AMD Phenom With B3 Stepping: First Look

[muk]

According to our tests, this CPU is based on highly anticipated B3 stepping technology. And, it's meant to be error-free, allow higher clock speeds and still consume less power than AMD's Phenom 9300 and 9400 models.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/18/amd_phenom/index.html

 

[blashyrkh]

hold your horses. As the article mentions, this is a "First Look".
Wait a couple o'weeks until a full review and then we'll see.

 

[LukeBird]

Can't wait for B3!
If there is a 9950, count me in!

 

[zenmaster]

[quotemsg=2435336,1,1020]According to our tests, this CPU is based on highly anticipated B3 stepping technology. And, it's meant to be error-free, allow higher clock speeds and still consume less power than AMD's Phenom 9300 and 9400 models.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/18/amd_phenom/index.html[/quotemsg]

#1) It fixes the Errata.
#2) It does not OC any more.
#3) It does not perform any faster clock for clock.
#4) It does not use any more power.

Gotta what to the Fall for the 45nm versions for those hopes.

 

[jimmysmitty]

So from the article I am guessing its just a Phenom 9700 just TLB errata free?

 

[frostys]

I just can't remember

did AMD claim it would give added performance or only people on forum wished it???

 

[justjc]

How do we know it doesn't OC any more or perform faster?
Certainly not from this article that's basicly "You know AMD had errata, they're gone in this new revision and it fits into a MSI K9A2 Platinium without a bios update."

We still don't know if AMD have done anything else to the Phenom in Revision 3, than getting rid of the errata. They might just have tweaked it so it performs better than the second revision in one or more ways, hell it might even be a decent overclocker. We just can't tell from the article.

However it's easter so I forgive Toms Hardware for this severely lacking article that's hardly interesting for anyone but owners of a MSI K9A2 Platinium mottherboard.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=2435356,7,65391]How do we know it doesn't OC any more or perform faster?
Certainly not from this article that's basicly "You know AMD had errata, they're gone in this new revision and it fits into a MSI K9A2 Platinium without a bios update."

We still don't know if AMD have done anything else to the Phenom in Revision 3, than getting rid of the errata. They might just have tweaked it so it performs better than the second revision in one or more ways, hell it might even be a decent overclocker. We just can't tell from the article.

However it's easter so I forgive Toms Hardware for this severely lacking article that's hardly interesting for anyone but owners of a MSI K9A2 Platinium mottherboard.[/quotemsg]

Did you read the whole thing? They state they will have a full batch of test in a review soon. Anand had the same thing yesterday so its not just THG. Next few days will be interesting.

 

[Reynod]

Finally ...

 

[blashyrkh]

I wonder, if we all think together that the B3 phenom will perform and OC much better, if it will really happen. Put those possitive brain waves into good use...

 

[ZOldDude]

[quotemsg=2435351,4,49731]#1) It fixes the Errata.
#2) It does not OC any more.
#3) It does not perform any faster clock for clock.
#4) It does not use any more power.

Gotta what to the Fall for the 45nm versions for those hopes.[/quotemsg]

Well we don't know if it OC's further and we don't know for sure if it uses the same /more/less power....put we should expect the same.

What we do know is that the TLB "bug" which has only showed up in a -lab- so far is fixed.
To be honest this "bug" has never been seen outside of a -lab-.....so good call for AMD fixing the -bug- anyhow after first recalling past shipments.

Perhaps near end of the year they will ship a 3Ghz product.
No matter the maker in real life after you hit 3Ghz only a benchmark can tell if a game runs any better...and almost all software is still P4 rated.

 

[mrgoodbar]

I just want all the damn prices to go down on all the chips period. Intel needs some competion hopefully this brings down the chip costs all around.

 

[ZOldDude]

[quotemsg=2435369,12,168708]I just want all the damn prices to go down on all the chips period. Intel need some competion hopefully this bring down the chip costs.[/quotemsg]
I am sure it will.
Right now a game running with a AMD 6000+ @ $111 USD runs just as well as far as the player can tell vrs a top of the line Intel quad overclocked @ $1,100 USD.

