Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will Phenom II become the new q6600?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 2, 2008 6:06:37 PM

Seeing somewhere that Intel will start phasing out the q6600 soon next year and based that the Phenom II will not have TLB and actually do decent, will the Phenom II take over in the value/performance segment? Not everyone can afford a i7, X58 board with 6gb of memory. If the Phenom II's are priced to be around or below $200, do you all see AMD finally regain some ground in the budget value quad core market?

More about : phenom q6600

December 2, 2008 6:10:21 PM

I agree. Although everything could be speculation right now and is better to wait. My expectation for the phenom is to at least match or go a bit over the q6600. If this happens then AMD will regain some profit if of course they match the price just right, but if mid range C2Q like the 9450 do better than the new phenoms, i see AMD loosing again. Then again I'm hoping AMD brings something new to the table. If not then, ill just go by an i7.
December 2, 2008 6:22:22 PM

I highly doubt Intel would just give AMD low end on a silver platter, once the q6600s are out, they will drop the prices on all the 45nm quads with the lower caches to fill the gap.

Yes, AMD will probably still be cheaper, but if it can't hold a candle to a Q8300 and the Intel chip is a mere 15$ more, I can't see AMD winning either.

It's definitely all speculation, but AMD needs to kick it into a super secret high gear, and Phenom II doesn't sound like that's exactly it.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2008 6:34:09 PM

It's possible, but still too early to tell. I sure hope so though, since I plan to use one in my next system.
December 2, 2008 6:46:06 PM

No, basically because it's still AMD
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2008 6:50:05 PM

I would say it's possible, though Intel is likely to keep a strong handle on the $300ish market with the Q9550 and possibly the 9650. Here's the current roadmap for Intel: http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/articles/2008/07/1713425...

Based on that, I'd expect that they will keep up strongly in that area with the older Core 2 architecture quads, though I hope AMD becomes far more competitive with the 45nm parts.
December 2, 2008 7:02:40 PM

jeteryankees22 said:
No, basically because it's still AMD


Really we cant say yes or now for now. Any answer would just turn out to be negative. Unless your hoping it turns out negative?
December 2, 2008 7:25:57 PM

I suppose it's possible, but we'll have to wait and see how the real production parts do in real world practical application.
December 2, 2008 7:35:40 PM

The scale isn't going to make a huge difference. At most, 5-10%.

Still.. AMD => EPIC FAIL
December 2, 2008 7:36:13 PM

Nothing is impossible,you could possibly go out and buy a lottery ticket now and be a multi-millionaire couple days from now,but personally given Intel's great performance over the last few years,and lack of competitions from AMD,if one just dreams about AMD having a nuclear bomb coming out of nowhere is really kinda irrational,to be realistic,catching up to Core 2 and giving some price competition there is more ideal.
December 2, 2008 7:43:36 PM

We dont know at this point in time as we dont have any realibale prices and performance charts. But I am fairly confident AMD will come through this time round but cant be sure.
December 2, 2008 7:46:59 PM

MCMaChu said:
Seeing somewhere that Intel will start phasing out the q6600 soon next year and based that the Phenom II will not have TLB and actually do decent, will the Phenom II take over in the value/performance segment? Not everyone can afford a i7, X58 board with 6gb of memory. If the Phenom II's are priced to be around or below $200, do you all see AMD finally regain some ground in the budget value quad core market?


Anything is possible, but Intel will have new faster chips moving into that segment.
Other 45nm quads will drop in price.

No need for an i7 or x58 board.
You can select the current P43 or P45 boards for well under $100, cheap DDR2 and other quads.
Example - This weekend the Q9400 was on sale for $180.
This price and others of the 45nm will become common as chips are pushed down in price.

We will just have to see what AMD is able to put out and at what price.
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2008 8:01:48 PM

fatty35 said:
We dont know at this point in time as we dont have any realibale prices and performance charts. But I am fairly confident AMD will come through this time round but cant be sure.


