AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition - A New Hope? - Page 2

Last message on previous page:

Yes, they are REALLY quads. There's no rule somewhere that says it has to be monolithic to be a quad.

Spare us the fanboy defenses. AMD's "Black" overclocking processor has no headroom and still can't beat the "double cheeseburger". So if Intel's products are so low-tech, but AMD when OCed to the max can't even beat Intel's slowest quad-core, what does that say about AMD's products?

Ahhh ... now I understand.

monolithic vs dilithium.

No wonder the Intel quads are better ... they are "Star Trek" approved.

Scotty is wise ...

Well, considering that almost any CPU powerful enough to run a modern computer has a core that is basically RISC, I'd say about everybody. Just because the external ISA was historically a CISC ISA doesn't mean jack about what the CPU is internally. Almost all x86s and all x86_64s in use today have cores that execute RISC-like micro-ops and not native x86 instructions.

well increasing the multiplier will do the bulk of the OC but increasing the bus speed could give that little drop of juice the CPU really has left.

While I agree that the you won't get anything really high from this, raising the bus speed will increase both CPU and ram speed giving additionnal power.

I currently own an 5000+ BE and I started ociing by raising the multiplier and right now it sit stable at 3GHz because i can't fing the time to tweak more at the moment but I will do later. Increasing the bus spped sill maybe give me another "free" 100MHz. At a multiplier of 15x right now, raising the bus only by 1 give 15 the the CPU so if the CPU only has 95 more to give before it become unstable, I can't raise the multiplier even by .5 but I can up the bus speed by 6 and get 90 MHz more. Yeah it's really minimal additionnal power but since the ram go up too it might help just a little bit but aren't people like us suppose to try to get all we can from our CPU??

Oh and by the way I know intel is currently way ahead of AMD but I personnaly think the article shoule have been more about what the BE can do vs the non BE phenom instead of what the BE can do compared to something everybody already know.

just my 2 cent

I'm sure you can find THG links on amd.com, but I'm not gonna waste my time proving who has more links on whose site. Actually I see 3 under "News and Reviews" on www.amd.com

You should email AMD, they should know that putting 2 A64s together would have been a better business decision and would hit 3.2 GHz no problem. After all there are no engineering issues or anything with having 2 IMCs.

Phenom is a step forward for AMD, they have a lot to work out. However for all the "STOP BEING INTEL FANBOIS" bullcrap you spew, perhaps you should take a step back and look in the mirror. That green shirt must be cutting off blood flow to your extremeties.

Oh, and as far as Intel "copying" the IMC. Wow, I'll let someone else with more knowledge on the older Intel CPUs explain that one.

I will say though, you make me laugh pretty good.

Oh, did you know that 90nm Windsors OC better than 65nm Brisbanes?

Also, my Q6600 is at 3.6 GHz daily. Have fun with your 3.1 GHz BE.. I'm tempted to buy a Blood Iron and E2160 and OC it past you just to laugh.

And .. my 6420 can overclock from 2.13 to 3.2 without any volt change .. a 50% increase!
And AMD cant even overclock to 20% stock volt.. how bad is that!@ mind u memory scores do crank on AMD..

Since AMD are really up the creek .. I truley believe AMD cannot come back and will lose the market majorly!.. RIP AMD

wow, someone does a performance review with lots of benchmark performance charts to erase any doubt of power and scaling and suddenly they are biased Intel fanbois???

Bottom line current Phenoms...suck,

Maybe AMD will fix their errata bugs or whatever and scale the performance much higher but so far it doesn't look good.

Meh AMD needs to go back to the old drawing board. Until then my K8 is more than enough for me. Since the Phenoms suck at OC AMD might try selling 9500 Black editions. At least you will have the illusion of getting more OC for your money. LOL gotta laugh at the X2 6400+ black edition.....what was AMD thinking.

Oh and Xtreeme I forgot to tell you this much as well, all EEs have unlock multis thus the reason why they are called Extreme Editions. Also the L3 cache is not something AMD did first. Intel had the first on die L3 cache with its Pentium 4 Extreme Editions in Fact I have one of them.

So as of right now Intel is not copyng AMD's IMC or their L3 cache as Intel has developed those for a while just no need for it.

No offense to you. I love your Mustang and if I could get me a GT500 I would absolutely die. I am a diehard Ford man. Hell the other day I smoked a tuned up Civic in my stock Contour SE Sport with a automatic tranny too . Made him mad. I go around praising the Contour as the best car ever made and the GT500 as the best sports car. Well for me it is.

But the Vette is a challange for the Mustang. They have always been rivals. Both are nice sports cars and both have their ups and downs. But for me the GT500 is just beautiful. Makes my mouth water just thinking of it.

And I was just using it as a reference not that the MUstang is a Phenom and that the Vette is a C2Q. Thats in no way true. I was just showing that you don't compare a Mustang to a Mustang you compare it to a Vette.

It's not the aluminum blocks, it's the fact that engines in the 1980s and early 1990s were suffering from the heavy hand of the EPA. One glaring exception is the Corvette ZR-1 in that time period, whose 380 hp DOHC V8 made it quite fast, but it was a rare duck indeed. 1981 saw a huge increase in the stringency of emissions, 1985 saw higher-octane leaded gas get banned and throughout the whole affair, new and relatively unproven fuel injection and ECUs were being introduced. They weren't called the "low-power days" for nothing. It wasn't until the late 1990s when overhead cams, variable valve timing, better metallurgy, and a vast increase in sophistication in ECUs let horsepower come up to more reasonable levels (most V8s today are 300+ horsepower compared to about 180-220 in the late 1980s). Not to mention the big increase in the number of forced-induction engines. Superchargers were uncommon and turbos were equally rare in those days- even quite a few diesels lacked turbos in the 80s whereas almost every diesel has a turbo today. And yet cars today generally get better mileage and have much better emissions than the 1980s and 90s models in spite of the big increase in power and performance. That's quite a testament to the automotive engineers if you ask me.

Oh, and if you want to see a Vette that will smoke about any Mustang, check out the upcoming ZR1, aka the Blue Devil. Yes, it's a pushrod V8 and not a DOHC unit like the original ZR-1, but it's got way more power and a big supercharger. It's the first Corvette that breaks 100 hp/L (6.2 L, 620 hp) and also the first one that will break $100,000 (est. price is $110,000.) It would be a good battle between the ZR1, the Viper ACR, and a Ford GT had Ford decided to keep making the GT. My money would be on the Ford, but it would have to be as the Ford GT was $40,000 more MSRP than the next most expensive and in reality, probably more like $200,000 more expensive.

You are right about it in one way. It will be the first "production" Vette to break 100HP/L and $100K but not the first. Look up the 2001 Lingenfelter Corvette 427TT. 805HP/850FILB Tourque $125K price tag if I remember correctly. Fastest 0-60 was 1.92 and fastest 1/4mile was 8.95. It also beat a F/A 18 Hornet in acceleration/ 1/4 mile.

The Ford GT no matter what still rocks. For $150k you can own a sweet ride that smokes most exotic cars out there. Plus it looks cool ar all get out.

Don't worry. Your Mustang still has my respect. Now what hurricane are you talking about? Are you talking about the 6.2L engine which is set to be in the new 2009 Lightning(I can't wait as the last one I saw was going 45MPH then just took off). It is also an engine type they already use in Australia in Fords FPV line and they are some of the best cars out so I am sure this one will smoke the living hoo-hah out of anything.

You can do that, but there's a lot of snickering at people who do that. I only know one girl who drives one and she gets teased a bunch about it. But then again, she kind of invites it as being the spitting image of a girly girl- pink everything and such. The mechanicals aren't bad, but I'd get them in the Golf over the Beetle and save yourself some grief. That also goes for buying V6 versions of V8 sports cars- just don't do it. Yes, the insurance is lower, but it's inevitably branded with the "chick car" label. Trust me, you don't want that even if you are a chick.

It makes little sense to me to directly compare a faster dual to a quad: Before you even open the box it's clear the dual will own single threaded apps, while the quad will (damned well better) offer near double the performance when heavily multithreading. The same could be said for a Phenom against the new 45nm Quads - At the moment we can only buy an 3 Ghz Extreme for a bit over a thousand (US). Never mind that it'd be completely humiliated in every area of performance except memory bandwidth: A Phenom sells for about 1/4 of that. So the closest comparison to be made now is to put the Phenom against the Q6. It's dollar for dollar, quad for quad, and (nearly) clock for clock.

So what about the rumored Shelby Mustang Cobra GT350? Set to have a big block V6 but a lot of power. Thats like saying a Ford Probe is a woman car but tune it up right and it can hang with a lot of top end cars. But for me I love the big V8s but at the gas prices right now I can't afford it.

its not brand bias people, its brand preference.

you want toms to start recomending the worst product? thats some interesting thinking you're all taking.

of course they're comparing it to the q6600, what do you want them to compare it to a pentium 3? theres nothing else at that level and that price, jeeze do you have another quad core processor to compare it to with a similar price? maybe the one made by fantasy and imagination? maybe next time they should do a comparison to the QX9650 or a xeon if the comparison to the 6600 doesn't sit well.

sheesh do you recommend sub par breaks to someone? hell no you do not.

That's nice and all... you got 2.7GHz! Wow! Congrats!

What's your point dude? Are you disagreeing with the article conclusion? Do you think your 9600 BE has a sniff at overclocked Q6600s?

I wouldn't mind getting a V6 engine. I don't care if people made fun of me, especially when you really can't use the full power of a 8V without a state trooper or local police eye balling you for a ticket. Just the appearance of that type of vehicle prolly brings an invitation for them to sniff you out at an inconvenient time.

Or sitting at Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, or whatever at the drive through and just burn through your gas waiting on your meal.

It's not just about power, but fuel efficiently, and perhaps getting too much attention.

This is like our OCing debate... does CPU Power Efficiency Matter or just Raw Power?

And for the record, I take my V8 to the track to drag race and to the circle track if I want to. I don't do anything crazy on the highways and do not condone street racing. I have a truck that I drive normally though (with a V6) to get better gas mileage.

Caveira2099,

What do you mean no more of you?
Have you ever been here?
Or are you using a Fake name because you are too embarrassed to use your regular forum ID?

If you are such a good research, why can't you use better examples?
I mean real world examples.
THG should be doing this.
Then State EXACTLY what they should do.
The Test Name.
Show your Results.

And it's funny how you state THG does not take extra care with words.
You need to take better care with your words.

Your post sounds like a FanBoy Rant.
You argue with the results, but don't provide proof of a counter claim.

If you leave, the THG forums will definitely not be at a loss.
Even Fanboys like BM at least attempted to substantiate their arguements. Sometimes they did it well and sometimes not.
(Yes, BM was a fanboy and freely admitted it in some regards. More power to him for that.)

Not really disagreeing, but saying if you're going to OC the processor to check it clock for clock against the q6600 or q6700 or q9450 then they should know how to overclock thing thing to it's full potential. When you OC the c2q6600 depending on how far you push the FSB you're ocing the entire system, memory and all, not just the cores. For example if you want to compare phenom clock for clock, against the q6600 you need to set the cores to 2.4 and the nb/imc to 2.4 as well, which should be easily doable at stock volts, or at least it is for me. Just point out that nb/imc clock on this particular processor has a notable effect and also add into ocing the cores, not to mention it also allows the memory to run at full rated speed.

Caveira2099, Thats great that you are into HPCs but look at it this way. There have been more than just THG who have come up with the same facts. A 2.6GHZ Phenom 9900 doesn't keep up with a Q6600 at stock and a 2.7GHz barely starts to keep up.

When it comes to OC'ing a Q6600 is pretty much the best quad core for it for the price. In terms of performance/price it is also the best. The past few articles have been just about specific companies. Such as the power consumption with only Intel and only AMD. There have been AMD only articles.

I personally(and you will find a lot of people agree) don't care about what Phenoms can do vs another Phenom. I want to know if it competes vs the C2Q so I know which is the best buy. That is all this article is about.

And I want to personally know how do you know that THG is twisting the numbers? I have seen other reviews getting close to the same figures. Sure you can't see past 150FPS but still that means that CPU will last longer in newer games that come out that are more demanding. I can tell you though if you calculate it a difference of 10 seconds on a 1 minute rendering/encoding will make a big difference. If the Q6600 takes 20 seconds per minute of rendering/encoding and the Phenom takes 30 seconds thats a difference of 6 minutes per hour. I am just guessing but still thats a big difference after a while.

So you basically say that benchmarks are useless because the processors "fast enough"?

I just don't get it. If you don't care about performance differences, then don't come to a website that benchmarks performance.

Tom's isn't slanted, they tell it how it is. They did so when AMD was on top, and now that AMD has made a failure of a product line they're not making excuses, but telling it like it is.

3dmark06 on my MSI k9a2 plat 2.6core/2.4nb/imc my cpu score is 3807, would likely be higher on that board In fact I've scored higher as it is, I think that was average score after 3 runs.. He seems to have a cpu that can't go to 2.7 well as well. I can run 2.7 at the same voltage I'm running 2.6 at, may be due to cpu cooler performance though on that, they seem to be heat sensitive.

And I don't get why they used the older version of Sisoft when XII with the service pack is multi threaded and better optimized.. My memory numbers on sandra are almost twice what they have for their benchmarks, as far as integer and floating point performance goes.