Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Now that Phenom II has limped in...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 29, 2009 9:21:47 PM

Just wondering what AMD's next true architecture will do. What is it supposed to be and have they released any info on it. Or will there even be an AMD considering how crappy the market is. Thoughts?

More about : phenom limped

a b à CPUs
January 29, 2009 9:40:19 PM

Well this thread already seems like a flame-thrower war, but anyway I believe AMD will have Bulldozer out in 2011 according to their roadmaps. There'll be a 6-core version of Shanghai out maybe next fall, but that probably doesn't meet your "next true architecture" test.

I've seen some old references to Bulldozer, from a couple years ago, where AMD promised it would have some incredible IPC gains over K8, but that was likely before AMD knew how difficult that would actually be. Then BD dropped off their roadmaps for about a year, and then resurfaced as part of "Fusion" I believe. In short, BD is sort of a moving target at this point. Could be an on-die GPU integrated with the CPU. Probably JDJ or somebody more familiar with BD can fill you in more.

If the Abu Dhabi deal does go through (i.e., no x86 license issues) then I would say AMD is OK for the next few years. If not, then it's hard to see them lasting by this time next year. They burned through $800M in cash and readily-available assets last quarter, and are down to $1.1B total. They lost more than they earned last quarter. And although the marketshare numbers for CPUs are not out yet, I've seen a report stating that AMD is purposely slowing their fab down in order to get rid of inventory.

What I think will actually happen is that AMD and Intel will reach some sort of understanding concerning the x86 license and the antitrust lawsuits, and hence AMD will continue on as usual.

Just my 3 cents worth...
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 29, 2009 11:54:11 PM

As far as I know AMD will be using K10 for some time yet, they'll just be adding more cores in 2010. I fear that their decision to do so will result in really high power consumption and little to no gains outside of highly multithreaded apps and multitasking.
Related resources
January 30, 2009 3:46:19 AM

Are they still going for a 2nd 45nm process with some sort of HKMG. If they do, maybe they can push clockspeeds into high 3Ghz range for stock. Not a new arch, but could be helpful.
January 30, 2009 6:27:24 AM

loneninja said:
As far as I know AMD will be using K10 for some time yet, they'll just be adding more cores in 2010. I fear that their decision to do so will result in really high power consumption and little to no gains outside of highly multithreaded apps and multitasking.


I'll take the added real cores over the "fake" cores that some people actually somehow believe are important.

I remember working my butt off to talk my boss into getting me a hyperthreaded CPU. I got what I asked for. Shorty after ward I found out that the Java development applications we code worked much better if I disabled that stupid garbage (hyperthreading) that Intel pawned off onto us.

But now I'm supposed to trust Intel and believe that it now is a good idea.

That will happen. About the same time as a comet hits the Earth and we all die.

I will take MORE CORES before I will ever buy into the stupid hyperthreading idea.

People can show me stupid benchmarks which mean nothing in real use until they are blue in the face. I will not be stupid enough to buy into that idea again. And the "dynamic overclocking" they now propose as a good idea? I'll just put that into the same category as the failed hyperthreading.

Burn me once.... but it won't be happening again. Sadly they are upgrading my work PC soon and I will have to deal with the stupid "fake" technology they put into their new architecture because it is a corporate thing. Besides... we don't overclock the work machines. DUH. Give me REAL TECH not the fake crap that they want us to believe is real.

OH... and as to the "high power consumption". First of all I don't care. And second of all I don't care. Corporate PC's are never overclocked. The only thing important with them is that they do their job. Period. All this "enthusiast" stuff means nothing in that realm. (Oh and it is very likely I might be able to NOT get a new Intel machine... they might get me AMD. That makes me VERY happy because when I'm working I don't care about the tripe on these forums... I need performance. This weekend I have to go from a task that takes about 8 hours on an Opteron "test" machine to wasting my weekend getting things loaded on a Xeon machine. It will take about 3 times longer. And sadly the Xeon is about 600Mhz faster "theoretically".)

EDIT: Okay I lied. It won't be 3x longer. The Xeon machine will probably only take 12-14 hours instead of 8. But that is wasted time. Period.

Oh. And before some idiot jumps in and screams "But those are server applications": the tools we use run on Windows... for REAL applications we use Sun Starfire boxes. Duh. The stupid Business Objects tools run on a non-server box. (Of course some people consider these to be "Server" applications. But they aren't because they run on stupid x86 platforms. Stupidest thing that ever happened to the corporate world.)

HUMOR: About two years ago the (then) management decided to move to all Microsoft and all SQL Server. Recently that company was bought out and now the new parent company which is 4 times larger mandates moving to UNIX and ORACLE and not using any Microsoft products. Go figure. So I'll be back on a Starfire box soon. Praise whatever deity you believe in because none of this "Intel versus AMD" stuff will mean anything.
January 30, 2009 7:29:24 AM

MCMaChu said:
Just wondering what AMD's next true architecture will do. What is it supposed to be and have they released any info on it. Or will there even be an AMD considering how crappy the market is. Thoughts?


"Limped"? AMD gives you more bang for your buck and your saying "limped"?

:lol: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EJKifq6JM

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

Presently at tigerdirect.com there is an $850 dollar difference between the two chips.

Flame on Fanboi !
January 30, 2009 7:53:07 AM

For a low 235$ you get a quad that goes 3.7-3.9 on air with no problem's not really a limp more of a swift kick to the pricing nut's.

a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 30, 2009 10:25:45 AM

Dekasav said:
Are they still going for a 2nd 45nm process with some sort of HKMG. If they do, maybe they can push clockspeeds into high 3Ghz range for stock. Not a new arch, but could be helpful.