From the latest news & reviews I've been seeing, Deneb aka Phenom II is only 8-10% faster clock per clock than the Phenom (Barcelona). However its OC potential seems to be a lot better than Phenom - 3.7+ on air. At least there aren't any showstopper bugs that have cropped up so far :) .
December 3, 2008 12:14:30 AM

Dont be too optimistic since it's AMD you know,I'm pretty sure before Phenom was about to launch,all the reviews and expectations were as high,but what happened when the actual products released?Basing on some unreliable sources while AMD had such a history is really nothing but blindly supporting AMD,I would only trust a reliable product with already proven to be great performance-wise for a long time(intel in this case),I certainly hope people not fall for their marketing ploy before actual performance is proven and bug-free.
December 3, 2008 1:05:04 AM

tim924 said:
Dont be too optimistic since it's AMD you know,I'm pretty sure before Phenom was about to launch,all the reviews and expectations were as high,but what happened when the actual products released?Basing on some unreliable sources while AMD had such a history is really nothing but blindly supporting AMD,I would only trust a reliable product with already proven to be great performance-wise for a long time(intel in this case),I certainly hope people not fall for their marketing ploy before actual performance is proven and bug-free.


I love it how AMD having one disappointing processor generation apparently establishes them as having a prolonged history of failure (at least in the eyes of Intel fanboys). Intel and AMD both have a somewhat checkered history when it comes to their products, as do most companies.

You may recall that a couple of years ago the Prescott P4's were hyped to the moon before launch but when the final product finally arrived it was found to be only minimally faster that the Northwood P4's it replaced. As a Northwood owner at the time I had been closely following the news leading up to the Prescott release and was expecting something great, but what was eventually delivered was a turd.

I'd actually suggest that the fact that the 1st generation Phenom processors were a disappointment should be a good reason to expect that the 2nd generation processors will not be. AMD took quite a few hits as a result of releasing a disappointing product and I'm quite confident that they are being very careful to not let the same thing happen again.
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2008 1:27:17 AM

Just_An_Engineer, I was thinking the exact same thing. There still are people in charge of AMD and they all saw how badly overhyping and lying about a new product can be. Hopefully they learned from their ATI guys who quietly introduced the 4000's and shocked most people (in a positive way). I'm not saying Phenom II will be amazing, but I think that it could be decent. I think if they can pull that off and sell it for a good price, they and a lot of other people will be happy. I also really hope they stick to that Jan. 8th release date. New comp parts (and maybe Vista 64 tomorrow!) are starting to fester around my house and would really like to be put together soon.
December 3, 2008 1:37:43 AM

tim924 said:
Dont be too optimistic since it's AMD you know,I'm pretty sure before Phenom was about to launch,all the reviews and expectations were as high,but what happened when the actual products released?Basing on some unreliable sources while AMD had such a history is really nothing but blindly supporting AMD,I would only trust a reliable product with already proven to be great performance-wise for a long time(intel in this case),I certainly hope people not fall for their marketing ploy before actual performance is proven and bug-free.


Yeah, you know.. don't be optimistic about the company that has been the leading force of innovation in the sector for the last decade. Forget being the first to pass 1 GHZ on a production chip (Thunderbird). Forget the AMD 64 X2, which beat the competition by a long shot. Forget the fact that i7 is basically a copy of Barcelona with Hyperthreading. Yeah, those AMD guys are just marketing geniuses who are out to steal money.

Intel having a long track record of performance? Are you serious? Netburst anyone? Hell, the last chip of any importance before the C2Q that Intel came out with was the freaking Pentium Pro.

Look, benchmarks have been done by several sources now... and we are getting a good picture of the clock per clock performance increases in the core by Shanghai testing, which are anywhere from 8-30% depending upon the application (overall an average increase of 14-15%). We also have confirmed independent sources hitting 4GHZ on air with the last generation of test samples. This isn't coming from AMD. The only thing they did was demo their chips on liquid nitrogen at nearly 6 GHZ.. and from independent sources, this isn't too shocking.

The original Phenom itself really is a good chip. The 9850 BE is basically the equivalent of a Q6600, and the 9950 edges it out a bit. The only drawback is that they only cap out at 3.4-3.5 Ghz on air, while a Q6600 hits around 3.6.... so for hardcore enthusiasts, the Q6600 still holds an edge. And that's the chip many enthusiasts buy, because the higher end quads from Intel are just too damn expensive for the performance improvement (which is also why Intel is phasing the chip out). From the above estimates it's seems likely that the first iterations of Phenom II will creep into the high end Core 2 Quad performance level once overclocking is considered. And AMD hasn't even upgraded to HKMG processes yet (though they should relatively soon)

Now, take into consideration that those same Core 2 Quads that the Phenom II will be competing against usually beat the i7 in gaming. We'll have to wait for the benchmarks to come, but for the moment it looks like the gaming race is on. Now, i7 holds an edge over anything out there with encoding/decoding and other forms of video manipulation. AMD's answer for that is to offload it to the video card.. and guess what? It does it in a tenth of the time an i7 could.

