Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom IIs site

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 127 à CPUs
January 8, 2009 10:40:31 AM

While browsing to see if ATI had released the latest drivers for my GPU (in hopes that they added a few optimizations for GTA IV) I found this:

http://game.amd.com/us-en/landings/dragon.aspx

Interesting site. I guess their new platform for Phenom II is named "Dragon" (although between you and me the creature looks more like a winged lizard).

Looks decent and maybe there will be more but only two things I will truly critisize.

1. They have a video comparing it to Nehalem. As usual, instead of comparing it to a simialrly priced CPU they use the Extreme Edition chip. That aggrivates me since that misleads newbies into thinking its ALWAYs more expensive to go Intel which it is not always. Sometimes yes but not always. In fact depending on the price range it may be cheaper. At Newegg I built a friend a Intel dual core machine because he could get a Core 2 Duo E7300, mobo and 2GB of DDR2 800 for $200 bucks but not with a AMD one that was equal in performance.

2. They have a list of reviewers and their #1 is everyones fave tool Theo. Not really saying much when you use him as a opinion. And it seems all the opinions are just on the OCing, not the chip itself. Too bad.

Anywho, its out now so maybe we will finally get some decent reviews.

BTW its $275 @ Newegg right now. might want to order one while it is cheap. I think the hype will drive the price up over $300 for a bit until it cools down and the dust settles.

Or you can wait and see what it truly has to offer. I want to see multi GPU benchmarks myself. I plan on a 4870X2 when the newer gen cards come out so I can get one cheap.

Not sure but this is here too:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-...

Not that good of a review, maybe not complete. I would have liked to see a clock per clock review (Q6600 @ 3GHz vs 940 @ 3Ghz vs i920 @ 3GHz).

I decided to look at the gaming section at least. I calculated the percents from a QX6850 vs a Phenom II 940 in the games, all res was 168x1050. Overall clock per clock Phenom II in gaming at least shows 6.75% slower than Kentsfield and is about 9.625% slower than Yorkfield (I took the Q9550 results so its not 100% clock per clock).

Now I could be wrong and it would be nice to have someone check my calculations but that seems right at least clock per clock. There is no difference between a QX6850 and a Q6600 @ 3GHz. They both use the same speed FSB and have the same cache.

Anyways. It looks good but we still need more site for more info to get a full reading of it.

More about : phenom iis site

a b à CPUs
January 8, 2009 5:47:35 PM

^ You've probably read this by now, but here's what Anandtech had to say about the P2 and gaming:

Quote:
The take away point is that compared to Penryn, Phenom II is slower clock-for-clock. The gap grows with Nehalem; Phenom II only gets close in older game engines, while the rest of the time Nehalem is 30-60% faster at the same clock speed.
a c 127 à CPUs
January 9, 2009 6:26:20 AM

Haven't seen that yet. Guess the preliminaries can be thrown out for Phenom II then. They said it was better.

I guess I expected more for posting this but I think I didn't do it in a "Phenom II is awesome and super great" like I should have to get more opinions.

Oh well. I can't fake enthusiasm when its not there. Phenom II doesn't seem to be what was said. Then again hype is just that. Hype.
Related resources
January 9, 2009 6:51:00 AM

Hype, you nailed it jimmy. These P2's were extremely over-hyped on these forums.

Also, Nehalem doing 30-60% better is brutal. DDR3/mobo prices aside, there is only a $20 difference between P2 940 and i7 920. This is even more fuel for the fire. Phenom II is looking worthless even from a brand new ground up build perspective, just spend the extra $200 (X58's at $210, only $60 more than one of the higher end 790GX, and only $20 more than the ASUS 790FX. $150 for 6GB of DDR3 1333 or $85 for 3GB vs $40 for 4GB DDR2 memory ) and go for the throat; i7.
January 9, 2009 6:55:07 AM

Yep hype and hope was there but product fell short, had almost all top amd's from beginning, so im bitter toward them, since core 2 quad and core i7, used to like to give kudos to amd, pffft not happening anymore, Core i7 best thing i ever used, not too expensive either, 750 for a mobo bundle, simple, effective and beyond description for all use...
a c 127 à CPUs
January 9, 2009 7:06:57 AM

Well I'm not looking down on it per say. But if you look at all the reviews and try to look at a clock per clock basis in gaming its not that great vs Kentsfield. Its great in encoding and the such as I would expect. But overall it was hyped. So basically from what I can see a Q6600 OCed to 3/3.2GHz like yours or mine spathotan is still a viable chip and is almost $100 cheaper.