I have heard thats being held off (because of IBM mainly) for 32nm and there will not be a 45nm refresh. besides we don't know how HKMG will truly react to AMDs process itself.

Must wait and see what IBM says and gives the go ahead on that one.

enigma067 said:
"Limped"? AMD gives you more bang for your buck and your saying "limped"?

:lol: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EJKifq6JM

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

Presently at tigerdirect.com there is an $850 dollar difference between the two chips.

Flame on Fanboi !


Says the fanboy who uses the exact same videos each time he posts and never posts anything relevant or usefull.

xx12amanxx said:
For a low 235$ you get a quad that goes 3.7-3.9 on air with no problem's not really a limp more of a swift kick to the pricing nut's.


All depends on the person and what the build is. I say if you have a supporting AM2/AM2+ (preferably AM2+) mobo go for it. New build is iffy.

Keith, glad to see you in here with a pretty much useless "I hate Intel and AMD is the only one who made me feel good" rant but that has nothing to do at all with the OP. In fact you are soooo far off on the other side I can't even see you.

You didn't like HT. Have you actually tried a Core i7 with the newer enhanced SMT? Hell even Intel will admit that not for every application will it boost performance (mainly single threaded ones). But it does show that in most highly multithreaded apps it boosts performance. Or is that not enough?

Intel will probably hit 8 "real" cores before AMD does mainly considering that well hell 32nm is still on track for this year unless the world comes to an end.

And whats your problem with the dynamic OCing? For a server or people who do not OC its a great feature. It will boost it 2 steps up. Thats a free 266MHz to make apps go faster. I don't see a down side.

Either way to the OP, AMD has changed their roadmap a lot since their dump into the red. We don't have a definative answer from AMD on their next step. We do know that they and IBM along with 10 other companies are working on their own version of HKMG like Intel has but I have read a few reports that IBM is having a problem with it.

Could be the materials that they are using for their metal gate could be something else. Who knows. And I do believe that there will be a new socket replacing AM3 in what 2 years? And I think its called Socket G34 but haven't heard anything about it in a while.
January 30, 2009 1:21:01 PM

jimmysmitty said:


Keith, glad to see you in here with a pretty much useless "I hate Intel and AMD is the only one who made me feel good" rant but that has nothing to do at all with the OP. In fact you are soooo far off on the other side I can't even see you.


What can I say... I had too much beer last night.

But anyway: based on the OP's title he was trolling anyway so it doesn't really matter.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 31, 2009 7:45:52 AM

Quote:
I would imagine if they were smart they would be working on 32nm right now and releasing 32nm with AM3, that would be the smart route.


Tell that to IBM. If they are having problems nothing AMD can do but wait until they get the good word from IBM.

And if AM3 is supposed to be out next month I highly doubt they would be able to even fathom switching processes over that fast. Thats IF AM3 is out next month. Plus, remember that AMDs FAbs are now not their own in a way meaning they have less power over them and have to work with them.

But we shall see. I predict they will have 32nm in 2010.
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2009 12:58:39 PM

^ According to the Foundry roadmap, 32nm should be out by Q3 of 2010. Looks like AMD moved it up half a year or so from 2011.
February 1, 2009 4:04:15 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Have you actually tried a Core i7 with the newer enhanced SMT? Hell even Intel will admit that not for every application will it boost performance (mainly single threaded ones). But it does show that in most highly multithreaded apps it boosts performance. Or is that not enough?


Seems to work well on the Atom too, though that's partly because it's such a 'low-tech' design which has plenty of stall cycles for the other thread to utilise.

The big difference is that the new Intel CPUs are designed for hyperthreading, whereas the P4 had it bolted on the side and hit various limitations as a result.
February 1, 2009 12:39:53 PM

loneninja said:
As far as I know AMD will be using K10 for some time yet, they'll just be adding more cores in 2010. I fear that their decision to do so will result in really high power consumption and little to no gains outside of highly multithreaded apps and multitasking.



K10 Deneb based architecture won't necessarily be too high in power consumption if they do another die shrink. Since ATI's GPU's are going from 55nm to 40nm this year, we should expect 32nm CPU's by 2010. They may not be traditional SOI like today's Phenom II's but should involve HK/MG.

It will be an improvement, and Intel's 2010 CPU's should still have higher IPC's but Phenom II shows AMD's catching up. I don't expect the next AMD or Intel architecture before 2012, since the recession might last as long.
February 1, 2009 4:47:23 PM

keithlm said:
What can I say... I had too much beer last night.

But anyway: based on the OP's title he was trolling anyway so it doesn't really matter.


Really?

Its more of an observation.
Ive owned both. AMD64, Q6600, and 9950. I am in no ways a fanboi.

From my perspective and other review sites, Phenom II did limp in. It fails to impress. Intel has had 45nm for how long? The Phenom II processor still fails, clock for clock to beat Intel's offerings. The only thing they got going is for previous AM2+ owners an upgrade path. AM3 unless by some miracle with the ddr3 memory allows it to blow past the intel offerings will have zero incentive for new people in the market to buy unless they are strapped for cash where it shines.



Also AMD made its rounds showing the Phenom II was also the be able to be clocked to 4.0Ghz on air. It doesn't.

Unless AMD made the Phenom II to a point where the price/perfomance justifies the purchase then the term limped in can be used.
February 1, 2009 6:04:37 PM

MCMaChu said:
Really?

