Anandtech Phenom review is in

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harrisson

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2007
506
0
18,990
It seems for video/music workstations Phenoms are out of picture. Not for gamers though. Since most games are more gpu than cpu bound, there isnt that much difference if you will use >1000$ Yorkfield or ~250$ Phenom, and Spider as a platform is cheaper than similar Intel rig. 4 x 3870 (provided AMD manages quality drivers) will be the fastest mid-level rig of the near future, plus very sweet tools for enthusiasts, which are only partly available for Intel/nVidia.
 

amddiesel

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
265
0
18,780
As i dont care how big my e-penis is with super duper extreme overclocking in my basement shinangans. I like the AMD-overdrive feature on the new chipsets... I never understood old school bios settings.. AMD is setting a new trend for a new generation.
 

WR

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
603
0
18,980
The new X48 chipset that is required for the new Extreme Edition CPU
Just because Intel introduces a new part does not make last quarter's chips unavailable.

There is an in-stock Extreme Edition CPU based on the Penryn core. It runs at 3.0 GHz x 4 and is the chip many have talked about overclocking to 4.0GHz on air. X38 and P35 are both compatible with this.

There is also a series of more affordable mainstream Penryn chips coming next quarter, also X38- and P35-compatible.

The EE CPU you talk about has not yet been released. It's designed to take advantage of the faster X48 and Skulltrail busses. These are for people with money to burn. More typical enthusiasts will go for the 1333-Mhz FSB Penryns, and performance wouldn't differ noticeably.

4 x 3870 (provided AMD manages quality drivers) will be the fastest mid-level rig of the near future
I believe the HD3870 is a 2-slot part and therefore very hard to set up in 4-way crossfire due to PCI-slot spacing limitations. Four-way HD3850 would be possible, though. And spending $720 on video cards alone doesn't exactly qualify as "mid-level."
 

Slobogob

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
1,431
0
19,280


I´m not dissappointed either. If AMD sticks to its prices, i might get me a phenom instead of a Q6600.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
*sigh* More FUD from MrsBytch. Go back to updating your blog Mike, your little rants here aren't appreciated.

45nm is compatible with P35/X38 and even P965.

http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/



Hey, free world, your choice. I honestly don't see the appeal in Phenom, when a cheaper Q6600 bests it by 10% or more.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
The new X48 chipset that is required for the new Extreme Edition CPU will also only be released in the first quarter of 2008. By increasing both the FSB and the TDP, Intel is forcing its customers to by a new chipset.

The technical specifications are slightly different than those of the X38. Here are the highlights:

The highest supported front side bus has been raised to 400 MHz (1600QDR)
The chipset does not support DDR2 memory.
DDR3-1600 is supported on an FSB of 400 MHz (1600QDR)
If DDR3-1600 memory is used, only one memory module is allowed per channel. Thus, the buyer must use 2 GB modules to reach 4 GB of RAM.
According to Intel, DDR3-1600 will operate at 1.8 Volts and CL8-8-8

Atleast you got your facts somewhat straight on this one...

DDR3-1600 was removed from X48 official support because it's not a JEDEC standard.
X38 w/ DDR2 is able to support 1600 MHz FSB from Manufacturers (check them at retailers).

I agree, X48 is going to be overpriced and worthless, just like the Skulltrail, for 90% of the people.

Anyone who has the cash to drop $1300 on a CPU is probably not going think twice about springing for DDR3 and X48. It's aimed at the people who want the ultimate performance (which it WILL offer) and money is not an issue.

If you want to talk mainstream... let's talk about P35s with Q9450s in January. Or when more X38s make it onto the market with Q9450s in January.
 

yipsl

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
1,666
0
19,780


Haven't read the whole thread, but this is probably what he means:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9770/

The QX9650 works in P35s right now but they were used to simulate a QX9770 that will need an X48 chipset:

The launch of the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 processor, which currently exists only on paper, symbolizes Intel's fear of AMD's Phenom processor.

With this launch, Intel is presenting another 45 nm processor in the over-$1,470 price range that also requires a new high-end platform based on the equally as-yet-unavailable X48 chipset. Intel's intentions here are crystal clear, namely to disrupt AMD's launch, try to win a battle in the technology war, and to make a profit. Also, this is the first time in the company's history that it has announced two new $1,470+ processors based on the same technology within the space of three weeks.

Barely two months after the introduction of the X38 chipset, Intel is announcing a new CPU that will no longer run on this supposed high end platform - and some motherboard companies haven't even had the chance to introduce a product based on this chipset! What does Intel expect its customers to do now, when it only adds to their confusion and insecurities in this manner?