And I think the hype was the amazing easy 4GHz+ air and 6GHz+ LN2 OCing that AMD was showing off. And now on air Anand was only able to hit 3.7GHz stable and had to use 1.52v. The Core i7 i920 hit 4GHz @ 1.35v and 3.83GHz on stock voltage compared to the Phenom II 940 that on stock, 1.32v just like the i920, was 3.3GHz.

So something is fishy. I felt that AMD was using cherry picked parts for the OCing but still I thought it would at least hit 4GHz.

But we shall see. More reviews should pop up and maybe someone here will get one and be honest with a all out review on it.
January 9, 2009 7:10:10 AM

I want to see Overclocked benchmarks.....
January 9, 2009 2:51:22 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Well I'm not looking down on it per say. But if you look at all the reviews and try to look at a clock per clock basis in gaming its not that great vs Kentsfield. Its great in encoding and the such as I would expect. But overall it was hyped. So basically from what I can see a Q6600 OCed to 3/3.2GHz like yours or mine spathotan is still a viable chip and is almost $100 cheaper.

And I think the hype was the amazing easy 4GHz+ air and 6GHz+ LN2 OCing that AMD was showing off. And now on air Anand was only able to hit 3.7GHz stable and had to use 1.52v. The Core i7 i920 hit 4GHz @ 1.35v and 3.83GHz on stock voltage compared to the Phenom II 940 that on stock, 1.32v just like the i920, was 3.3GHz.

So something is fishy. I felt that AMD was using cherry picked parts for the OCing but still I thought it would at least hit 4GHz.

But we shall see. More reviews should pop up and maybe someone here will get one and be honest with a all out review on it.


New BIOS' might help the OC results, but I really doubt it, it would have to be one HELL of a BIOS update. Also, being that me and you have basically identical systems, of course we cant justify buying these chips. The Q6600 is still the staple chip to beat IMO.
January 9, 2009 3:19:06 PM

I'm not sure over-hyped, outside of the fanboi (either side) the PII came in right where it was expected slightly better than the 45nm Intel chip of similar price (q9300,9400). Neham is what you get if you combined a Core 2 Quad and a Phenom chip into totally new design and is going to be as good as you see for the next year or so, no shock there either.

As for OC'ing, we'll see. The i7 was a "horrible" overclocker the first week it was released, now it's awesome. It's more on knowledge and people trying than anything. I wish someone who did a P2 review actually used a REAL motherboard to, none of that GX crap. A nice FX 750 for once... (heck one site even used a SB600 chipset, ug).


PW
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2009 3:37:35 PM

PrangeWay said:
I'm not sure over-hyped, outside of the fanboi (either side) the PII came in right where it was expected slightly better than the 45nm Intel chip of similar price (q9300,9400). Neham is what you get if you combined a Core 2 Quad and a Phenom chip into totally new design and is going to be as good as you see for the next year or so, no shock there either.

As for OC'ing, we'll see. The i7 was a "horrible" overclocker the first week it was released, now it's awesome. It's more on knowledge and people trying than anything. I wish someone who did a P2 review actually used a REAL motherboard to, none of that GX crap. A nice FX 750 for once... (heck one site even used a SB600 chipset, ug).


PW


Heh, you're right about i7 - Ed at Overclockers really flamed the i7 & Intel until somebody actually told him how easy it is to OC :) .

Putting it all in perspective, P2 is actually a nice step up for somebody with an AM2+ board, and it probably would suffice for most people here except for the high-end enthusiast crowd. AMD just needed this a year ago...
January 10, 2009 7:40:07 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
^ You've probably read this by now, but here's what Anandtech had to say about the P2 and gaming:

Quote:
The take away point is that compared to Penryn, Phenom II is slower clock-for-clock. The gap grows with Nehalem; Phenom II only gets close in older game engines, while the rest of the time Nehalem is 30-60% faster at the same clock speed.


Anandtech also had this to say:

Quote:

After over two years of us recommending Intel's Core 2 lineup almost exclusively, AMD finally released a real alternative, one that's not just similarly priced, but actually higher performing than the price-competitive Intel part. Over the coming pages I'll explain how...

...Architecturally, Phenom II is what the original Phenom should have been. It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a step in the right direction.

Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock speed to keep you happy in the long run.