Its more of an observation.
Ive owned both. AMD64, Q6600, and 9950. I am in no ways a fanboi.

From my perspective and other review sites, Phenom II did limp in. It fails to impress. Intel has had 45nm for how long? The Phenom II processor still fails, clock for clock to beat Intel's offerings. The only thing they got going is for previous AM2+ owners an upgrade path. AM3 unless by some miracle with the ddr3 memory allows it to blow past the intel offerings will have zero incentive for new people in the market to buy unless they are strapped for cash where it shines.



Also AMD made its rounds showing the Phenom II was also the be able to be clocked to 4.0Ghz on air. It doesn't.

Unless AMD made the Phenom II to a point where the price/perfomance justifies the purchase then the term limped in can be used.



Two things.
1. AM3 (or any CPU) doesn't have to "blow past the [competitor's] offerings" to have an incentive to buy. Price/performance, upgrade path, total system cost, and availability of good/better motherboards can give an average or below-average CPU (performance-wise) an incentive to "new people in the market."

2. Phenom II IS at a point where its price/performance justifies its purchase.

Phenom 1 limped in with a broken leg (TLB errata + performance/OC issues). Phenom II strolled nicely (but didn't do acrobatics like Core 2 did).
February 1, 2009 6:24:50 PM

Dekasav said:
Two things.
1. AM3 (or any CPU) doesn't have to "blow past the [competitor's] offerings" to have an incentive to buy.


Of course not. But Phenom II probably costs a similar amount to manufacture as i7 does, and AMD will have to sell it for a fraction of the price in order to remain competitive; that's good for end-users, but not so good for AMD's financial results.
February 1, 2009 6:38:29 PM

The smaller it gets the longer its going to take. The jump from 65nm to 45nm was here in a flash on the Intel side. However as you can obviously see 45nm to 32nm is taking 2 times longer, its also less of a shrink.
February 1, 2009 7:11:00 PM

spathotan said:
However as you can obviously see 45nm to 32nm is taking 2 times longer, its also less of a shrink.


Both 65nm->45nm and 45nm->32nm are approximately the square root of two: i.e. you can fit twice as many transistors in the same area. That is the normal rate at which die shrinks occur.

Time-wise is a different matter of course, as is cost. And with AMD lagging behind, I doubt Intel have much reason to rush ahead and obsolete billions of dollars of investment in 45nm fabs.
February 1, 2009 7:15:54 PM

MCMaChu said:
Just wondering what AMD's next true architecture will do. What is it supposed to be and have they released any info on it. Or will there even be an AMD considering how crappy the market is. Thoughts?


i guess the answer depends partially on what happens to the world economy. above a certain volume, making CPU's is like a license to print money.

i wonder what the differences are between Phenom 2 and Core i7 in terms of putting 2 CPU's on a motherboard.

AMD could take back the performance crown by coming out with a dual or quad CPU version of the Phenom 2 before Intel Xeon'izes the Nehalem chips. i don't know how hard that is technically. they both have some practice with making processors for 2P and 4P workstation & server systems. i wonder if AMD's more extensive experience with the integrated memory controller will help them win this race to market.

AMD is really hurting financially. i would not be surprised to seem them go BK, bankrupt.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AMD

1.33 billion. heck, i could almost buy them.

i wish. i wouldn't be surprised to see Dell or HP buy them. their stock market value than it was after 9-11.
February 2, 2009 10:33:10 AM

Bankruptcy usually means reorganization. There's enough avoidance of monopoly incentive for Intel to not put the pressure on AMD as in the OEM rebate days, and the paper losses due to the ATI buyout and the spin off of the fabs will eventually disappear. In a sense, it's not real money losses as AMD is not selling products at a loss. Investor losses can be recouped as AMD retools and gains market share.

AMD is selling chipsets and GPU's at a profit and they aren't selling CPU's at a loss. At best, the margins for CPU's are rather thin, but I'd say that's true with i7 as well. Intel's Core 2 architecture, mature and affordable is the money maker there.

I'm tired of all the clock for clock mishegoss that some vent here. We know Intel has higher IPC right now. AMD had higher IPC back in the Netburst days. Both Intel and AMD kept their historical relationship because it's CPU's that compete, not instructions per clock.

A Q6600 is EOL but the fan of that CPU will probably argue that it's almost as good as a Phenom II because it's merely 2.4 gigahertz and Phenom II's are 2.8 or 3.0 (which makes up for the slightly lower IPC). The same held when the Athlon X2's at 2.0 gigahertz beat a Smithfield at 2.8. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Both CPU's had markets and customers back then and both present day CPU's have markets and customer's now. At least the Q6600 isn't worthless like the Pentium D 805. It's still a viable CPU and I can't see anyone upgrading from it to either a Phenom II or an i7.

Raviolissimo said:


i wish. i wouldn't be surprised to see Dell or HP buy them. their stock market value than it was after 9-11.


Don't people understand the x86 license issue? Intel licenses their technology to AMD because AMD was once a producer of Intel designed CPU's when Intel didn't have the capacity to meet all customer's demands. AMD licensed x86-64 to Intel and though Intel's taking pot shots at AMD for allowing the new fab spinoff "access" to x86 technology AMD could fire back in court and it could get ugly.

It would get worse if a mere PC builder like Dell (which has it's own problems and might go the way of Compuadd in this decade) tried to buy into the x86 license. Only Samsung could possibly buy AMD, unless it really became "Arabian Micro Devices" as The Inquirer snarkily calls it.

