Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Phenom II X4 3.6GHz and RV740 This Year?

Last response: in News comments
Share
February 2, 2009 9:40:19 AM

Again and again, old news. Ugh. This would be some cool stuff if I hadnt read it almost 4 days ago somewhere else.
Score
1
Anonymous
February 2, 2009 9:57:49 AM

"128-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, making it the first GPU to implement the GDDR5 standard."

Without any bias, how old are you and have you spent last 12 months under a rock? Radeon 4870 was the first card with GDDR5 memory, launched in July. Wake up!

Score
6
Related resources
February 2, 2009 10:09:39 AM

Don't care about the 3.6GHz portion of the news as it is still slower than Q9650, i7 920. AMD need to work on per-clock efficiency; Phenom II reminds me of P4's high clock and high voltage.

About RV740, wouldn't the new 4750 be performing the same as 4830? Same stream processors and memory bandwidth.
Score
-5
Anonymous
February 2, 2009 10:49:03 AM

it is underestimated how architecture compatibility is of crucial importance, compared to standalone efficiency. and thats why im a 110% SUPPORTER of AMD/ATI and not intel, nvidia.

just look at the xbox 360 and ps3 , both almost perfect hardware/software compatibility, so when u look at it ... from an engineering point of view... AMD is far ahead of the game .... too bad its always a step behind in the enthusiast section. like the phenom II x4 950 is merely a minor update compared to its competitors (cell processor,core i7).
Score
3
February 2, 2009 11:53:01 AM

sandmanzero1it is underestimated how architecture compatibility is of crucial importance, compared to standalone efficiency. and thats why im a 110% SUPPORTER of AMD/ATI and not intel, nvidia.just look at the xbox 360 and ps3 , both almost perfect hardware/software compatibility, so when u look at it ... from an engineering point of view... AMD is far ahead of the game .... too bad its always a step behind in the enthusiast section. like the phenom II x4 950 is merely a minor update compared to its competitors (cell processor,core i7).


Dosent the PS3 have Intel and Nvidia Chips in them...I dont know about the Xbox 360... I just thought that the Cell CPU in the PS3 was intel made and the GPU was made by Nvidia but I could be wrong
Score
-6
Anonymous
February 2, 2009 12:03:43 PM

@Efrayim
PS3 have Nvidia and Sony designed GPU.
XBOX have ATI chip based on Xenos (R500)
bay.
Score
-2
February 2, 2009 12:22:51 PM

The CELL BE is made by IBM (co-developed with Sony and Toshiba). As is the Xbox360 Xenos CPU and even the Hollywood CPU inside the Nintendo Wii. All IBM.

The GPU inside the PS3 is nVidia while the GPU's inside the X360 and Wii are ATi.


By the way, the HD 4870 was the first GPU to use GDDR5.
Score
6
Anonymous
February 2, 2009 12:23:10 PM

IBM made the cell ............. and nvidea the gpu (costume made)
XBOX ..... is intel and ati (r5oo) also modified costume gpu.and there designs meet the best compatibility hardware wise ...
Score
0
February 2, 2009 12:25:55 PM

Sorry, Xenon is the X360 CPU name. Xenos is the GPU name.
Score
2
February 2, 2009 12:57:22 PM

sandmanzero1it is underestimated how architecture compatibility is of crucial importance, compared to standalone efficiency. and thats why im a 110% SUPPORTER of AMD/ATI and not intel, nvidia.just look at the xbox 360 and ps3 , both almost perfect hardware/software compatibility, so when u look at it ... from an engineering point of view... AMD is far ahead of the game .... too bad its always a step behind in the enthusiast section. like the phenom II x4 950 is merely a minor update compared to its competitors (cell processor,core i7).


Welcome to being a fanboy.
Score
-4
February 2, 2009 4:51:03 PM

I really think that AMD needs a 3.2GHz part next month, not a 3.1GHz part. I'm sure that Intel will drop prices as they increase yeilds on the i7 and prepare the i5. AMD needs to release faster chips sooner to stay in them $200-$300 range with a decent margin as they can no longer afford to only offer low margin chips.
Score
-1
February 2, 2009 7:22:07 PM

trigger...(costume made)... costume gpu

Sorry to say this but it's custom, CUSTOM!! :p 
Score
2
February 2, 2009 7:22:30 PM