The same goes for the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Q9300/Q8200; AMD wins that comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X4 920 falls behind. The Q9400 is the better buy of the two, but only if Intel does come through with rumored price cuts. We'll know for sure by the end of the month.

AMD also thankfully produced a good overclocker, at least with our review samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without increasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm process. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum clock speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Core i7 is Intel's second 45nm processor while Phenom II is AMD's first; it will only get better with time.

Despite Intel's strengths, AMD was able to do very well here today with Phenom II. Being able to have a CPU competitive with Penryn right out of the gates is worthy of a commendation. The scary part is that Intel could easily mitigate AMD's gains here with some simple price adjustments. Even more worrisome for AMD is that Phenom II is its only foot forward until 2011 when the first Bulldozer based CPUs arrive. There's headroom in AMD's 45nm process, but what happens when Core i7 goes mainstream? We must not forget that Phenom II is competitive with a 45nm derivative of a 2+ year old architecture.


Selective quotes like yours makes it out that Phenom II is not a good choice at any price point because Penryn is higher clock per clock. Yet, Phenom II is actually a good CPU for more than just upgrades. For new builds, I recommend waiting for AM3 and 880G at the very least. Overall, Phenom II is a mainstream choice that actually brings some competition and might achieve the holy grail of all Intel fanboys: forcing Intel to cut prices so "their" CPU's are cheaper. :lol: 

This bodes well for Bulldozer, and if it's not out till 2011, I hope a respin of Deneb with HKMG allows for some higher stock clocks to compete against both Penryn and Nehalem.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2009 12:49:08 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
^ You've probably read this by now, but here's what Anandtech had to say about the P2 and gaming:

Quote:
The take away point is that compared to Penryn, Phenom II is slower clock-for-clock. The gap grows with Nehalem; Phenom II only gets close in older game engines, while the rest of the time Nehalem is 30-60% faster at the same clock speed.


I contest that as it seems that Phenom II loses in older games engines while the performance seems better with quad optimized games.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21...
We still haven't seen benchmarks of Phenom II in Microsoft Flight Simulator X but there are benchmarks of Core i7 for FSX and other simulations/games here.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_111a.html
a c 127 à CPUs
January 11, 2009 1:49:22 AM

Yips, I will say P II is great for AM2+ users but for a new system it still doesn't beat the Q6600 in a price/performance per clock contest. Thats what I am saying. Overall its a good UPGRADE but for a new build its hard to give it a 100% the best you can get sorta thing.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2009 2:15:22 AM

Yeah I want to see some overclocked benchies to see what the scaling looks like between the Penryn, PII and i7 lines.

If you recall a few years ago the last of the Pentiums didn't scale well, though the A64's did ... not so the XP's.

Scaling is important when you consider that overclocking puts considerable strain on the system ... it isn't worth it unless there is a definitive payoff in FPS in games.

a b à CPUs
January 12, 2009 11:55:13 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Yips, I will say P II is great for AM2+ users but for a new system it still doesn't beat the Q6600 in a price/performance per clock contest. Thats what I am saying. Overall its a good UPGRADE but for a new build its hard to give it a 100% the best you can get sorta thing.


Unless you happen to do a Phenom application where only the i7 beats it.
a c 127 à CPUs
January 13, 2009 9:30:49 PM

^True but I am doubting a person will be buying a PC to do one specific thing unless its a very generalized area like at a school.

I mean for us normal people (and you Aussies), the Q6600 still gives some of the best performance for your buck. That is untill a Penryn C2Q, Core i7 or Phenom II drop in price.
January 13, 2009 10:09:15 PM

I'll agree that a DDR2 Phenom II is going to be as obsolete as a Kentsfield, but a DDR3 Phenom II setup in a month or so is more upgradable. Let's face it, even a 925 or 945 Phenom II on an 880G motherboard with DDR3 will outperform a Q6600. I can say that because the DDR2 upgrade versions already do.

Neither us Americans or the Aussies are "normal". We're mutants in Bill Murray's line from "Stripes". We're composed of all the people kicked out of England to avoid debtor's prison, to escape famines in Ireland, exiled because of Jacobite rebellions and whatnot.

