Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Phenom CPU: Christmas Gift from AMD

Started by: Mr. BonBon | Date 12/20/07 11:29:54 AM
Comments: 94 | Last Comment:  05/20/08 12:39:59 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-15]

1. 
Excellent review, and great overclock. It looks like the Q6600 is still the king of the hill. I would at least expect AMD to have the upper hand in power consumption, but they don't seem to have the upper hand in anything.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 11:29:54 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
When was the last time AMD had great TDP's? They've been ridiculously high for quite a while now.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 11:36:52 AM]
Reply
 
-----------------------
page 11 error maybe (does not read right)

By the way, Phenom doesn’t look too good even compared with the predecessor – Athlon 64 X2 6400+. The 1GHz clock speed difference and pretty weak optimization for quad-core architecture make dual-core AMD processors much more efficient in games than the new quad-core ones.
-----------------------
but the amd Quad one is faster then the AMD dual core cpu?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 11:25:31 AM]
Reply

2. 
Well, there you have it. It's hard to understand what exactly went wrong, AMD had plenty of time to make something good. It has a lot of improvements over the K8, so where is the bottleneck?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 11:35:16 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
the speed of the L3 cache is a bottleneck
i also think think L2 and L1 form a bottleneck, only 2 way or something like that, intel's L2 cache is much better
dont forget K10 is only a 3-issue core
all C2D's are 4-issue

first good review i saw for a while from xbitlabs,
congrats
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 02:24:39 PM]
Reply

3. 
now this shows how pathetic the phenom is!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 12:18:24 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
It shows how pathetic you are!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 10:34:19 PM]
Reply
 
haha!!
this is one of the classic examples of AMD's fanboys (customers who are suckers in buying a pathetic product!)
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 06:28:58 AM]
Reply

4. 
Pathetic? All they need to do is stay competetive until they can get their stuff together and roll out a better solution. Pathetic is how they let people like you post worthless crap.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 01:47:10 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
they need to rollout another pathetic solution for ignorant customers (a classic example is you!!) to buy!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 06:26:56 AM]
Reply

5. 
Nice review. Sometimes there are...

AMD Phenom's are:
- bugged
- power-hungry
- low performance

Goog luck to anyone who'll buy them... I will wait for that nice Q9450...
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 02:28:18 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Even after the introduction and wide deployment of Core2 CPUs, I keep buying AMD's CPUs because I hate monopolies. I cannot just give my money to AMD, so I prefer to support them by buying their nice AMD64 EE CPUs.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 10:32:54 PM]
Reply
 
sounds like a fanboyish... am i right?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 01:36:17 AM]
Reply

6. 
I'm not disappointed by AMD. People forget that Intel took over three years to develop a decent answer to AMDs Hammers. AMD, on the other hand, has produced the Phenom in just a little over a year, on a much smaller budget. They're working very hard to integrate the CPU and GPU. They are famous for giving the most bang for the buck. One look at the recent $199 Phenom specials should be enough to convince anyone of that fact.

So, people who berate AMD for being "late" are simply not getting the big picture.

AMD does not need to have a faster processer, or even one of equal speed.. All they need is performance that is reasonably close to Intel's, and that can comfortably handle the most demanding games. Millions of computer buffs would prefer to purchase cpus from AMD, the spunky underdog, rather than Intel, the monolithic Goliath. It's human nature.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 08:58:14 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
> 7. I'm not disappointed by AMD. People forget that Intel took over three years to develop a decent answer to AMDs Hammers. AMD, on the other hand, has produced the Phenom in just a little over a year, on a much smaller budget. They're working very hard to integrate the CPU and GPU. They are famous for giving the most bang for the buck. One look at the recent $199 Phenom specials should be enough to convince anyone of that fact.

I have quite an opposite opinion. AMD developed K8 architecture over four years ago and since then they were making only some minor or even unnecessary 'improvements' like socket change (754-939-AM2) or an introduction of new techprocess. That being said they spent most of their effort on improving already matured technology.