Intel needs an x86 competitor and doesn't need hassles over x86-64. It is better for Intel that AMD survive bankruptcy reorganization and compete with as small a market share as viable otherwise Intel's in more problems with regulators than during the OEM rebate mess; plus in trouble if a player as big as itself gets the license. Intel needs AMD but needs AMD to be small.

I like AMD CPU's but I'm looking forward to the day when a consortium of companies go past x86 and x86-64 and we have a standard that doesn't lock Intel into major share of server and monopolistic share of desktop CPU license. AMD will probably be part of that consortium and Intel will follow, but it probably won't happen untill quantum computing, the way things are going. LOL
February 2, 2009 12:40:57 PM

yipsl said:
AMD is selling chipsets and GPU's at a profit and they aren't selling CPU's at a loss.


They certainly aren't making any money.

Quote:
At best, the margins for CPU's are rather thin, but I'd say that's true with i7 as well.


You think profit margins on $600 CPUs are 'rather thin'? I'm not sure what a 45mm die costs, but based on experience with earlier processes I'd suspect Intel are making at least 50% profit on those chips; you don't get anything like that margin selling big quad-core chips at $200 apiece.
February 2, 2009 1:17:35 PM

keithlm said:
based on the OP's title he was trolling anyway so it doesn't really matter.


Agreed. Phenom II isn't too bad. It's fairly competitive for the price.


Also, @Enigma067 - You're dumb. Are those AMD marketing videos supposed to actually convince anybody here that the pII 940 and the i7 965 are even in the same league? Compare the PII 940 to the Q9400, Q9550, or even i7 920. It actually stands up fairly well in most cases and makes a decent argument for going with PII. AMD marketing videos aren't going to influence many people on a site like this.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2009 2:20:54 PM

MarkG said:
Both 65nm->45nm and 45nm->32nm are approximately the square root of two: i.e. you can fit twice as many transistors in the same area. That is the normal rate at which die shrinks occur.

Time-wise is a different matter of course, as is cost. And with AMD lagging behind, I doubt Intel have much reason to rush ahead and obsolete billions of dollars of investment in 45nm fabs.


Recent news articles I've seen show Intel stating it is moving to 32nm on time, no plans to delay it despite the lousy economy. Westmere should be out in Q4 and available in quantity Q1 next year. Intel has already done most of the heavy lifting with 32nm and is using the D1D fab to scale it up for production quantities.

However, the bulk of CPUs next year will continue to be 45nm, and probably Penryns since they're cheaper to make I believe, plus no challenge from AMD at the high end, at least at the present.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2009 2:52:22 PM

yipsl said:
... and the paper losses due to the ATI buyout and the spin off of the fabs will eventually disappear. In a sense, it's not real money losses as AMD is not selling products at a loss. Investor losses can be recouped as AMD retools and gains market share.


Hmm, how do you explain AMD's cash & liquid assets decreasing to just $1.1B at the end of Q4, down by $800M for the year? I would call a 73% reduction in cash more than a "paper loss", esp. when AMD sold off some assets such as the old 200mm equipment. According to AMD's quarterly report, they lost $431M in "computing solutions" in Q4, and only a $10M loss in graphics for the same quarter. So, yes AMD is selling products at a loss. This current quarter is not shaping up any better, esp. with the P2 price cuts that went into effect a couple weeks ago.

Quote:
AMD is selling chipsets and GPU's at a profit and they aren't selling CPU's at a loss. At best, the margins for CPU's are rather thin, but I'd say that's true with i7 as well. Intel's Core 2 architecture, mature and affordable is the money maker there.


From AMD's Priorities :

Quote:
AMD's unit marketshare in each of these fields. We find that for Q3 2008, they were:

Notebooks: 11.3%

Desktops: 25.0%

Servers: 13.8%

We can see that AMD's unit marketshare differs considerably by sector, being strongest in desktops and weakest in notebooks. Unfortunately for AMD, the long-term trend in CPU growth is the opposite, with notebook CPU volume growing strongly while desktop CPU volume stagnates/slowly declines. I didn't list notebooks first just to be extra-nasty, Mercury's research also indicated that Q3 2008 was the first quarter ever where notebook CPU shipments exceeded those for desktops.

Next comes the revenue marketshare in the various segments. It's easy to see that AMD gets considerably less revenue per CPU, no matter what the segment than Intel.

How much less?

In servers, we find that in Q3 2008, AMD got 77% of the revenue for the average server chip that Intel did.

In notebooks, we find that in Q3 2008, AMD got 72% of the revenue for the average notebook chip that Intel did.

In desktops, we find that in Q3 2008, AMD got 63% of the revenue for the average desktop chip that Intel did.

So in the segment where AMD does best, they get (relatively) the least amount of money, but, no matter what the segment, AMD processors sell at a significant discount to Intel processors.


I suppose iSuppli will be releasing Q4 marketshare numbers in the next few weeks. And there was recent news about GPU sales being way off in Q4, although I can't find the link at the moment.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2009 8:56:10 PM

Speaking of the devil, this just in:

Quote:
For 2008 as a whole, Intel claimed an 80.4 percent share of the x86 processor market up from 77.1 percent in 2007. AMD’s share declined from 22.1 percent to 18.5, and Via’s rose from 0.8 to 1.1 percent. The total x86 processor market expanded 13.3 percent over 2007.

Desktop and notebook CPU shipments suffered an 18 percent drop in growth, even as server CPU shipments declined 25 percent. The report attributed the latter to businesses cutting back on infrastructure spending, and enterprises having finished their most recent server refresh cycle.