All the "normal" people stayed in Europe or Asia. Look what's happened there in the past 200 years. I'm glad my ancestors were given one way tickets. Considering my mother's maiden name, it's a good chance that my ancestors lost supporting Bonnie Prince Charlie and ended up in Maryland. Sadly, one of my ancestors on her side was a slave owner but since Maryland was forced to stay in the Union, I guess I can say we were on the right side of the Civil War.

a b à CPUs
January 14, 2009 2:44:20 AM

I'm not a true blue Australian... (made in New Zealand :p )
January 14, 2009 9:10:32 AM

I should read up on NZ history. All I know is that the Maori settled it and then English settlers fought with them the way we did with Native Americans. Was NZ a prison colony like Australia or the state of Georgia? Or a refuge for a religious minority like Maryland? Did NZ get debtor prison rejects like the original 13 colonies?

If I had the choice of Australia or New Zealand to live in, from what I've seen on film, I'd rather live in NZ. Then again, my favorite part of the U.S. is the Santa Cruz mountains of California, but I'm stuck here in Texas.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2009 9:19:17 AM

Yeah, I think I remember something... no I don't...
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2009 12:10:05 PM

Jeez ... AFG's a kiwi.

Poor kid ...



a c 127 à CPUs
January 14, 2009 12:19:10 PM

yipsl said:
I'll agree that a DDR2 Phenom II is going to be as obsolete as a Kentsfield, but a DDR3 Phenom II setup in a month or so is more upgradable. Let's face it, even a 925 or 945 Phenom II on an 880G motherboard with DDR3 will outperform a Q6600. I can say that because the DDR2 upgrade versions already do.

Neither us Americans or the Aussies are "normal". We're mutants in Bill Murray's line from "Stripes". We're composed of all the people kicked out of England to avoid debtor's prison, to escape famines in Ireland, exiled because of Jacobite rebellions and whatnot.

All the "normal" people stayed in Europe or Asia. Look what's happened there in the past 200 years. I'm glad my ancestors were given one way tickets. Considering my mother's maiden name, it's a good chance that my ancestors lost supporting Bonnie Prince Charlie and ended up in Maryland. Sadly, one of my ancestors on her side was a slave owner but since Maryland was forced to stay in the Union, I guess I can say we were on the right side of the Civil War.


Depends. Some reviews show Kentsfield on a clock per clock basis beating P II at gaming and a few other tasks. Not all of course but some that seems weird to me. I don't want to look at it as much from a price perspective as I do from a clock per clock though. I mean I could get the cheapest AMD chip and say its cheaper than a QX9650 so its better. But in reality the QX9650 will outperform and out overclock that AMD chip because thats what its made to do.

As for "normal" I meant our sort of normal. Not the Euro normal which is weird to me. Not that I hate Europeans, but they are weird.

And I am from Texas. We decided to stay out of that one and were our own country for ten years, led by Sam Houston. In the end though we became part of the Union (after the fight for independance from Mexico that is). So when they say the South they mean more from east of Texas on. Especially since AZ, NM, CA and the such were not even states yet.
January 14, 2009 12:19:48 PM

@ Ray, check post 582 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21...
This was done by a XS user, not a pro site, but something nonetheless. If you take away the synthetic benches, and theyre almost dead evn with Kentsfield. All clocks at 3.7 . i7,Kentsfield,Yorkfield and P2
Edit: These benches are from the Greek site, which are pretty normal from what weve seen cpmparatively
January 14, 2009 2:18:08 PM

Quote:
@ Ray, check post 582 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] 91&page=24
This was done by a XS user, not a pro site, but something nonetheless. If you take away the synthetic benches, and theyre almost dead evn with Kentsfield. All clocks at 3.7 . i7,Kentsfield,Yorkfield and P2
Edit: These benches are from the Greek site, which are pretty normal from what weve seen cpmparatively


Even this page you refer to show what everyone's ben saying
to you JDJ, when theirs no bottleneck the phenom cpu's is
behind the kentsfield, out of these cpu's it don't matter what
cpu you have when it's the gpu that bottlenecking the system.
January 14, 2009 2:21:45 PM

Also with the chart you referenced to we just found your
2-3% in intels direction.
January 14, 2009 7:15:57 PM

Looking at gaming, it doesnt look that good for Kentsfield. But, as I said, side by side, you couldnt actually tell the difference between these 2 chips, and barely notice a Yorky. Having said that, it all comew down to price and ocing, something AMD is known for (price) and has been touting (ocing) lately. Getting Kents to 3.8 on average, with showings of even higher clocks once things are ironed out like bios,better mobos, better understanding, and finally just a better rev, like what we saw in the 6600 G0. Add the fact that the AM3 will be here soon, and itll have to be Yorkys to contend with, as Kents wont be able to ocee as fast, and the IPC will be edged up with AM3, mainly from the HTL increase, but better revs as well, meaning better clocks, and possibly better thermals as well
January 14, 2009 7:23:45 PM