I have a feeling that they decided that Intel wouldn't be able to churn anything worth competition, alas, Intel unrolled a very competitive architecture. Those four years should have been spent on developing something much more efficient, yet Phenoms bring slightly hacked K8 architecture. Who needs a 100% memory bandwidth when the computation power hasn't changed at all? Where are all those touted energy preservation features? Right now Phenoms are slower both in performance per watt and performance per core clock - and this fact has no excuses.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 10:29:36 PM]
Reply
 
"has produced the Phenom in just a little over a year, on a much smaller budget."

K8 was released more than 4.5 years ago. What exactly AMD did during these >3 years?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 01:17:46 AM]
Reply
 
Look again. Intel took over three years to produce a new chip in response to Hammer. AMD has produced a response for Core in just a little over one year.

But, you say, the Core architecture performs better than Phenom! Well it should, Intel had an extra two years to massage it into shape. If they had to debut Core a year after Hammer, you can bet it would have been buggy.

AMD has no reason to make any excuses. They have achieved more with far less than Intel. AMDs R&D budget and engineering staff are far smaller. I've read anywhere between 1/4 to 1/10 the size. AMD produces a really decent chip in 1/3 the time on 1/4 of the resources. That's astounding. I'm still amazed that Phenom gets the performance it does, with only 512k l2 and 2meg l3, vs 12meg in the Penryns. That's efficiency for you.

How about the dreaded TLB bug? Well the official word from AMD is that it is extremely unlikely to occur on the desktop. They regard it as a non-issue. That's why they're still selling the chips. AMD Overdrive has a button to disable the workaround, should you so choose.

A few short days from now I'll be able to pick up a Phenom Black Edition for around $250. It'll drop into my old AM2 mobo, with a simple bios update. I'll overclock it to 3Ghz+. At that point I'll have a system that can run with with the Intel Quads. That's just the B2 stepping. Wait until we see B3 and .45nm.

That's why I like AMD. They keep things lively and deliver great value. In the long run they have always come through for their fans. Even the purchase of ATI has created all sorts of new possibilities. You can't succeed unless you take risks...

I'm mystified by the attitude of Intel fans. Intel chips are top performers, so you would think Intel fans would be happy and somewhat charitable to little AMD. Instead, many Intel fan postings are perilously close to "hate speech". I'm not just saying that as a jab at Intel fans, it's based on observation.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 06:21:59 PM]
Reply
 
@vext - OK, AMD's accomplishment with Phenom is impressive when taking their less resources into account, but why should I give a f**k when choosing the best performing CPU for my budget????? Trust me, when seeing my applications performing slower than they should, I won't smile with the knowledge that I'm supporting my favorite "impressive" company.
I've never seen any CPU review that offers a graph of performance/"dev staff size". And the reason is simple, only a minor percentage of readers gives a f**k about that.

I hope for AMD's sake, and for the sake of all computer users where ever they are, that AMD won't have only their "impressed" fans standing for them, cause they would collapse in a split second!

As an objective observer (who bought several Athlons when Intel had only P4 to offer), I have to tell you that people in here are jabbing at you AMD fans only because your dedication and arguments for AMD seem quite ridiculous at times.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 10:57:16 AM]
Reply
 
@eltoro

Much of the criticism about AMD sounds like this: "What went wrong?", "They have no excuses", "They're lying about everything".

In reality, NOTHIING WENT WRONG. They actually have legitimate excuses. They delivered a decent competitor to the Intel Quads in 1/3 the time, with a much smaller budget. If they had the luxury of another 2 years and much larger budget, you can bet the Phenom would be a polished, "killer" product. Moreover, they dragged Intel kicking and screaming to accept a bunch of new technologies: 64bit architecture, mutli-cores, monolitic cores, GPU-CPU fusion, on-die memory controller. They deserve a lot of respect. They went toe-to-toe with the behemoth of CPUs, and bearded Intel in it's own den.

>> OK, AMD's accomplishment with Phenom is impressive when taking their less resources into account, but why should I give a f**k when choosing the best performing CPU for my budget?????

