector Ruiz was seen leaving the Blue Oyster Bar with a bottle of Spanish Fly~laced Absinthe in one arm and an obviously intoxicated Paul Otellini on the other. And that Authorities are now searching for the stained dress for DNA analysis..." doesn't mean that the story has any credibility or is deserving of repetition. Irregardless of it's amusement value.

OTOH - While a little FUD never hurt anyone, In My Humble Opinion there are clearly individuals engaged in an ongoing campaign to smear The Other Side in any way/shape/form they can manage. And again In My Humble Opinion, the actions of these individuals have hurt the value this site brings to the general readership.

But as much as it pains me to say this sometimes: I disagree that the site moderators should be deleting posts that don't meet some 'standard' for content. Put a lid on flame wars? Yup! PM people who have been pushing the limits?? OH YEAH!

But arbitrarily locking/deleting topics that haven't clearly broken the rules often invites more of a backlash than it's worth.

My $0.02


<cloak>
November 11, 2008 2:37:30 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I think NMDante IS Dick Cheney!!! Why else would he know so much not only about Intel, but have intel on AMD as well?? heheh



I keep telling you, I am not Dick Cheney. I'm more the failed experiment of William Gates and Steve Ballmer to overthrow Apple. I was rescued by Steve Jobs, during my sabotage spree, and was taken in, as one of Steven Jobs "lost" children. I was even one of the first to try the never seen Apple AMac (what they were going to call the AMD powered Mac, years before the Intel deal). But alas, Steve Jobs turned his back on me, along with his other "lost" children, when he was kicked out of Apple, and when he returned, he acted as though we did not exist, yet little did he know, that we, his "lost" children, had crippled his newest "child", Jaguar. HAHAHAHA!!!

But I digest...that was years ago, and now, I am merely a peon in the corporate grinding machine.
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2008 2:39:58 PM

Malovane said:
Please believe it and pass it around. I want to buy AMD at $1 a share before Deneb hits the shelves.

Thanks.


Currently you only have a dollar and 86 cents to go before you get your wish :) .

As Mr. T would say, I pity the fool -- all the "informed" UAEZone fanbois who bought at $12, then $7, then $5 and then again at $3, figuring the bottom had arrived and they were about to make a killing.

Of course, INTC ain't doing so well either :) 
November 11, 2008 3:07:16 PM

Sounds like a MacDonalds thing, "can I have AMAC n Cheese please?" Maybe the cheese is a ATI card?. Oh the possibilities.... and free marheting for AMD too heheh
November 11, 2008 4:31:25 PM

I have no clue, I don't click random youtube links. I bet it's either showing that it runs 200x faster than light and the i7 960 or it shows it won't even be able to run 98 at a normal rate. Either way I'm not wasting my time on it.
!