AMD Triple-Core Phenom 8600 Benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

I think you just coined a new term for the AMD triple-core cpu.

Triple Cripple. :bounce:
 
I don't see why everyone is so down on AMD for going with the tri-cores.


If AMD dropped their dual core lineup down to total rock bottom (Sempron) , replacing the majority with x3s, then they would suddenly have a bottom end that can compete with Intel at a slightly higher price point.


It doesn't matter that Intel cannot do tri-core. AMD couldn't do quad core at all till Q4 last year... doesn't mean everyone slagged Intel does it?
 


I think some people are concerned that a quad core doesn't compete with Intel, so why would a tri-core.

However, if the tri-cores do indeed clock in the 2.5ghz to 2.8 ghz range I see a future and demand for them.
 


Why bother comparing the triple cores to C2D? If each core is 17% to 25% better than an Athlon X2, then they're an incremental improvement for the AM2 upgrade market, plus a reasonable budget OEM CPU. I can see a salesman at Best Buy telling a customer that the lower priced AMD is better than the higher priced Intel box because it has 3 cores (he'll probably be named Nigel).

I'd thought they might be clocked higher than a B2 but I was wrong. The fastest triple core announced is 2.5 gigahertz, while the fastest B2 Phenom will be 2.6. So, they don't want to cut into their main market all that much. Don't hold your breath hoping that reported "second core" issue means they'll have enough headroom to overclock.

Hey TC, "triple cripple" LOL

Do you have an archive of jests you directed at the Prescott? Or are you channeling the grumpy dying architecture of your 939 Opteron? Sort of the "Sunshine Boys" of tech comedy?

If the triple cores aren't solely B2, then I'm tempted to get one to replace the two older X2's. I'll wait till 45nm Phenom at 3.2 and then see if it' worth it to go that route with a 790 board or just follow the herd and go with the least expensive Intel quad. It all depends on how much my conscience is acting up and what the regulators have determined regarding that OEM rebate program.


 


Its not supposed to compete with intel QUAD cores. Its supposed to compete against Intel dual cores.


Tri-cores form the low end of AMD's lineup, dual cores form the low end of Intels. This time last year Intel's top end featured quad cores and AMD's just dual - AMD using tri now is as fair as Intel using quad then. Yes, AMD cannot compete at the top end (heck, they can barely get to middle), but this offers them a chance to tie down the low end pretty good.





However, if the tri-cores do indeed clock in the 2.5ghz to 2.8 ghz range I see a future and demand for them.
Click to expand...

If... if if if.

It doesn't look like tri are gonna be officially released at said clockspeeds any time soon. Sure you could OC - but in that case you'd be better going for an Intel anyway.

I think AMD are relying on the average dumb customer - "3 is better than 2 right?"
 


If this is so then you know Intel will (And I believe is already planning to) release lower end cheaper than the Q6600 quad cores. The Q6600 is right now an enthusiast and will be a mid range chip once the Q9xxx series hits. I have seen some specs of the Q6400 which will be a stock 2.13GHz. My guess is that when it hits or if it has it will be priced $25-$50 dollars lower than the Q6600. Although I will always prefer the Q6600 I can see the Q6400 being a great cheap budget OC'er.
 
You know what else would be interesting? Seeing how a Phenom 8600 compares to an X2 6400+. AMD is not just competing against Intel, it is potentially competing against itself in this regard. Just like the E6750, the X2 6400+ will have similar multithreading performance (perhaps a touch lower) but due to higher clocks will significantly outperform the Phenom 8600 in single threaded tasks.
 
On the bright side, the 8600 doesn't have a TDP of 125 watts :)
On the dark side, It's probably going to get it's butt handed to it by the new quads in performance and power usage.
 
A quick hypothesis: Alan Wake looks like it could be the game of the year in H2 2008. Alan Wake is designed to use 3 CPUs to best effect. AMD and the Alan Wake developers get together to offer "Wake-enabled" PC certification. Hey presto: The developers get AMD support and AMD has the most competitive processor for the job.

Thoughts?
 