Thats also why early on, when people knocked P2, I said you may as well be knocking Kents and Yorkies as well. As long as Intel makes them , and sells them, and especially since both Kents and Yorkies make more than 90% of their sales, it doesnt matter what people say about P2, and whether its just competing or not. As I tried telling everyone, having HKMG first doesnt mean its the only way to have nice thermals, nice power usage, and have great ocing abilities. As long as Intel is using it, its the competition no? And having Kents first, and Yorkies later , but all before AMD came in with P2 doesnt really mean much.
If you dont like my explanation, then imagine if Intel just discontinued both Yorkies and Kents, and made everyone buy i7, with its pricing. AMD could only hope for something like that
January 14, 2009 7:51:21 PM

But.... a Phenom does NOT go above 3.8 Ghz on air in the best conditions. A Q9550 can pretty easily hit 4 Ghz on air and at stock (2.8/3.0 Ghz) the Q9550 still tends to beat it. I have only seen one review that touted 3.8 Ghz and the rest are below, one reviewer could not hit 3.6 Ghz! I'm sorry, I wanted Phenom 2 to kick ass but it fails.
January 14, 2009 7:58:55 PM

At this point, no it isnt easy at 3.8 on air, but more and more are showing up, and how to get there. Yorkies have been around for awhile, give P2 at least a month heheh. I agree, Yorkies and AM3 are competing, and AM3's are just around the corner. Afrer being out over a year, Im betting AM3 will easily oc higher than what we see now. Intel already has had their G0 stepping, as will AMD. And it has gone over 3.8 on air, just not alot of them so far, but give it time
January 14, 2009 8:00:41 PM

Check out Anands article, where he reached 3.9 and expects and has seen higher clocks as well, all on air
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2009 8:50:02 PM

yipsl said:
Anandtech also had this to say:

Quote:

After over two years of us recommending Intel's Core 2 lineup almost exclusively, AMD finally released a real alternative, one that's not just similarly priced, but actually higher performing than the price-competitive Intel part. Over the coming pages I'll explain how...

...Architecturally, Phenom II is what the original Phenom should have been. It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a step in the right direction.

Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock speed to keep you happy in the long run.

The same goes for the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Q9300/Q8200; AMD wins that comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X4 920 falls behind. The Q9400 is the better buy of the two, but only if Intel does come through with rumored price cuts. We'll know for sure by the end of the month.

AMD also thankfully produced a good overclocker, at least with our review samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without increasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm process. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum clock speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Core i7 is Intel's second 45nm processor while Phenom II is AMD's first; it will only get better with time.

Despite Intel's strengths, AMD was able to do very well here today with Phenom II. Being able to have a CPU competitive with Penryn right out of the gates is worthy of a commendation. The scary part is that Intel could easily mitigate AMD's gains here with some simple price adjustments. Even more worrisome for AMD is that Phenom II is its only foot forward until 2011 when the first Bulldozer based CPUs arrive. There's headroom in AMD's 45nm process, but what happens when Core i7 goes mainstream? We must not forget that Phenom II is competitive with a 45nm derivative of a 2+ year old architecture.


Selective quotes like yours makes it out that Phenom II is not a good choice at any price point because Penryn is higher clock per clock. Yet, Phenom II is actually a good CPU for more than just upgrades. For new builds, I recommend waiting for AM3 and 880G at the very least. Overall, Phenom II is a mainstream choice that actually brings some competition and might achieve the holy grail of all Intel fanboys: forcing Intel to cut prices so "their" CPU's are cheaper. :lol: 

This bodes well for Bulldozer, and if it's not out till 2011, I hope a respin of Deneb with HKMG allows for some higher stock clocks to compete against both Penryn and Nehalem.


Hmm, I thought I was pretty specific, referring to gaming performance, but maybe not.

Anyway, your quote above is not exactly good news for either P2 or AMD. My feeling is that AT (as well as Tom's) bent over backwards to be nice to P2, instead of calling it straight like at [H]:

Quote:
The Phenom II performance speaks for itself. It loses to its old nemesis, the Core 2, which I think some folks will be surprised by. The Phenom II loses to the Core i7, which I think was to be expected. The Phenom II is a loser.