Benchmarks can see a gain...but the game player or human eye can't.
Game and office software is still using the P4 rateings.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=2435368,11,58023]Well we don't know if it OC's further and we don't know for sure if it uses the same /more/less power....put we should expect the same.

What we do know is that the TLB "bug" which has only showed up in a -lab- so far is fixed.
To be honest this "bug" has never been seen outside of a -lab-.....so good call for AMD fixing the -bug- anyhow after first recalling past shipments.

Perhaps near end of the year they will ship a 3Ghz product.
No matter the maker in real life after you hit 3Ghz only a benchmark can tell if a game runs any better...and almost all software is still P4 rated.[/quotemsg]

Thing about the OC'ing is we don't know that the TLB Bug was causing that. It might just be the architecture or the process(65nm SOI).

And for some games such as Crysis, even after 3GHz it helps. And a lot of games after that will probably be the same. But of course thats just one game and you are right that after 3GHz on most games only a benchmark will tell. I ran the CS:Source stress test twice and got 140-160FPS average. But to me it just looked normal until I saw the results.

 

[mrgoodbar]

[quotemsg=2435372,13,58023]I am sure it will.
Right now a game running with a AMD 6000+ @ $111 USD runs just as well as far a the player can tell vrs a top of the line Intel quad overclocked @ $1,100 USD.

Benchmarks can see a gain...but the game player or human eye can't.
Game and office software is still using the P4 rateings.[/quotemsg]


^^ Did you hear that the new 5600+ will be a black edition unlocked multiplier at 65w instead of 89w. Might be nice, they are releasing this, the phenoms b3, and the Tri Cores soon. Currently Im on an old p4 I sold my 6400+ waiting on these phenom chips. I have waited so long, so dang long.

 

[ZOldDude]

Nothing is ever going to make Crysis run better/faster....it was written for the top end hardware when it was written.

Don't spend a dime thinking it will run better if you already have any brand CPU @ 3Ghz (1-500 cores) or a 8800GTX.

Most people who just play games or run home GFX/Office software would have to be "less than smart" to pay -ten times- the price for a CPU if they could never "see" a gain.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=2435375,16,58023]Nothing is ever going to make Crysis run better/faster....it was written for the top end hardware when it was written.

Don't spend a dime thinking it will run better if you already have any brand CPU @ 3Ghz (1-500 cores) or a 8800GTX.[/quotemsg]

No its more like Doom 3/HL2. They were both released and could run on current hardware but performed the best on hardware yet to be released. I am sure that a R770 or G100 will be able to tame Crysis. But the CPU with more IPC and at least 3GHz will help for now.

 

[ZOldDude]

[quotemsg=2435376,17,149725]No its more like Doom 3/HL2. They were both released and could run on current hardware but performed the best on hardware yet to be released. I am sure that a R770 or G100 will be able to tame Crysis. But the CPU with more IPC and at least 3GHz will help for now.[/quotemsg]
Jimbo...I edited my post above yours while you submited yours.
By the way....Crysis is not a "problem" for almost everyone to run/play.

The idea that Cysis runs like a P.O.S. untill you have the latest hardware which did not exist when it was written is the BS of hardware salers and nothing more...nor will it ever be.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=2435378,18,58023]Jimbo...I edited my post above yours while you submited yours.
By the way....Crysis is not a "problem" for almost everyone to run/play.[/quotemsg]

What I mean by "tame" is not so much a problem. But being able to run it at a decent res(such as 1680x1050) with everything set to very high and AA/AF. Right now I have yet to see one that can play at those settings while getting 30+FPS average.

 

[ZOldDude]

[quotemsg=2435380,19,149725]What I mean by "tame" is not so much a problem. But being able to run it at a decent res(such as 1680x1050) with everything set to very high and AA/AF. Right now I have yet to see one that can play at those settings while getting 30+FPS average.[/quotemsg]
Sorry...I edited it again while you wer posting.

Belive it or not -most- people do not game @ 1680x1050...in fact almost nobody does.
If you think that statement is not correct poll 11-15 million gamers and tell me what they say.