Since the currently available Core 2 processors all run flawlessly with the P35 chipset, which is actually on sale as a real product in the market, we can't recommend buying an X38-based motherboard. As soon as the QX9770 goes on sale, you'll be able to find an appropriate X48 board for the same price X38 boards sell for now. It's definitely not worth purchasing an expensive X38 board now that may not be compatible with newer processors later due to upgraded specifications , e.g. FSB 1600.

IMHO, AMD will get the Phenom to perform better as 2008 moves forward. By the time they go to 45nm, the gap should be closer in current games. I'm not a FPS fan and probably won't get Crysis until the fad has passed by (ie I got Farcry at budget), but I still play Oblivion and look forward to RPGs on the same engine. The same goes for World in Conflict and Supreme Commander next gen RTS. Yet, Crysis is a game where the Phenom does very well against Intel's current quad cores.

I think that the Phenom is a decent mainstream choice for today, but unless one does video encoding or 3DS Max, the upcoming Phenom dual cores, and perhaps the triple cores, will be a better deal prior to the arrival of AMD's 45nm and more games that support 2 plus cores.

Me, I'm looking forward to a hybrid Crossfire board with an X3870 and a dual core Phenom, if they're clocked higher than the quad and triple cores. Otherwise, I might just get an Athlon X2 6400+ to replace my Athlon X2 4600+.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
By the time 45nm comes out Intel will be releasing Nehalem. Then the things AMD fanbois keep spamming that makes the Phenom so much better will be done by Intel. Native quad... Quick Path, Integrated Memory Controller. I'm sure Nehalem will be plagued with issues at launch.. however I think it'll be more competition for AMD.

And I know exactly what he is refering to, but he's also wrong on that account as X38s already support the QX9770 from Manufacturers. However instead of saying the QX9770 won't work with P35s, he said 45nm Penryns won't work with P35s, which is flat out wrong.
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
1
19,790


It was pretty traumatizing huh Baron? :lol: :lol:
 

gallag

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
127
0
18,680
ANYONE THAT SAYS THEY ARE NOT DISAPPOINTED ARE TALKING BS, what happened to 40% faster clock for clock. What, nearly as fast will do?

Baron you used to say it would be xx% faster clock for clock so how could this be anything other than a disappointment?
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
1
19,790

I guess we'll wait and see. I really doubt the L3 errata is holding Phenom back. Maybe in terms of frequency, but not performance. Remember, according to the report, Phenom 2.2Ghz and 2.3Ghz are not affected by this.

A lot of this is more than likely due to not being optimized. Tom had possibly the most in-depth article and perhaps they will try to compile under PGI and see if there is a difference.

Most things are optimized more fully for Core 2 at this point so I would have expected different numbers than with the older revs and patches.
You mean... unoptimized game engines? Man, I really look forward to what Phenom can do once those game engines are AMD optimized :lol: :lol: :lol: .

Chances are, if the game engine is not optimized, its not optimized for both camps, not just single one of them.

I still say it's a great start for such an overhauled chip and new chipset. We also see that 2 3850s are coming out faster in some cases than a 8800GTX.

I would bet that as new BIOS' are released and AMD has a chance to get the new revs, it will, I believe, be more competitive. I have sen three reviews and they ll say that the newness of the platform is as much of a problem as having an "inferior" chip.

That's AMDs second problem, more companies will optimize for Intel and AMD either has to use the same "SSE" or convince SW folks to do more optimization for K10 SSE.
Oh god... more optimizations... I really wonder how long it will take for those softwares to be optimized? Maybe...never?


Not too bad, if you only focus on your perspective. Let's think about how it will be when Penryn hits. 266USD for a Penryn quad, running with on par performance, and a lot cooler?

Phenom = too little, too late.
 

Slobogob

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
1,431
0
19,280

That's the problem. If the 9500 really sells for 169€, it is quite a bit cheaper than intels Q6600 (which goes for 205€ - 220€). Yes, it is slower, but it still is a quad-core (for those future-proofing nuts). For me it's not really about the CPU alone. I see the whole system.

Just imagine the price of a nv-board based 8800GTX setup with a Q6600 - the typical enthusiast platform. Compare that to a Phenom 9500 on a 790 based board with two 3850s. The performance difference shouldn't be that big, yet the second setup should be cheaper.