Does that mean it is without value? Absolutely not. But I think those that will find value in it will be few and far between and even fewer of those folks will be computer hardware enthusiasts.

If you are a gamer or a content creation professional, my suggestion to you is to save your pennies and get the Intel Core i7. Even if you have to wait an extra few months to save up for good DDR3. The Phenom II just does not have long legs, and I don’t think I will want to pay for DDR3 to dress one up next month either.



IMHO, P2 is only good for somebody who has an AM2+ system and wants to upgrade. As has been pointed out in other threads, the $$ between a 940 and an i920 system is only about $200 (yes, there is an X58 mobo for $200 out now, and likely prices will fall down to ~$150 this quarter). If you wait for the AM3 system, then you'll be spending the same per stick on DDR3 memory. As for HKMG, I agree it would probably make P2 overclock even better and lower power consumption, but then I've seen some indications that IBM/AMD are having difficulty with it: Intel to extend high-k lead at IEDM

Quote:
AMD's technology partner, IBM Corp., does not expect to have its high-k/metal-gate solution until the 32-nm node, reportedly causing some angst in the market. IBM's ''fab club'' is using a gate-first approach to high-k and metal gates, while Intel is deploying a rival replacement-gate technology.

Despite an endless parade of claims made by vendors, high-k/metal-gate technology is much harder to develop than previously thought. IBM's ''fab club'' is reportedly wrestling with the technology, while the foundries will not deploy the scheme until the 32- or 28-nm nodes.

With the exception of Intel, ''nobody else is shipping high-k yet,'' said Mark Bohr, Intel senior fellow and director of process architecture and integration. ''We have more than a one generation lead in technology,'' Bohr told EE Times.


As for Bulldozer, I have no idea what it has morphed into at this point. AFAIK it's now some "fusion" product. It's already been pushed out a year, and I suspect with AMD's financial troubles, it'll move even further out. I would hope Istanbul (6-core) would be more competitive, but clocks probably won't get much over 2.8GHz.

I note that AMD's stock price has fallen by almost 25% since Deneb's NDA was lifted. Granted that the market in general has fallen this past week, but AMD seems to be leading the downward spiral, well out in front :) . Intel's Q4 report is out tomorrow I believe, and analysts are predicting only 4 cents per share profit. In contrast, I would not be surprised to see AMD report out close to a dollar per share loss next week - i.e., another 600M loss. Dunno what nine consecutive quarterly losses adds up to, but it's multiple billions down the drain, and AMD simply is not going to be able to compete in R&D in the near term. Unless Abu Dhubai buys them out completely, in which case AMD is out of the x86 business according to the license agreement.
January 14, 2009 11:56:48 PM

[H] is a joke. Kyle hasnt done 3 decent reviews in almost 2 years. If he doesnt like something, he downs it big time. If people liked this, and this type of reviewing, just wait til Larrabee comes out, LOL, youre gonna love that. All his apples to apples, taking his word for things, as to how theyre supposed to be run, cant find newest drivers, cant get AA to work, cant get the P2 to work with the right ram etc etc, at least Toms came clean and admitted they couldnt get the HSF to fit. Theres more on Kyle, tho this is but the tip of his poor reviewing methods, and his total lack of objectability. That also includes those on his site that disagree with him.
His writeup of C2D was horrid....theres so many things that he fails at, itds a wonder hes still around. Weve all seen the graphs, the ocing etc etc, all the other reviews, yet he comes out with this. Not worth the time
January 15, 2009 12:02:34 AM

Itll be interesting using gate first for HKMG, as itll not only get the gate leakage down, but Im thinking it allows for SOI, where already we see AMD doing much better than Intel in their channel leakage, so get the gates down too, and itll be pretty nice indeed
January 15, 2009 12:29:09 AM

Actually the [H] review summed it up, albeit in a very biased and very unprofessional way (ok he was only partially correct). I thought that the clock for clock comparison where Phenom 2 fell flat on its face was a definite hit for him. Then add the low overclockability, it is pretty clear that Phenom 2 can't compete with mid to high C2Qs at a similar price.

What is there to learn about overclocking it? It is basically the same thing as overclocking any other Phenom. I will believe most of the reports that I have read over a few luck ones. I still love to see the 4.2 Ghz on air i7s, they can also barely reach 4 Ghz on air but it is atleast commonly achievable. Let us say that Phenom 2 MIGHT be able to SOMETIMES hit 4 Ghz on air. If you take into account the clock for clock comparison, a Q9550 @ 3.8 will out perform a Phenom 2 at 4-4.2 Ghz.