As far as reliability... the TLB bug that affected Phenom was incredibly overblown as a crash would only happen once in a blue moon (and typically only in server environments), and the "fix" by Microsoft was to impair the performance of the chip by 15% and make it more unstable than it was to begin with. People with the 9x00 chips often mod Vista to remove that damn fix, and it runs great. That bug has been gone for a while now, and is not present in the 8x50 or 9x50 series of chips, and will certainly not be in the Phenom II. As for your precious reliable Intel.. they've had some doozies of bugs over the years. The original Pentium was hilarious.. it couldn't get basic floating point calculations right..

Talk about blind support.. good grief.
December 3, 2008 1:55:40 AM

I just hope the new 8MB L3, Phenom II's with unlocked multipliers are $200 or less...if so I know what I will be building next years systems with.
December 3, 2008 2:00:06 AM

Malovane said:
Intel having a long track record of performance? Are you serious? Netburst anyone?


The only times AMD have been definitively ahead were the early P4s and the Athlon64 vs the Pentium-4 space-heaters. Otherwise Intel have either been ahead or at least competitive; when I bought my P4, the alternative was an Athlon was both more expensive and slower.

AMD get ahead when Intel screw up; I haven't seen much evidence that Nehalem is a screwup yet.
December 3, 2008 2:12:35 AM

ZOldDude said:
I just hope the new 8MB L3, Phenom II's with unlocked multipliers are $200 or less...if so I know what I will be building next years systems with.


I think it's 6MB L3. I hope they're a little higher, actually, means their performance is good. I hope they manage to sell a bunch at $220 - $240. They need the cash.
December 3, 2008 3:08:24 AM

AMD was ahead, then srewed up, then now, I believe theyll be competitive again with Deneb. Since theres only 2 makers of cpus, and this isnt the NFL, that MUST mean theyve been trading blows for quite awhile. Anyone who doesnt at least keep an open mind, and that either company at almost any new release could take the "lead" is too much of a fan for my taste. Ill give credit where credit is due. Im no fan boy, and alot of fanboys dont like that, but thats the way I am, and for me, Im keeping an open mind about Deneb and its abilities in price and performance
December 3, 2008 3:23:02 AM

If you just blindly support a company been having major bug issues+consistently losing in performance,and hoping something miracle will happen with just a die-shrink rather than a complete architecture make-over like core i7.Tell me all 3 points #1 Bug issues history. #2 Clock for clock performance(not even mentioning it's currently peak at 2.6 ghz with low overclockability) #3 Die-shrink(Tell me one historical processor that actually
pack with alot of IPC improvement while being just a die-shrink under the same architecture,not even Intel in this case!) With just the 3 points listed tell me a reason one should believe it will come out on top actually competing with i7 which has been out for 2 week now(A good comparison would be fully stressed with encoding or rendering benchmarks at the same clock,and dont tell me you would use gaming as example since we all know gaming is more GPU limited)If Deneb can come out on top in those benchmarks,i'd gladly sell my i7 system for AMD,but realistically it's just hard to believe,not impossible.(You know strategists calculate possibility for a reason,not that they are not open-minded)
December 3, 2008 3:37:40 AM

Depends on your tastes. I like to game. Deneb will come in at up to 3Ghz, not 2.6. Theyve added alot more cache, which is basically what Intels been doing for their refreshes. Their IPC is up as well, and some bugs were worked out, not kept in, or to put it another way, it wasnt rushed like Barcelona was.

Releasing Barcelona as soon as they di (they obviously had problems with it) and not getting rid of the TLB bug before release caused drastic performance problems once it was "fixed". That wont be there. The ocees weve "seen" are real, itll oc well, and keep amazongly cool all the while drawing low power. If thats not attractive to you at a good price, dont know what is
December 3, 2008 3:40:22 AM

As for consistantly losing in performance, go look at Toms cpu charts for prior years, before C2D.
December 3, 2008 3:41:12 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
As for consistantly losing in performance, go look at Toms cpu charts for prior years, before C2D.