If it's true, no different to Intel and Nvidia slapping their logos all over the load screens and boxes games...
I'd care more about the performance than the company marketing it :)
 


This much I agree with. The only downside is that non PC enthusiats(such as normal users and such who buy Alienware and so on) might take it that a specific PC company being advertised might perform better when this has been proven untrue in many cases. Kinda like when Doom 3 would perform better on a ATI GPU then a NVidia, or at least for some time.

The only case of this I have yet to see this untrue was HL2. It ran the best on an ATI 9800XT as compared to a FX5900. But in most cases a company having its label slapped on it just means they put some cash/free items, i.e. CPUs/GPUs, for the company to develop the title. Not that it will perform better.

This is kinda like how most high end games, i.e. Crysis, have a logo stating that it runs best on a $8K Alienware. I laughed when I saw that on the back of my Crysis box.

If gaming performance is anything like it currently is and what we have seen fo far a Q6600 will run Alan Wake better than a Phenom X3/X4 at certain speeds. And when OC'ed the Q6600 alone will have good FPS.

On that note, anyone see anything new about them developing Max Payne 3? I saw a bit on it from a while ago and really wish they would make another one as it has always been a good series.
 
I find those benches hard to believe considering the ones I saw showed that the tri core was almost as fast as the quad. I'll wait for benches from a more reliable source.
Click to expand...


Dont you mean the Quad was as slow as the Tricore :hello:
 
I find those benches hard to believe considering the ones I saw showed that the tri core was almost as fast as the quad. I'll wait for benches from a more reliable source.
Click to expand...

What benches did you see? The Fudzilla 3DMark scores using an IGP? :lol:
 
Phenom is not that bad. When B3 stepping is out the Phenom X4 9850 BE is finally on par with the Q6600 and when O/C to 3GHz it takes on the QX6800. AMD Phenom dose a lot better when the application takes 4 threads than 2 or 1. A sign of a true quad I think. And The X3 is a good way not to just waste money by tossing it. What would you do if you are building a CPU with 4 cores and you find one of the cores are bad. Would you tose it away and loss money or disable to core itself? Prescot is worse than Phenom.
 
It's a new age CPU for Joe Public buying PC's off WalMart shelves along with their daily groceries.

Just watch and see ... a dumb salesperson's dream ... an extra core plus it is cheaper than the dual core.

Hmm ... 3Cores "core3" gotta be better than core2 ... pfftt... how confusing ... think I'd better get the extra in case I need it (rationalising the labels on the boxes). Gee ... I'm clever ... <leaves shop with smile>

core2 ... core3 ... core2 quad ... triple core ... quad core ....

This should finally confuse just about everyone.

Chuck in a "quantispeed" just for measure ... heh heh.

The poor customer.

No wonder it is so funny to reply to those "Need new Build Advise" threads ... but we try ... because we were all noobs once ...

I hope the marketing spin helps them recycle plenty of these out into the world.

I hear you need to put an extra screw on the right hand side of the motherboard when you fit the 8xxx series cpu's ... the boxer motor is a bit lumpy with the 4th piston missing ... tends to cause the case to rattle a bit otherwise.

I Suggest you sticky this advice
 


I don't see anything pointing to tru quad. Most of the multi threaded apps have performed best on the Q6600 whit a few memory intensive ones doing better on Pheonm.

And please stop refering to prescott. Its an old architecture and had some great benefits to Intel in terms of technology to use.

Phenom is not bad its just not the great chip we were told by AMD to expect.
 


I think what truly will be confusing is the naming. The Phenoms start at 9500 and it dgoes to 9550. well Inte has the Q9550. They might get the chips confused and mix them up.

Ahht that will be fun.
 


I loved his comments about OC'ing the Phenom.

Most review sites could only get the Phenom to hit 2.7 or 2.8 from 2.5 on reasonable voltages.
I did see one get to 3.0 on a massive 1.6v, but they did not do all of the benchmarks at that speed.
Again, even that is a voltage well over spec and likely to damage the CPU with continued use.

Then on the other hand, the Q6600 can usually hit 3.6 on reasonable voltages from 2.4.
To top that off, the Q6600 will be dropping in price in about 2 1/2 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom