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?
Since the forum post was online pointing to the link a few minutes before the link was actually available on the site... I'd say you are correct. (I was online in the forums just at that moment and had just hit refresh. Saw the new post... but the link didn't go anywhere for a few minutes.)
I am very confused by this (the comment and the thread's existence in general). Some people are saying it was posted with the article, but the thread was clearly started on Feb 5th ... while the article came out Jan 23rd ...
And so just what kind of a RISC proc are you posting from?
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.
---------------
UNIX is user-friendly- it's just picky who its friends are.
DRM is slowly killing personal computing, one Sony rootkit and TPM chip at a time.
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?
Come on we all know what he REALLY meant lol. It is a shortcut to 4 cores though. A good shortcut but a shortcut.
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.
(1) Doesn't out-perform a (year old...) Q6600 out of the box?? Check.
(2) Doesn't out-overclock said Q6600?? Check.
(3) AMD Fanboi "Double Cheeseburger" spew?? Check and Double Check.
OK - Move along guys. Nothing new to see here.
--------------- The more I read the forums, the more I feel that a number of individuals would be well served by skipping their next GPU purchase in favor of a little "Stress relief" from the local 'Working Girls'"
P.S. Just checked intel.com to see a self-add banner citing THG... Maybe Intel money is driving the authors here....
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
Message edited by bfellow on 02-06-2008 at 03:21:17 PM
---------------
E6600 (B3)-HD4850 512MB GDDR3-2GB DDR2-800
"You figured it out. All new CPU's are nothing but overclocked Pentium 1's with a few bells and whistles added, ask any ol timer whose been around."
ah but they ARENT really quads. Wait for intels real quad to make that judgement. IF amd glued two duals the facts show they too would be hitting 3.2ghz. Also you make it sound like all intel quads hit 4ghz at release. They too started at lower mhz. Put two a64 x2 in a dual socket mobo you got a intel quad basically, its just not the same as all on one die. 4 cores on one die is harder to produce, costs more, and bigger loss when 1 core is bad or even 2. Intel took the easy $ way not the best for the future way. 4ghz is "near" end for current Intel quad core I think.
Did anyone mention the phenom is stronger per mhz then A64? Has better power managment. How about the importance of a shared L3 cache for multi core cpus? They are making some gains, contrary to this review.
BTW, my windsor 3800+x2 hits 2.5ghz no problem stock vcore aswell. 500mhz on a64 is actually easy on the newet cores.
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..
Looks like 2.6Ghz might be the last efficient clockspeed before the power consumption spike up. Definitely doesn't look good.
Agreed. Thats a key point. If AMD did mange to get higher clock speeds or come to the current Intel standerds, Intel could just dip in to the large head room (aka OCing potential) of the C2D architecture and just release higher clocked CPUs with out worrying much about temps/power use.
Message edited by Shadow703793 on 02-06-2008 at 10:24:06 PM
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..
All my Optrons are running a 50% OC with the CPU/RAM/Chipset on stock volts.
Look at how I have seven set up on my LAN in my profile.
Not sure why I even -need- a Quad no matter what CPU company makes it.
I did pick up a 90nm AMD X2 6000+ for $111 @ Fry's 2 weeks ago and have a Ausus M2N32-SLI Deluxe,Corsair DDR2-800 C4,8800GTS and a PC P&C 610....so I will be playing with that and see how far I can get it to go.
Sort of a hold over untill next year when all the prices drop due to the state of the economy.
---------------
*While we crash and burn, small, low tech, agrarian societies such as the Hmong in the mountains of Laos will continue on without so much as blinking an eye.*
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.
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.
Thank you CNU. I was glad to see someone talk to him about his rantings. You did forget about him mentioning the whole platform upgrade thing with each new chip. Funny considering that Asus has a P965 mobo(The Commando) that supports anything from a 3-4 year old Pentium D all the way up to Intels newest Penryn/Yorkfeild chips. And my P35 mobo supports the same.
And as for the IMC thing its call Timna. Started in 1990. Intel had multiple reasons as to why they decided not to go that route.
Also its funny watching this guy defend Phenom and he doesn't own one just a 5000+ BE. Truth be told that chip does OC very well. And 3.1GHz is nice so 500MHz(19.23%). But I have my Q6600 @ 3GHz which is a 600MHz(25%) OC using the stock 1.25v, stock memory timings and voltage as well. And I haven't even scratched the surface of my chips power.
But this guys review was to see "if" the 9600BE was worth it to buy since it comes at the same price as a Q6600. The guy didn't even OC the Q6600 to see a clock per clock IPC level which would have ben embarasing for the 9600BE since even at 2.7GHz it barely caught up to the Q6600. I understand showing the difference between a stock 9600 and a BE is appealing(which the benches did show BTW) but since when did AMD start competing with themselves? The 9600BE can show vast improvement over a 9600 but if it still is not competative vs Intel whats the use?
Man I get sick of this crap. Its like taking a V6 Mustang vs the GT500. We all know the GT500 will brutaly punish the V6 Mustang but what will the GT500 do vs a Corvette Z06? Should we not bother since the Z06 comes with a bigger more powerful engine? No. You compare one companies offering to the other and the 9600BE has the same process(65nm) and same price as a Q6600. Thats what you compare or at least a lot of AMD fanbois stated you can't compare 45nm to 65nm so lets compare 65nm to 65nm and same price. Whichever wins at the same clock speeds is the better choice.
AMD fans that want to overclock their processors can rejoice at news that the CPU maker is offering a Black Edition of its current fastest quad-core model.
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.