February 2, 2009 9:07:51 PM

VIA ftw. Their new chip smacks the Atom around.
February 2, 2009 10:16:57 PM

Hi folks,

I think Phenom II is a good start.

It's a little late but it did a couple of things that they needed.
It proves the basic phenom design is not just plain awful. Phenom at release had some serious flaws. The TLB bug. Its lackluckster performance. The X2 chips were out performing the phenoms in some situations. Take the the new x2 7750 BE which loses in benchmarks to the x2 6000 and x2 6400. How is that an upgrade?

The Phenom II is clock for clock 20% faster than Phenom. It's what Phenon should have been. The die shrink and process change has also fixed the clock speed issues. There will be 3+ ghz AMD chips this year without needing to go to some extreme cooling solution.

My only concern is that they still seem to be a little hot and thirsty. Even the new chips use 125w TDP. This is down from 140w TDP. But Intel just came out with a 65W core 2 quad recently down from 95w. I'm praying that AMD doesn't have a "hot" chip like the old Pentium 4's were. Having to disipate all that extra wattage reduces your maximum clock speed.

Please don't think I'm trying to start a thread war. I have used AMD processors from k6-2, athalon xp, Barton, and AMD 64. I intend to buy an Phenom II but I'm waiting for AM3 to pull the trigger. I'm one of the poor slobs who has a socket 939 board.
February 3, 2009 5:21:00 AM

I guess I'll post this link once more, since its needed.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1
Not bad for limping in eh? Only i7 wins enough, and by enough to say its a clear winner, and thats mainly due to multi card setups. Is some people minds hardening? They cant accept this? Plain to see, just click the link.
AMDs biggest problems production wise right now is having a decent dual core out. The quad core solution is much much more competitive than it was, or ever has been, as seen by my link, and Im sure the oems as well. So, do us all a favor, and read thre link before continuing to discuss whether P2 is any good, and then we can go from there. And please understand when I use AT for reference, its not as tho theyve been particularly kind to AMD as of late, and has been seen as a Intel site, not in my eyes, but for many others.
So, if this is limping, keep limping
February 3, 2009 5:25:22 AM

average joe said:
Hi folks,

I think Phenom II is a good start.

It's a little late but it did a couple of things that they needed.
It proves the basic phenom design is not just plain awful. Phenom at release had some serious flaws. The TLB bug. Its lackluckster performance. The X2 chips were out performing the phenoms in some situations. Take the the new x2 7750 BE which loses in benchmarks to the x2 6000 and x2 6400. How is that an upgrade?

The Phenom II is clock for clock 20% faster than Phenom. It's what Phenon should have been. The die shrink and process change has also fixed the clock speed issues. There will be 3+ ghz AMD chips this year without needing to go to some extreme cooling solution.

My only concern is that they still seem to be a little hot and thirsty. Even the new chips use 125w TDP. This is down from 140w TDP. But Intel just came out with a 65W core 2 quad recently down from 95w. I'm praying that AMD doesn't have a "hot" chip like the old Pentium 4's were. Having to disipate all that extra wattage reduces your maximum clock speed.

Please don't think I'm trying to start a thread war. I have used AMD processors from k6-2, athalon xp, Barton, and AMD 64. I intend to buy an Phenom II but I'm waiting for AM3 to pull the trigger. I'm one of the poor slobs who has a socket 939 board.

P2 is decent on power usage. i7 actually uses more power when using SMT. It uses over 80watts less at 3Ghz than P1 did, and thats good.
February 4, 2009 3:42:36 AM

Unless they have yield issues, I'd ditch dual cores at AMD. I'd make triple core AM3's the bottom of the barrel and market that to the average OEM PC buyer (3 cores vs. 2 provides future proofing).

AM3 Phenom II's supposedly out next Monday. I might wait 3 days to order just to see what they have, but I don't think they'll have the 3.0 gigahertz unlocked part I don't have an overclocking AM2+ board. Would it be worth it to buy one at this late date? An AM3 CPU would allow me to move it to an 880G mobo with SB800 later on this year.
February 4, 2009 10:46:20 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
P2 is decent on power usage. i7 actually uses more power when using SMT. It uses over 80watts less at 3Ghz than P1 did, and thats good.


Again i'll say it good chip not great one:

Now read the conclusion, take note the Q6600 @3.6 consistantly stay out front of a phenom 2
@3.7.
February 4, 2009 11:11:55 AM

Jed, the Phenom II 920 is not unlocked. It's not an overclocking CPU and no one should buy it for that purpose. For only $40 more, the 940 does much better. You should look at Anandtech's article instead to see how well an unlocked 3.0 gigahertz stock Phenom II does against the Q9550 and i7, especially when overclocked with Crossfire setups.

The Phenom II 940 has more fluid gameplay in 3 titles, matches the Q9550 in 5 titles and barely loses to the i7 in only 1 title. That's why I'm looking at finally overclocking once I get a Phenom II next week. My only consideration is can I do it with my board with SB700 or do I need to find a good 790GX board with SB750?

There are fans of the Q6600 that simply won't give up. I think the X-Bit Labs guys are in that camp. One of these days you won't find a new Q6600 and Intel's competition to the Phenom II 920 will be the Q8300, which the PII 920 beats. The Phenom II 940 matches or beats the Q9550 often enough to make that a better choice.