There's very little sensory difference between a Phenom 2.4 and an Intel quad 2.4. Other than encoding, there's almost none. Gaming differences can be made up by changing/adding a graphics card. Moreover, your "best performing CPU" will be eclipsed within a year by the next thing from Intel or AMD. I really feel sorry for the suckers who bought an Intel "X" edition chip. A couple of years or so from now it'll be bypassed by the bottom of the barrel next gen Phenom.

>> Trust me, when seeing my applications performing slower than they should, I won't smile with the knowledge that I'm supporting my favorite "impressive" company.

I'm glad for you!! I'm happy to drop a Phenom BE into my old AM2 board, OC it to 3.0, and call it good. For $250, I can compete with YOUR new Intel Quad.

>> As an objective observer (who bought several Athlons when Intel had only P4 to offer), I have to tell you that people in here are jabbing at you AMD fans only because your dedication and arguments for AMD seem quite ridiculous at times.

Correction: you're NOT any more objective than anyone else. You just have different values. You're willing to put short-term, ephemeral performance differences ahead of supporting a company that deserves support. Let me ask you a question. Do you have the same attitude to your cars? How about your wife and children? You'll swap them if you find the other side has higher performance? I doubt it. That's known as Opportunism. Here's the difference, as noted in Merriam Webster's dictionary:

Opportunism: the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences.
Loyalty:faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product. Loyal implies a firm resistance to any temptation to desert or betray.

I would dump AMD in an instant if I truly felt their products were crap, or AMD was trying to cheat the public. However, I don't see that here. My view is that AMD deserves loyalty.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/24/07 01:31:05 PM]
Reply
 
hey dude!! are you in drugs?!?

quote:: Correction: you're NOT any more objective than anyone else. You just have different values. You're willing to put short-term, ephemeral performance differences ahead of supporting a company that deserves support. Let me ask you a question. Do you have the same attitude to your cars? How about your wife and children? You'll swap them if you find the other side has higher performance? I doubt it. That's known as Opportunism. Here's the difference, as noted in Merriam Webster's dictionary:

Opportunism: the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences.
Loyalty:faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product. Loyal implies a firm resistance to any temptation to desert or betray.

I would dump AMD in an instant if I truly felt their products were crap, or AMD was trying to cheat the public. However, I don't see that here. My view is that AMD deserves loyalty.


YOUR LOGIC is SCREWED!! did you buy your WIFE or KIDS??? do you overclock your wife or pop in a new brain for your wife?!?

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/25/07 09:10:57 PM]
Reply

7. 
The reviewed CPUs do NOT have any bugs either in TLB or L3 cache. A new revision can hardly boost Phenom's performance. So, far K10 family CPUs have shown their deficiency and sub-performance in comparison to Core2 Quads.

Anyway we all should be great thankful to AMD because if it hadn't been here than we would have had to buy P4 like single core CPUs with 150W TDP and $1500 price.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 10:15:55 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
The reviewed CPUs do have the TLB bug, and more then likely had the bios fix applied to them. In other reviews, Phenom was faster then here in Win RAR, and the Spec benchmarks.
Regardless, the Integer units are the problem here. So far from the benchmarks, and code analysis I've seen around, Phenom does some very good work with very complex maths, yet falls flat on its face when dealing with integer, and simpler FP.

Add to that, that when you start to boost HT speeds (also controls L3), chip starts to perform and scale better.

So In short, if B3 allows full speed HT3, and L3 cache, you'll see a bump in performance, especially in Multi Threaded Apps using 4 cores. If not... Hopefully they at least get better clock speeds then now.

Running an Asynchronous L3 cache is STUPID!!! And adds all sorts of overhead to simple transactions that shouldn't be there!!! This is hurting the Phenom greatly, IMHO.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 12:32:19 AM]
Reply
 
The review doesn't use a BIOS fix for the TLB bug. If the fix would have been used, you would see a really apalling performance in many benchmarks (something like being behind Athlon64X2).