That all said, Phenom 2 is a step in the right direction, the step is just not quite far enough. It will be interesting to see what AM3 will bring. If it can get a good 10% increase in performance and if it overclocks better it should be able to fully compete with C2Q, just not i7.

I was really hoping Ph2 would compete well, but I guess I got swept up in the hype.
January 15, 2009 12:42:06 AM

Thing is, hes essentially saying that Q9300-Q9400 are losers too, as theyre equal in perf and price. Hes too elitist. The 9550 cost more at the time of his article. Im beginning to think if it isnt the best, its total crap, and this seems to be surfacing more and more in his reviews, thus the tri sli setup. Anyways, P2 has a place, and its a decent chip, a decent oceer and hopefully AM3 will be even better, to close the gap. Its not a leap over, its a catch up
January 15, 2009 1:31:51 AM

If the chip cant hit 4ghz on air NOW, it wont....a year from now or 3 months, pick any realistic time frame. There are not going to be any revolutionary breakthroughs in air cooling tech, whats there now is it, even the ALL solid copper TRUE failed miserably and is a total waste of $110 as it actually performed on par/worse than the regular TRUE according to frosty tech. So unless somebody comes out with a diamond base diamond core heatsink with copper fins and a 150CFM fan on it, no.

So the "it cant hit it on air right now" argument isnt even valid, it cant possibly even pertain to this chip. AM3 might be different but this is AM2, a totally different argument and current at that.
January 15, 2009 2:15:14 AM

fazers_on_stun said:


As for Bulldozer, I have no idea what it has morphed into at this point. AFAIK it's now some "fusion" product. It's already been pushed out a year, and I suspect with AMD's financial troubles, it'll move even further out. I would hope Istanbul (6-core) would be more competitive, but clocks probably won't get much over 2.8GHz.



Swift is the fusion product. Bulldozer is the code name for the next architecture.

I'm not sure the articles objective in saying that IBM is struggling with HKMG. They did not plan on rolling it out at 45nm, but at 32nm. Unless 32nm gets delayed, they are not struggling. They're probably aiming towards a hybrid technology with the best of SOI and HKMG and taking a different approach than Intel.

How long will Intel fans use AMD's paper losses to proclaim the company's almost dead? Personally, it's sad that Intel didn't lose that kind of money when they put out crappy Netburst, but sometimes marketing plus bribery and threats to OEM's work.

IMHO, AMD should have held off on Phenom and not put out a native quad core until 45nm. They wouldn't have done any worse with two X2 6000+'s packaged together. They also paid too much for ATI but that will work out in their favor in the long run. As is, ATI's keeping them solvent while Nvidia expects to bleed cash this year.

"H" is a biased site. I don't read it. Anandtech and Tom's are better sites for reviews. Tom's recent overclocking i7 and PII does justice to both processors. I'd like to see them do a similar C2Q and PII, since it's really C2Q that Phenom II competes against.


a b à CPUs
January 15, 2009 2:24:09 AM

well john until i see it i wont believe your hype

edit:
by the way I am loving Windows 7
January 15, 2009 2:31:00 AM

What hype? 32nm AMD's not out yet so I'm not hyping it other than saying HKMG should provide higher clocks for Phenom 2 the way it did for Core 2. SOI is running into limitations, which is why Intel went HKMG. AMD should have done so sooner, but IBM really thought SOI would last.

Swift looks good for notebooks; 3 cores plus a GPU core. If they kept an IGP on the 880G mobo, then that would be instant hybrid Crossfire for notebooks.

Bulldozer is more up in the air. We don't know anything except it's the code name for a new architecture. At any rate, I think they'll aim for i7, but Intel will be past that by then. AMD will probably always be in the budget mainstream where they started out as Intel subcontractors.

If Intel ever screws up again like they did with Prescott, I hope they can't get away with another OEM rebate program and it's anticompetitive shenanigans. They should not have only lost market share (which they did), they should have bled cash but Dell etc. convinced businesses that they didn't want AMD CPU's and Nvidia chipets. That's where Intel made their money, not with enthusiasts or gamers.
January 15, 2009 2:36:04 AM

The 880G has HD 4000 IGP yipsl. It will be a nice board.