That seems to be AMDs goal right now. In some markets they aren't there yet (as in the US, i suppose), but in others they are coming quite close to it (as in europe).
 

wolverinero79

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2001
1,127
0
19,280


Actually, I would disagree. Computer gaming is not the primary focus/future for CPUs anymore as console gaming is rapidly destroying PC gaming MSS. Consider the fact that in 2001, people spent more on PC games than they did in 2006 (straight dollars - no inflation consideration). Factoring in that PC games cost consumers the same amount in straight dollars today ($50 for a new PC game), but consumers had more money in 2006 than in 2001 to spend on entertainment and we see that the decline is even more severe. PC gaming is far from dead, but it's definitely going down, where as console gaming is definitely skyrocketing. Desktop growth is limited at best and gaming as part of that is also limited.
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
1
19,790

LOL!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The big picture? Crysis and Valve are the future? What about media encoding? What about Windows loading time? What about installation time? Are they also not part of the future? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously Baron, stop. You're making me falling off my chair. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Here dude, how is closing of FAB 30 has anything to do with 65nm Barcelona production? They are at completely two different FABs. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh another thing, you have no idea what you're talking about in terms of manufacturing. I suggest you do some reading.

This is a good starter: roborat64.blogspot.com.
NOT this one: scientiasblog.blogspot.com.
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
1
19,790
Here's CPU benchmark on Crysis:
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMD_Spider_Platform__Phenom_790FX_RV670/?page=12
cry.png


That's how you're supposed to test CPU, at 800 x 600.

As you can see here, although Phenom edged out QFX, but still cannot outperforms the BE.

Here Baron, is this the "future" you talk about? :lol:
 
Phenom is a miserable failure that gets it butt handed to it by the very first quad core processor that came out OVER A YEAR AGO.

This is AMD's new idea of being competitive, release pre-fragged products and sell them cheap.

AMD's $250 quad core isn't by design, it's because it just doesn't perform.


Hey Baron! Where's the 40% improvement your heros promised?

The only thing worse than launching a crappy product is PAPER LAUNCHING a crappy product. Make no mistake, this will be a paper launch.
 

Harrisson

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2007
506
0
18,990

MSI already is making MBs which supports 4 x Dual slot cards, so it isnt an issue if manufacturers want such product. Although 4 x 3870 is made of mid-level cards, its performance should be very high-end (again, up to drivers). Price may look steep (as one Ultra), but you dont have to buy all at once, you can buy one and add another anytime, dont need even pairs.
 

epsilon84

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


I'm not in a position to comment on European prices, but here in Australia the cheapest Phenom 9500 is $311, compared to $305 for the Q6600. Perhaps there is some price gouging going on, but Phenom 9500 would have to be around $250 AUD before it becomes equal to a Q6600 in price/performance.

You mention platform price as an advantage for AMD, yet you fail to mention a few key points.

1) The 790FX platform isn't cheap. It ain't no X48 (thank god!), but it's still quite expensive.
2) AMD needs more expensive DDR2-1066 to perform well, Intel does not.
3) Why a single 8800GTX vs 2 x 38x0? When the 8800GT is within spitting distance of the GTX and is 1/2 the price?
4) All modern Intel chipsets can run CF as well. And by modern, I mean 975X/P965/P35/X38/X48. So if you are going to run CF on the AMD platform, why not on the Intel platform?
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790



I said where it should. A lot of the tests are clock speed dependent and only dual threaded. If you check out HotHardware, they have a 2.4GHz X2 that shows very good IPC increases for Phenom. And people with all this talk about a one year old architecture, do you mean that C2Q hasn't gotten new revs since it was released?

 


Yes, Intel has managed to launch and improve their product. Stop making excuses for AMD.

Tests are "clock speed dependent". ROFL. You truly are starting to look like a moron.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790



Of course, you just couldn't help it, though right? If the steaming dump plugged into a mobo and gave me a nice boost over my current chip, I'd be computing with crap alright.
 

spaztic7

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2007
959
0
18,980


Also, the Nvida 680i chip sets should all be compatible with the 45nm platform. I am not sure about that Q9770 one, but the Q9650 should be. Which also would mean that all the lower models (which are coming out in a wii bit) will be compatible as well.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790



I wouldn't say that. Hot Hardware did Vegas Video tests that were right on Penryn's tail. Also, Windows Media is a strong suit for Phenom. They also didn't test anything like ProTools LE or Cubase or Sonar or any professional FX packages so you should review what a music workstation does.

I use mine, as most people, to do multitrack recording and have yet to encode an MP3 or WMA file. I just edit my tracks and burn a CD, which is not CPU-bound.

I was just hoping that they were within 10% so all of you could find another industry to ruin.