After all, the platform for the Q9550 is a dead end. I can expect that a rumored Phenom II 3.6 will drop into any Gigabyte AM2+ motherboard I have at the time (780G or 780GX).

Phenom II as a series is not yet as successful as Core 2 Quad, but give it time. Lower IPC yes, but it's closer to the competition's IPC than the Smithfield duo cores were to Athlon X2; much closer.

I agree with Anand's conclusion: if you have a Core 2 mobo that supports the Q9950, go that route. If you have an AM2+ board that supports Phenom II, go PII 940. If you have enough for an i7 build and don't mind changing platforms, that's a good path to take.

Phenom II will be mature with 880G (possibly 890GX) chipsets, DDR3 memory and higher stock clocks at 95 watt. The Phenom II 920 is not an overclocker's CPU and there's no reason for an overclocker to pay $40 less for it when the Phenom II 940's readily available as an upgrade to existing AM2+ setups.

February 4, 2009 12:05:20 PM

Quote:
Jed, the Phenom II 920 is not unlocked. It's not an overclocking CPU and no one should buy it for that purpose. For only $40 more, the 940 does much better. You should look at Anandtech's article instead to see how well an unlocked 3.0 gigahertz stock Phenom II does against the Q9550 and i7, especially when overclocked with Crossfire setups.


locked or unlocked most site had problems overclocking past 3.7 on the phenom 2's, and
my point was at a 100Mhz decrease in speed the old 65nm chip is still beating the new
higher clocked 45nm AMD chip.

Quote:
The Phenom II 940 has more fluid gameplay in 3 titles, matches the Q9550 in 5 titles and barely loses to the i7 in only 1 title. That's why I'm looking at finally overclocking once I get a Phenom II next week. My only consideration is can I do it with my board with SB700 or do I need to find a good 790GX board with SB750?


Anand said this:
Quote:
However, looking through the performance results and game play experiences, we have to mention just how fast Intel's Core i7 is right now. Its results were just remarkable in Far Cry 2 and it consistently scored at the top in CrossFire mode in the other games even though it has the lowest core clock speed. If platform pricing were better, then the Core i7 series would have a clear recommendation for an upgrade if you were considering a multi-GPU setup.



Quote:
There are fans of the Q6600 that simply won't give up. I think the X-Bit Labs guys are in that camp. One of these days you won't find a new Q6600 and Intel's competition to the Phenom II 920 will be the Q8300, which the PII 920 beats. The Phenom II 940 matches or beats the Q9550 often enough to make that a better choice.


but untill then the Q6600 that you can still get new, and for a lower price then the phenom 2's is
still a decent over all system.


Quote:
After all, the platform for the Q9550 is a dead end. I can expect that a rumored Phenom II 3.6 will drop into any Gigabyte AM2+ motherboard I have at the time (780G or 780GX).


Intel already have a answer to that its called Q9650 which will overclock to 4ghz for 350.00.
February 4, 2009 1:23:47 PM

jed said:


locked or unlocked most site had problems overclocking past 3.7 on the phenom 2's, and
my point was at a 100Mhz decrease in speed the old 65nm chip is still beating the new
higher clocked 45nm AMD chip.

but untill then the Q6600 that you can still get new, and for a lower price then the phenom 2's is
still a decent over all system.


Intel already have a answer to that its called Q9650 which will overclock to 4ghz for 350.00.


Anand got the PII 940 higher. Perhaps you are making another blanket Phenom II statement based on Xbit Lab's experience with the PII 920? Your point about an old 65nm chip beating the new references the 920, which is not an overclocking chip.

If you like the Q6600 as an EOL platform, then get 'em while they're hot. It's a good mainstream system, but I'd prefer to be able to replace a Phenom II 940 @ 3.0 with a future Phenom II @ 3.6. That's possible with AM3 CPU's being compatible with AM2+ and DDR2 1066.

How is the Q9650 an answer? It will be an EOL platform once i5 arrives. Also, how does a $350 Intel CPU compete against a $225 AMD CPU that matches its immediate predecessor?

Don't be a fanboy. The i7 rules the roost for those who can afford it, but both the Q6600 and the Q9550 are beaten or matched by the best Phenom II's. Not all Phenom II's beat the Q6600 under all circumstances, but the Q6600 doesn't beat every Phenom II under most circumstances. Don't rely completely on overclocking as those results vary.

Yes, Intel still has higher IPC but the difference between Phenom II and Core 2 Quad is minimal in the real world and the difference between Phenom II and i7 is less than the difference that once existed between Smithfield and the Athlon X2. Higher clocks compensate for lower IPC, just as in the days of the Intel OEM rebate program.

Will AMD keep up with i7 as it evolves into i5? Don't know, but I do know that I'd rather drop a $225 CPU into an AM2+ motherboard with Kingston HyperX DDR2 800 than build a system around a $350 Q9650 CPU just to get a bit of a boost.

Anandtech has interesting comments on Phenom II 940 overclocking:

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=550

They could get stability @ 4.275 under Vista 32, but only 3.990 under Vista 64. When I overclock, I'm not messing with voltages, but just changing the multiplier to get 3.4 to 3.6. That's all I need to bring out the best in my out for delivery 4870x2 @ 1920 x 1080 resolution.

If they ran benchmarks under XP 32 or Vista 32, would the Phenom II 940 be seen as a good overclocker by Intel fans who swoon over 4 gigahertz for their Q9550's? Inquiring minds would like to know if there's a clockspeed jones going on as well as an emerging native clockspeed race between AMD and Intel shaping up.