B3 will not improve performance compared to this review.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 01:16:16 AM]
Reply

8. 
Performance per watt shold be tested systemwise. Phenom processors, (and athlon64's) as you probably know, has built in memory controller. And Intel's onboard.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/20/07 11:45:57 PM]
Reply

9. 
Who runs at 1024x768? Come on give us some real numbers. You run at such low resolutions to show inflated numbers.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 05:30:33 AM]
Reply

10. 
I was hoping the Phenom would give me a nice performance boost by dropping it into my existing setup (AM2 x2 6000+) - but apparently not, the 6400+ competes with the Phenom iin a lot of the tests, pretty sad. Looks like I need a major overhaul - I'll hold off for now.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 10:49:19 AM]
Reply

11. 
I think AMD performance is not what we hope for that can compete side by side with top Intel chip but for long term it will be good to buy AMD chip,they are more friendly in customer needs(future proof) while Intel we must buy new motherboard to support new chip that waste alot of money..For me someone need new computer it is better to buy Intel system (due to better performance) but not lasting future at least 2 1/2 years while AMD who's want to upgrade every 1 or 1.5 years..It's depands on what you will do in future..
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 07:04:13 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I agree with you Marvin

AMD=Future Proof
Intel=Hot performance(not lasting)
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 09:24:07 PM]
Reply
 
More dumbasses that have no fucking clue
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/21/07 10:56:01 PM]
Reply
 
Hav you heard of socket AM3+. What a jerkoff
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 12:17:43 AM]
Reply
 
And to think of the k8!

AMD: SUCKIT 939, 940, am2, am2+!!!!!

INTEL: Slut 775, in overall SAME period!!!

So dont come blabbering about amd futureproff SHI:



0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 12:23:20 AM]
Reply
 
AMD idiots!!! 775 has been around much longer than your crappy Phenoms!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 08:07:29 PM]
Reply

12. 
Mainconcept H264 is most taxing software and Phenom scored very well. May be Phenoms next revision become table truner.

Also i have a question since the instructions composing SEE are open standard instructions, why AMD is forbiden by Intel to introduce all the instruction except some allowed.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 04:59:22 AM]
Reply

13. 
Are the tests performed with the TLB fix or not?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 07:25:57 AM]
Reply

14. 
Somebody needs to put intel in their place, back on the bottom where they belong. They don't care about consumers or enthusiasts, they are just here to make a buck. AMD needs a better roadmap if they inted to get 50% market share by Q2 2008. If intel gets there way and AMD goes down, nobody will get performance for their money, the chips would be slow and overpirced. They would have no reason to improve because there is no competition, so for the love of god we'd better hope AMD does some very serious thinking about how to beat a non true-quad-core processor with theirs!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/22/07 07:14:18 PM]
Reply

15. 
I certainly won't attempt to veil my motive in the ritual and excuse common to most AMD buyers and I must confess, these most recent numbers in combination with the failed Quad FX platform have truly disappointed me and cast serious doubts on AMD's future performance. However, all Intel procs now come standard with a less-advertised but none-the-less important feature which will steer me from Intel as long as I can hold out--standard HARD DRM. What started in the Pent. D series of procs has now grown into a more standard and mature implementation of the Trusted Computing Group's TPM implementation. Essentially, a TPM generates as static, strong encryption layer between you, your hardware, and your software. Your software has to jump through a series of hoops to ensure that it gains access to hardware resources. Essentially, if the switch is flipped in Vista (and some comments made by the concerned parties seem to make it sound like a matter of time rather than circumstance) the TPM becomes active and all of your lovely instructions get encrypted by the TPM and you get locked out. I'm sure it won't be an overnight thing, like you just get one update and BAM! you're done, but at the same time, I don't like that they actually spent time and money to build this feature into their hardware and it just sits there awaiting the possibility of activation.

Also, if this seems all sorta alien to you, just look up some of the stuff, I'm tired and don't really feel like explaining the whole dumb story.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/12/08 03:53:38 AM]
Reply

[1-15]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment