Anandtech Phenom review is in

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2
First of all, I'm really disappointed with AMD's execution this time. Having an inferior CPU doesn't mean you have the right to fooling and faking the benchmarks. I was going to purchase a Phenom, just to test it out. Now, due to this dishonorable and deplorable trick AMD pulled, I guess I'll have to take my money elsewhere.

Anandtech:
For the first time in as far as I can remember, AMD wanted all benchmarking on Phenom to be done at a location in Tahoe, of course on AMD's dime. AMD would fly us out there, we would spend a couple of days with a pre-configured system and we'd head home to write our stories.

...Needless to say, I wasn't happy. I refused to go to Tahoe.
All hail Anand! Thank you! Thank you for holding your esteem as a journalist.

A representative from AMD's PR agency in charge of the Tahoe trip asked me, somewhat surprised, "what, Intel doesn't work like this?".

Sorry to say, Intel doesn't. Today Intel let us preview the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 processor, do you want to know how they did it? The FedEx guy dropped off a chip.
For those who insisted on Intel's dirty tricks (cough Baron cough), I guess the role has switched. Years ago, Intel would do anything to hide their failure in Pentium 4. The result? People start to jump on the AMD wagon.

This time, people are going to jump on the Intel wagon.

To AMD: if you want to be Intel, start acting like it.
Couldn't be any truer.

Firingsquad:
Interestingly enough, all of AMD’s Phenom CPUs were running at 1.3V; that’s a little bit higher than AMD’s 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz Phenom CPUs, which run between 1.1-1.25V. I took a stab at overclocking my Phenom rig but got a BSOD before hitting 2.35GHz. For overclocking purposes AMD directed all of us towards one specific PC in the back of the room. Apparently all the other systems had very limited headroom for overclocking, as no one seemed to be able to push their system very far.
I guess before AMD fixes the TLB errata, and their process node, no overclocking for us. It becomes more of a bet.

As you can probably imagine, that last hour became quite frustrating as I was cursing to myself and Ryan that the systems had been clocked so much higher than the actual launch speeds, and we’d been given so little time for testing.
In other words, no real benchmarks. Its the same thing as letting reviewers benchmarking the 3.0Ghz chip, when all you're going to launch is a 2.2~2.3Ghz part. Not cool.

 

easyg

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2007
135
0
18,680
0



My sentiments exactly. It does look as if the unthinkable has happened. Phenom is slower clock for clock than year-old Kentsfield. Honestly, who woulda thunk it 6 months ago?
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
Apr 29, 2006
26,537
0
81,160
2,003
Perhaps its the AMD lover in me, but I don't see 100% of the same doom and gloom in this article as the authors do. It was able to win/tie some of the encoding benchmarks, and some of the gaming benchmarks. (ones based off of newer encoders/games at that.) Power consumption wasn't good, but that can change as yields get better. I was also bothered by the lack of playing with the independent power planes. I thought we were supposed to be able to power the 4 cores separately? Did they even try to turn 3 cores down while using only one?

With all that said, I would still recommend an Intel CPU. All AMD has managed to do is close the gap (in some cases) that it had with Intel. Once you factor price into the equation, Intel looks really good. Did I miss the thermal numbers? (I only read the anandtech article btw...)
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0


It closed the gap a bit on 65nm Core 2. Unfortunately it has to compete with 45nm Core 2. Even if it was faster clock for clock than Core 2 100% of the time on all tests... Look at the OCs people are seeing on Penryns so far. Intel can easily push out faster and faster processors while AMD will be struggling to get the B3 out to compete with the Penryns.
 

spoonboy

Distinguished
Oct 31, 2007
1,053
0
19,280
0
In gaing and 3dmark06 its very respectable. HDTV encoding an playback are also good. Factor in price and backwards compatibility and its not quite the end of he world people!

Overclocking problems are probably down to motherbaords and bios I would say.
 

Slobogob

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
1,431
0
19,280
0
While it is a good review, Anand got one of the big facts wrong which in turn invalidates their asessment of the cpu.

The prices they mentioned are off by quite a shot.



Look at the euro prices. Yes, if you use the current rate prices will look different in dollars, but take it from an old european that usually prices translate 1:1. A Q6600 costs 205€ at the cheapest online shop i could find.
If you take into consideration the whole spider setup and look at the prices of the 790 boards and the new 38xx series GPUs, there is a very obvious trend.
AMD doesn't offer top performance anywhere but right now it seems that the green team aims at price/performance and that with great success.
Given the upgrade possibilities AMD has indeed managed to offer something worthwhile.

Another thing i noticed was the SSE4a and SSE4.1 difference and incompatibility between AMD and Intel. It's a rather bold move by AMD but given their price politics and their almost suicidal move to flood the market with cheap CPUs it suddenly makes sense too.

If, and that is a rather big "IF", AMD manages to stick to their plans and more important to their prices without anymore delays this will be an interesting christmas.
 

Zephyn

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2007
42
0
18,530
0
Yeah, I see a lot of doom and gloom posts about the Phenom but for what they cost who cares? They are about the same price as the Q6600 and if you have an AM2 board already...... you don't need a new board. I actually think its pretty cool and if you also read the Toms test of the Phenoms they are not that bad. I think AMD is attacking the right segment at the mid range level and will hopefully get better with time.

The AMD quad comes close to the Q6600 and looks to overclock nicely; this also puts it in the range of the Q6700 which FYI is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115027 $200+ more then the Phenom. So I really don't see the need for all the doom sayers but I do have to say that AMD needs to get their butts in gear and get out some processors that crank out high-mid range processors that have a great "bang for the buck" factor or they are going to take it where it hurts.
 

mimart7

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2007
101
0
18,680
0
Tom's has a more indepth review, but needless to say Phenom is underwhelming :( AMD is making a huge mistake by targeting "midrange" users. They have to target high end user as well as mid range users. I wasn't planning a new system rebuild until mid 2008 at the earliest. I would like to go with AMD, but if they don't get their act together and show us something that is an absolute must have, my next build will be Intel.
 

accord99

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2004
325
0
18,780
0

The problem is, most people have MBs that support Intel's quad-core thanks to Intel's preview of Conroe before AMD transitioned to AM2. Phenom's uncompetitive performance means that segment has no reason at all to switch to an AMD processor.


And if you overclock, you might as well get the Q6600 which will easily reach performance levels that AMD probably won't hit till 2009 or later.
 

Iain1974

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2007
47
0
18,530
0
Expected UK prices;

9500 - 125GBP ($250)
9600 - 150GBP ($300)

Which would be inline with the euro prices above and the dollar prices online.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0


They need to be about $50 USD cheaper to be a good alternative considering it will be hit or miss OCing.
 

Zephyn

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2007
42
0
18,530
0


Very true my friend; I have been looking back over on timelines and I have to agree with you. Most people do have Core2 boards and not the AM2 boards. This is quite a bit of bad news for AMD and they are going to have to drop their prices quick to make themselves competitive; on the bright side its great news if you have an AM2 board.

Oh well, I am due for a new build in March or so and I am waiting on the new lineup of graphics cards before my build. I will just bother with the chipset then.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0



790 is a great chipset.

HD38x0 will be great cards.

Overclocking with OD looks to be a breeze.

Now we just need a good processor to drop in the mix and even I wouldn't mind going AMD. They should just push the B3 out the door faster.
 

speedbird

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2007
547
0
18,990
2
Look at the Motherboard that Tomshardware used!! it was a Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe! Now from my understanding the Phenom will work on older AM2 boards , but will use the older Hyper transport 2.0 rather than the AM2 + 3.0 hypertransport.

Now the Results are disappointing, but Phenom really does need the new upcoming AM2+ boards to work to it's potential. Phenom is at a distinct disadvantage in this test please bear this in mind. This is not a fair test at all using obsolete Motherboard technology to showcase a new CPU.

I do believe AM2+ boards are not avaliable as of yet, but Tomshardware is completely Intel biased so it's convenient for them to have us believe Phenom is rubbish.

Please wait for the Phenom to be benchmarked with a newer AM2+ board before writing it off as rubbish.

The Review is BS!
 

WR

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
603
0
18,980
0
(FiringSquad)
I took a stab at overclocking my Phenom rig but got a BSOD before hitting 2.35GHz.
Reminds me of my first x2 4400+, which started blue-screening at 2.25Ghz (up from 2.2Ghz stock). A later sample of the same SKU reached 2.6Ghz. Their chips have varied and changed over time without so much as a new stepping.

I don't see 100% of the same doom and gloom in this article as the authors do. It was able to win/tie some of the encoding benchmarks, and some of the gaming benchmarks.
The question I ask myself is whether AMD fundamentally changed its market position. Changing from competing with mid-high-ranged dual cores just yesterday to low-ranged quad cores today (both count as mid-ranged overall) is but a small, incremental step. The fact alone that it is quad-core has little meaning to its current business; it's not after a performance title, and a quad-core doesn't attract very different consumers from a faster clocked dual-core.

To soothe the "doom and gloom" worries, we'd need to know that AMD can afford staying in the budget CPU range yet again as it improves its formula. People have doubts because the K10, even at this new process node, is much bigger than the K8 or previous chips at their times of introduction. (Clawhammer 193mm^2 130nm; Toledo 199mm^2 90nm; Barcelona 283mm^2 65nm) Their key is probably how well and quickly they transition to 45nm. I don't foresee the full K10 design ever meeting the mass-production/performance requirement for a profitable mainstream chip at 65nm.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0


Most reviews tested with 790FX boards... how about you read them? Like the Anandtech review I linked to, for example. ;)

And no, HT3 doesn't help performance one bit. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 

speedbird

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2007
547
0
18,990
2
Looking through the various reviews it does not seem like a complete disaster, but it really needs to be priced reasonable to compete.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0
Im not dissapointed at all. Alas it works with all existing chipsets and sockets. Unlike the new Intel 45nm will require yet another chipset. Even the brand new X38 or p35 will not be compatible. You can expect x48 to be outrageously priced like whent he 65nm c2d boards came out. ($250+)
The extra cool part is the 770 and 790 chipsets will allow you to run 4 cards in crossfire.
Will you quit posting this?

QX9650s are working in P35s right now.

Direct us to a link where you are getting this BS from or stop posting it. You are completely misinformed.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
Im not dissapointed at all. Alas it works with all existing chipsets and sockets. Unlike the new Intel 45nm will require yet another chipset. Even the brand new X38 or p35 will not be compatible. You can expect x48 to be outrageously priced like whent he 65nm c2d boards came out. ($250+)
The extra cool part is the 770 and 790 chipsets will allow you to run 4 cards in crossfire.
WTF?! Stop spreading FUD, all P35/X38 chipsets work with Penryn. Even my P965 Asus P5B Deluxe works with Penryn... :ange:
 

speedbird

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2007
547
0
18,990
2
I really wanted AMD to offer something great, but they didn't. I'm going to face facts and my Quad Upgrade will probably be a Penryn rather than Phenom.
 

Similar threads