In the real world, it's price performance. AMD knows it's in second place, but it's trying harder. Intel's relying upon getting a bit more life out of Core 2 while waiting for i7 to morph into the much more affordable i5.
a c 96 à CPUs
February 4, 2009 2:03:44 PM

MarkG said:
Seems to work well on the Atom too, though that's partly because it's such a 'low-tech' design which has plenty of stall cycles for the other thread to utilise.

The big difference is that the new Intel CPUs are designed for hyperthreading, whereas the P4 had it bolted on the side and hit various limitations as a result.


The Atom is an in-order CPU, so there will naturally be a lot more pipeline stalls than in an out-of-order CPU like the P4 or i7 (or any x86 CPU from the Pentium Pro onward, excepting a few VIA chips) since you're waiting for data much more of the time. SMT in the Atom allows for the second thread to be executed when the first one stalls, and since there are a lot of stalls, you see a good performance boost. SMT on the P4 was more intended to give the processor something to do when it mis-predicted a branch and had to flush and reload the 21 or 31-stage pipeline than to deal with pipeline stalls. I believe that SMT on the Core i7 is there not to cover up for any inherent flaws in the processor microarchitecture like it is in the P4 or Atom, but to simply keep more threads in flight and keep the execution units running at full utilization. The i7 is really designed as a server chip and most other serve chips such as the UltraSPARC T1/T2 and IBM POWER have been using SMT for quite some time with generally good results.

On a side comment, I think that SMT on the P4 got an unnecessarily bad rap because most programs at the time were solely single-threaded and Windows didn't have all that great of a thread scheduler, so you would see little to no increase or even a decrease in performance versus having HT disabled. I'd betcha that if you dragged out an old P4 HT and benched it on Win2K or XP SP1 using period programs and then on Windows Vista or Linux using modern programs, the P4's relative performance with HT enabled versus disabled would increase a fair bit due to HT actually being useful in modern setups.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2009 5:19:37 PM

yipsl said:
Don't be a fanboy. The i7 rules the roost for those who can afford it, but both the Q6600 and the Q9550 are beaten or matched by the best Phenom II's.


Maybe you mean the Q9300, but certainly not the Q9550: Phenom II 940 Review: Clock for clock Deneb vs. Yorkfield

Quote:
We conclude that AMD has a winning chip for previous AM2+ system users, that overclocks much better (and more consistently) than it's predecessor. Performance is not quite what we hoped to see, but is in line with what other reviews have found. Deneb is, clock for clock, equal to or slightly slower than Yorkfield. Rarely beating Yorkfield in this bench suite, but certainly an improvement over the original Phenom. Gaming tests are showing good results for AMD, especially in CrossFire setups with AMD/ATI graphics. Some chipset optimizations are probably to be credited for the boosted performance. If you are an AMD fan or an Intel fan, you should be happy with the results that Phenom II is able to bring to the table. From the AMD side you can now get the best performing, best overclocking quad core ever released by your favorite company, all with the ability to drop into your current AM2+ compatible board. Just make sure to check for the latest BIOS at your board manufacturer's website and double check compatibility. From the Intel side you would be happy to see that if you are still on the LGA 775 platform, your system will not be consistently beat by anything at the same system cost price point. We should all be happy to see a competitive CPU, as we all know that competition between manufacturers is a winning situation for the end user (us!)



Basically if you currently have a Phenom II capable setup and are looking to upgrade, you will do well going with a Phenom II x4 940. If you currently use an Intel based setup and need to upgrade your CPU, you are best off with a Q9xxx series quad. If you are building from scratch? Wait for AM3 results (Due Q2 2009), and build whichever is the best bang for your buck at that point. Hopefully AMD will continue the trend of releasing more frugal-minded Black Edition (denotes unlocked multiplier) processors. Can anyone hope with us for a 45nm "Propus" (AM3) based "budget" Black Edition quad?



Pros:
Drop in compatibility (for the most part) with current AM2+ motherboards
Unlocked multiplier (the Phenom II 920 is locked) allowing for higher and easier overclocking
Greatly improved overclocking over Phenom series CPUs
Good performance for the money (aka: good "bang for your buck")
For "Xtreme" users only: Has virtually no attainable "cold bug," even under Liquid Helium
Hits very high clockspeeds for quad-core benchmarking goodness under Xtreme cooling (single stage phase, cascade, dry ice, LN2, LHe)


Cons:
Not worth switching platforms if you currently have LGA 775
Doesn't overclock quite as high as the average Intel quad under 24/7 normal condition cooling
Performance doesn't consistently match Yorkfield, an older technology by ~9 months



Besides, according to Hexus, the i7 975 is tops again:

Quote:
Details are in short supply, but overclockers Mikeguava and Fugger appear to have their hands on Intel's range-topping part and have done what they do best - overclock the hell out of it. Using GIGABYTE's EX58 Extreme mainboard, Corsair's peltier-cooled memory and a pair of Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics cards, they managed to score a staggering 47,026 3DMarks.

What's interesting is that the CPU features D0 stepping, and such a change usually denotes a refined silicon package that could result in lower power consumption and should provide greater overclocking headroom.

a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 3:40:00 AM

keithlm said:
I'll take the added real cores over the "fake" cores that some people actually somehow believe are important.

I remember working my butt off to talk my boss into getting me a hyperthreaded CPU. I got what I asked for. Shorty after ward I found out that the Java development applications we code worked much better if I disabled that stupid garbage (hyperthreading) that Intel pawned off onto us.

But now I'm supposed to trust Intel and believe that it now is a good idea.

That will happen. About the same time as a comet hits the Earth and we all die.


Hyperthreading was only ever designed to increase core efficiency... nothing more. Its not an extra core, just a virtual one.
February 5, 2009 4:30:30 AM

Ive heard reports that i7 uses up to 330 watts just by itself, with SMP on , and oceed to 3.6. I dunno, dont have 1, but at least one owner makes such claims. He has a 4870, and total system draw is 450 watts, just the cpu alone, 330 watts, so it appears all that high oerformance from i7 comes at a high cost in enrgy usage. I hope the D0 rev helps with this
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 5:18:51 AM

Hmm intersting... how did he find the power consumption of the CPU alone?
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 5, 2009 10:19:05 AM

amdfangirl said:
Hmm intersting... how did he find the power consumption of the CPU alone?


not too sure since he just stated he heard reports butdidn't post any links. Or maybe he has links but wont use them since maybe they are from a untrustworthy source. Or maybe he is just blabbing. Who knows.

From what I have seen on most sites that tested this, idle and under load Core i7 seems to use about 10-15w more than equivalent clocked C2Q (45nm) which does not to me add up to 330w. And thats considering it has the IMC which would seem to increase consumption a bit.

But hey who am I to believe them.
a c 96 à CPUs
February 5, 2009 1:16:08 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Ive heard reports that i7 uses up to 330 watts just by itself, with SMP on , and oceed to 3.6. I dunno, dont have 1, but at least one owner makes such claims. He has a 4870, and total system draw is 450 watts, just the cpu alone, 330 watts, so it appears all that high oerformance from i7 comes at a high cost in enrgy usage. I hope the D0 rev helps with this


That 330 watts sounds like a wall power measurement since he said that the 450 W figure with the 4870 was a wall power measurement. It is far from being just the CPU but considering that most high-performance systems draw less than 200 watts at the outlet with the CPU fully loaded and the GPU idling, his CPU is certainly sucking back the joules.
February 5, 2009 1:24:50 PM

Here are his quotes:

Quote:
i dont think they suck that much power... my system with a 920 @ 3.6ghz + 4870 @800/900 +12gb needs under full load (boinc+furmark) 450W at the socket, cpu load alone is 330W.


and

Quote:
remove 3 sticks of ram and exchange the 4870 with a 285gtx (way lower idle consumption) and the cpu load consumption will drop to below 300W (also my PSU only has a efficency ~80-82%) so the actual consumption is ~270W with 330W at the socket.


So he's still driving a 285gtx, 2gb of ram (his sig shows him running 4x2gb) the CPU, the northbridge, the southbridge, and all of his HDD & optical drives. The CPU isn't drawing 330W.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 11:41:39 PM

jimmysmitty said:
not too sure since he just stated he heard reports butdidn't post any links. Or maybe he has links but wont use them since maybe they are from a untrustworthy source. Or maybe he is just blabbing. Who knows.

From what I have seen on most sites that tested this, idle and under load Core i7 seems to use about 10-15w more than equivalent clocked C2Q (45nm) which does not to me add up to 330w. And thats considering it has the IMC which would seem to increase consumption a bit.

But hey who am I to believe them.


I'd believe Techreport first :) 

Power as measured at the wall shows the i7 965 peaking at ~275 watts under Cinebench rendering, with the i920 at ~250 watts:

Quote:
Power consumption and efficiency
Our Extech 380803 power meter has the ability to log data, so we can capture power use over a span of time. The meter reads power use at the wall socket, so it incorporates power use from the entire system—the CPU, motherboard, memory, graphics solution, hard drives, and anything else plugged into the power supply unit. (We plugged the computer monitor into a separate outlet, though.) We measured how each of our test systems used power across a set time period, during which time we ran Cinebench's multithreaded rendering test.

All of the systems had their power management features (such as SpeedStep and Cool'n'Quiet) enabled during these tests via Windows Vista's "Balanced" power options profile.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2009 9:27:36 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Post #11 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21...
The user is definately NOT an AMD fanboy. Sorry I didnt include the link, wouldnt want to be accused of spreading FUD.
Take it for what its worth, its his findings, but who am I to doubt him?


Considering you stated h said at stock. He is running the damn CPU at 3.6GHz. Thats a 1GHz OC. So yea I could believe it would be using more power but see below:

uguv said:
Here are his quotes:

Quote:
i dont think they suck that much power... my system with a 920 @ 3.6ghz + 4870 @800/900 +12gb needs under full load (boinc+furmark) 450W at the socket, cpu load alone is 330W.


and

Quote:
remove 3 sticks of ram and exchange the 4870 with a 285gtx (way lower idle consumption) and the cpu load consumption will drop to below 300W (also my PSU only has a efficency ~80-82%) so the actual consumption is ~270W with 330W at the socket.


So he's still driving a 285gtx, 2gb of ram (his sig shows him running 4x2gb) the CPU, the northbridge, the southbridge, and all of his HDD & optical drives. The CPU isn't drawing 330W.


Nice find. Seems about right to me. As I said it uses about 10-15 watts more than Yorkfield at a equivalent clock and thats only mainly due to the IMC.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2009 5:47:37 PM

Now that Intel is sampling the D0 stepping of i7, I'd like to see some power and perf-per-watt reviews, not just raw overclocks. I'd bet we'll see lower core voltages at stock clocks and hence lower power.

Anyway, D0 on i7 looks to be much more impressive than D'OH on K10 :) 

(Apologies to Homer Simpson)
!