No kidding. I think somebody completely forgot about the X2's.
December 3, 2008 4:56:10 AM

i7 is a killer chip, no doubt. In gaming? Its not so killer, other apps, very much so. Im thinking we may see Deneb matching i7 in some gaming instances. Especially since ATI has yet to fully optimize their drivers for quads, which will make a difference, as nVidia has already done so. Maybe theyre waiting for Deneb too?

My thoughts are, if they arent too far off in gaming, and youre really not into MT apps, like video etc formatting, then itll come down to price and for some, as long as the performance is there, just something different
December 3, 2008 5:02:33 AM

MarkG said:
The only times AMD have been definitively ahead were the early P4s and the Athlon64 vs the Pentium-4 space-heaters. Otherwise Intel have either been ahead or at least competitive; when I bought my P4, the alternative was an Athlon was both more expensive and slower.

AMD get ahead when Intel screw up; I haven't seen much evidence that Nehalem is a screwup yet.


Keep in mind that all through the 286, 386, and 486 eras the processors released by AMD thoroughly spanked the ones coming from Intel despite the fact that many were clones produced under license. It wasn't until the first pentiums came out that Intel actually took the performance lead.
December 3, 2008 5:47:36 AM

Im not much for bungholio marks, but this is very much on topic
"The 3GHz processor is able to churn out impressive performance, scoring P8492 in the 3DMark Vantage test. A similar score can be obtained with a overclocked Core 2 Quad Q6600 at 3.6GHz with ATi Radeon HD 4870."

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/amd/Phenom_II_X4_CPU-Z_3...

So, who lnows? It may just be a gamer?

December 3, 2008 6:42:33 AM

MCMaChu said:
Seeing somewhere that Intel will start phasing out the q6600 soon next year and based that the Phenom II will not have TLB and actually do decent...


IMHO, B3 is decent. My crippled B3 8750 can match a B2 9600 in most applications. Deneb should do better, but it's not like AMD hasn't made improvements since the original revision.

MCMaChu said:

...will the Phenom II take over in the value/performance segment? Not everyone can afford a i7, X58 board with 6gb of memory. If the Phenom II's are priced to be around or below $200, do you all see AMD finally regain some ground in the budget value quad core market?


The overclockable one's are expected to be $300. I don't think it will be the new Q6600 unless it overclocks as well. I do expect it to do well at the $200 to $300 market segment regardless, with B3's surviving through the first half of 2009 in the $100 to $200 segment.
December 3, 2008 8:14:31 AM

dechy said:
I highly doubt Intel would just give AMD low end on a silver platter, once the q6600s are out, they will drop the prices on all the 45nm quads with the lower caches to fill the gap.

Yes, AMD will probably still be cheaper, but if it can't hold a candle to a Q8300 and the Intel chip is a mere 15$ more, I can't see AMD winning either.

It's definitely all speculation, but AMD needs to kick it into a super secret high gear, and Phenom II doesn't sound like that's exactly it.



You missed the target.

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

Intel's Q6600 is a multi chip module that suffers from a memory bandwidth bottleneck.
That's why it was beat by AMD in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_XG411Lik

Do you understand AMD's tactics now?
a c 127 à CPUs
December 3, 2008 10:34:51 AM

^Yea. Market a chip that doesn't perform as well as the Q6600 and rely on people like you who are obsesed and think its better and bring up useless points (i.e. memory bottleneck for desktop when thats truly only in server) to buy them.

Or you are just a crazy man who has nothing better to do than troll the forums.

At any rate, I don't know yet. The OCing is showing decent but since we don't have a true chip yet no one can tell.

I think the Core i7 920 will become the next Q6600. It OCs pretty good, up to 4GHz on air with the right config, and is already pretty well priced. The Q6600 can't usually OC to 4GHz on air with decent temps.

And in a few more months we will see the mainstream mobos and the X58 mobos should start to settle in price to the $200 range. That and once the Core i7 920 hits $200 would be a pretty damn good combo. Now we just have to wait for DDR3 to drop in price a bit more.

Although if the mobo was $200, CPu @200 and 6GB of DDR3 $200 thats $600 + a $200 GPu makes it $800 and then HDDs case and PSU would easily hit under $1K. Not too bad.

I can't wait till I have a decent job next year. I am going to build a 32nm Core i7 rig for Schnitz & Giggles.
!