Uhh.. Pei the Phenom II AM2+ 920 Processor is on Par with the Q9650 which is a LGA775 socket so clock per clock there still on par and about a $150 - $200 cheaper. When the AM3 Processors come out I'm sure they will be close to on par with the 920 and you'll pay about a $150 less for the AMD so there is so cost to price ratio going. The new Phenom II chips have also shown high OCing abilities which means you'll be getting some mileage. Also the Motherboard for a new I7 will cost you about twice what an AMD board will cost so you are paying for that bit of performance and the higher cost of Memory.
Nobody has to be untruthful or name calling. We know that Intel has pushed AMD against the ropes. We also know where we would be without AMD, Do we really want to see a world where Intel is the only one around? You can call me a fanboy or whatever but the truth is I don't want to live in a world where either AMD or Intel is the only CPU Producer. Right now we have it good. You want extreme performance where price is no object, go with Intel. You want a more cost effective CPU that isn't a steller bencher but will give you a good bang for your buck then go with AMD.
Besides that go root for your team. If you are an Intel fanboy then enjoy your time in the sun and if you are an AMD fanboy (which I am) then understand that were in the forth quarter 7 points behind, with no time outs, and 2 minutes on the clock. Luckily, we have the ball.
Score
-2
February 2, 2009 9:10:38 PM

All in all Intel should have effiency advantage because of better production technology. AMD can not fight i7 until it can got to metal gate technology... or at least I supose so. But as allways if the prize is right, I don't see any reason not to use AMD chips. Phenom II is very reasonable product.
Score
-1
February 3, 2009 1:05:42 PM

CuddlesUhh.. Pei the Phenom II AM2+ 920 Processor is on Par with the Q9650 which is a LGA775 socket so clock per clock there still on par and about a $150 - $200 cheaper. When the AM3 Processors come out I'm sure they will be close to on par with the 920 and you'll pay about a $150 less for the AMD so there is so cost to price ratio going. The new Phenom II chips have also shown high OCing abilities which means you'll be getting some mileage. Also the Motherboard for a new I7 will cost you about twice what an AMD board will cost so you are paying for that bit of performance and the higher cost of Memory.Nobody has to be untruthful or name calling. We know that Intel has pushed AMD against the ropes. We also know where we would be without AMD, Do we really want to see a world where Intel is the only one around? You can call me a fanboy or whatever but the truth is I don't want to live in a world where either AMD or Intel is the only CPU Producer. Right now we have it good. You want extreme performance where price is no object, go with Intel. You want a more cost effective CPU that isn't a steller bencher but will give you a good bang for your buck then go with AMD.Besides that go root for your team. If you are an Intel fanboy then enjoy your time in the sun and if you are an AMD fanboy (which I am) then understand that were in the forth quarter 7 points behind, with no time outs, and 2 minutes on the clock. Luckily, we have the ball.

Go check Tom’s and Anand’s Phenom II launch articles again. On Tom’s, Q6600 sandwiches between 920 and 940 on most benchmarks with Q6600 being 9% slower than 940 (920 should 6.6% slower than 940). Anand recommends 940 over Q9400 but Q9550 over 940 at similar price. I don’t really see how you come up with the conclusion that 920 is on par with Q9650, a CPU that’s 30% faster than Q6600 (3.0GHz vs 2.4GHz and 45nm technology).

It is not your or people that gave me “thumbs down” fault. Lately, I have notice an inflation of Phenom II’s performance across the forums and Newegg’s review section. Phenom II faster than Yorkfield!!!! Phenom II faster than Nehalem!!!! Phenom II system only cost $600 while Intel’s cost at least $1300!!!! Nothing we haven’t seen before with product launches.
Score
2
February 4, 2009 3:38:49 AM

I'll be nailed for being an AMD fan either way so the negative light doesn't suprise me and it shouldn't suprise you. We're two side of the coin. I've been an ATI/AMD fan since 1996-1997. They had a bad season but they are pulling out of it. Gaming wise I didn't see that big of a difference between the Q9650 and the Phenom 920. FPS on near all games are close enough to be identical. Unless you are talking about the QX9650 which is different than the Q9650, but then again you are talking about a $1000 CPU vs a $200 CPU, at which point I would say that the QX9650 should run 5X better as it costs 5X as much.
Don't worry about the negatives Pei.
Two people can have friendly banter and you are right...
It is nothing we haven't seen before with product launches.
Score
3
February 5, 2009 11:55:02 PM

Maybe i'm a fan boy too. Je,je, but i don't mind using either of the those cpu brands. Honestly, what matters today is cost effectivity. Well, for "some" they would rather spend more for exact figures and numbers but it doesn't really count in real world application when you can achieve things the same and it doesn't have to be very expensive. Just my 2 cents.
Score
0
February 6, 2009 12:47:59 AM

I'll be excited why we here something about the Deneb FX we were promised!
Score
0
February 6, 2009 12:48:21 AM

*when*
Score
1
!