**EDIT** Ahh nvm, notebook variant is what you are refering too.
January 15, 2009 2:38:46 AM

Yep, I'd wait for it. I want to wait for it, but I also want to get a new GPU and monitor. Getting DDR3 and the new board would be a bit much this year.

I'm a firm believer in having the best IGP as a back up or for additional monitors. I hope they finally implement power saving on the 880G's. I'd expected that on the 780G but it didn't end up in the mix.

I don't know that they'll use an 880G variant with Swift. I'm just guessing that it would be great hybrid Crossfire if they do. I have very little information other than that Swift is for notebooks initially and it never hurts to have more graphics horsepower, as many want to still do light gaming on their notebooks.

January 15, 2009 2:41:11 AM

Id like to have a high end chipset with IGP, but so far the only ones seem to be 790GX. Also, is Swift notebook only? If not pairing that with a desktop 880G with that HD 4000 could be a potential hybrid crossfire scenario without even buying and putting an actual video card in the damn board.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2009 5:39:30 AM

^ Try a 9300 IGP.

I'd love something close to a lucid hybrid chip on such a chipset.
January 16, 2009 2:05:51 PM



here the reviewer has some good things to say about phenom II
which i don't think is a bad chip at all, but all the hype about it
is over blown. theirs 3 things i want to point out in this article.
1) all the systems are running ddr2 memory.
2) in games phenom II lose to a equivalent in speed kentsfield
in all gaming benchmarks.
3) 3.7 on air and almost stable 4.1 with phase change, so 4.0
on air from these chips is not possible, unless you live at the
north pole.

now again i'm not saying these new chips aren't a decent
performance upgrade for AMD phenom 1 users , they don't
have mind blowing performance or speed, all that phenom II
delivers today in the way of performance, is what intel conroe
users ben enjoying for over 2years as the buget systems.
January 16, 2009 2:06:44 PM



here the reviewer has some good things to say about phenom II
which i don't think is a bad chip at all, but all the hype about it
is over blown. theirs 3 things i want to point out in this article.
1) all the systems are running ddr2 memory.
2) in games phenom II lose to a equivalent in speed kentsfield
in all gaming benchmarks.
3) 3.7 on air and almost stable 4.1 with phase change, so 4.0
on air from these chips is not possible, unless you live at the
north pole.

now again i'm not saying these new chips aren't a decent
performance upgrade for AMD phenom 1 users , they don't
have mind blowing performance or speed, all that phenom II
delivers today in the way of performance, is what intel conroe
users ben enjoying for over 2years as the buget systems.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2009 9:00:59 PM

Not everyone OCs. Deneb is a great upgrade for those Am2+ owners who can't afford a new motherboard for LGA 775.
January 16, 2009 9:08:53 PM

amdfangirl said:
Not everyone OCs. Deneb is a great upgrade for those Am2+ owners who can't afford a new motherboard for LGA 775.


True on both accounts. Users who overclock are but a mere fraction of the overall users, hell the majority of people using PC's dont even know what overclocking is. The rest are too scared or just dont need the performance boost.

As far as your point on Deneb, true again. Deneb is a good upgrade for people with compatable motherboards, but the chip itself is questionable on performance. I can not recomend Deneb for a ground up build right now.
January 17, 2009 2:17:15 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thing is, hes essentially saying that Q9300-Q9400 are losers too, as theyre equal in perf and price. Hes too elitist. The 9550 cost more at the time of his article. Im beginning to think if it isnt the best, its total crap, and this seems to be surfacing more and more in his reviews, thus the tri sli setup. Anyways, P2 has a place, and its a decent chip, a decent oceer and hopefully AM3 will be even better, to close the gap. Its not a leap over, its a catch up


No the Q9400 is better than the Phenom 2, that's the point. The Q9400 is faster clock for clock and overclocks higher, that's MORE performance and it is cheaper. The Q9300 is pretty close to the 940, but is much cheaper. This is why Phenom 2 fails, as [H] said.
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2009 3:40:54 AM

But just a Phenom-nom (Phenom II) is an easy choice upgrade for those who already have an AM2+ board.
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2009 5:13:13 AM

It isn't cheaper if you factor in the cost of a mobo upgrade Raver.

That's the point ... it is on par with a Kenty ... and the user with a compatible mobo has an easy choice.

Plus the price is solid.

Stick your head back up Intel's a$$ and stop throwing rocks around the glasshouse while the adults are discussing things.

!