Game software companies already know the answere and write the software to fit the customer base.

EDIT: You can spend a BILLION Dollars to have a 30Ghz 500 core CPU and a GFX card that is 10K faster than a 8800GTX....and the game will still run the same.

 

[mi1ez]

[quotemsg=2435381,20,58023]Belive it or not -most- people do not game @ 1680x1050...in fact almost nobody does.
If you think that statement is not correct poll 11-15 million gamers and tell me what they say.[/quotemsg]

Will 1.5 million do?

1680x1050 is the third most used screen resolution on Steam...


http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Primary Display Resolution (1439533 Users)
800 x 600 --24,323 1.69 %
1024 x 768 --458,882 31.88 %
1152 x 864 --74,797 5.20 %
1280 x 960 --569,003 39.53 %
1440 x 900 --105,925 7.36 %
1600 x 1200 --24,432 1.70 %
1680 x 1050 --129,643 9.01 %
1920 x 1200 --32,576 2.26 %
Other --19,952 1.39 %

 

[ZOldDude]

Nope....won't do for the topic -or- for game software writers.

Your STEAM link shows only 9% of the people that play crap games on STEAM use 1600x1050.

I bet that makes CSS way better an leet....not.

EDIT: The link shows most people play STEAM games with ONE CPU core and ONE GB or LESS of ram.
That is still what softwar companies write games to run on...and if you have more better for you.

However haveing 100 times the cpu and/or common grafix card speed will never make the game run beyound whaat it was written to do.

 

[mi1ez]

I never claimed that survey was anything other than people on steam...

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=2435387,22,58023]Nope....won't do for the topic -or- for game software writers.

Your STEAM link shows only 9% of the people that play crap games on STEAM use 1600x1050.

I bet that makes CSS way better an leet....not.[/quotemsg]

Um considering that Steam has had 15million registered users that use it I highly doubt it is crap. And out of 1.5million who gave that info 9% is a lot. Also not every game through Steam is crap. In fact you've got Bioshcok and now the entire Unreal/UT series is available through Steam.

And CS:S is not a bad game. Yes it is filled with a bunch of noobs but a high resolution of 16x10 probably makes the game look very nice.

Either way this proves that more and more people are going to a higher resolution, 16x10 being the main one.

 

[zenmaster]

[quotemsg=2435368,11,58023]Well we don't know if it OC's further and we don't know for sure if it uses the same /more/less power....put we should expect the same.

What we do know is that the TLB "bug" which has only showed up in a -lab- so far is fixed.
To be honest this "bug" has never been seen outside of a -lab-.....so good call for AMD fixing the -bug- anyhow after first recalling past shipments.

Perhaps near end of the year they will ship a 3Ghz product.
No matter the maker in real life after you hit 3Ghz only a benchmark can tell if a game runs any better...and almost all software is still P4 rated.[/quotemsg]

Well we know a little from this article.
We also know a little from AnandTech's Article.

If you read the article, Tom's did do some testing.
They found that the 2.4 used a little more power than the 2.3 version.

Clearly with such a small bump in speed if there was any power savings to be found the results should have been the same or less power used.

Tom's also stated that the 2.4 showed an increase n performance that would be expected in a bump from 2.3Ghz.
AnandTech's article which was more indepth revealed the same things.

The only performance gain you can claim is that you don't need to have the TLB Errata fix enabled in BIOS.
Note: Most home users did not enable this since it mostly effected Virtualization stuff. So if you want to claim B3 is faster since that BIOS patch is not required, I will agree but most sites reviewed the Phenom w/o than enabled for most tests and provided seperate results for when the patch was in place.

The Exciting news for AMD with the B3 is that they will be able to start shipping Server CPUs now.
The B3 is of little importance to the Deskopt Market since at most it will usher in a new 2.4Ghz vs 2.3Ghz Phenom.

Some point down the road a 2.5Ghz Version may also come out on the B3 Stepping.

However, AMD has stated that faster Phenoms will not ship until 45nm comes out.
I wish the B3 had done more as it would help curb Intel prices.