Anandtech Phenom review is in

[BaronMatrix]

*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.

The appeal is a XFire board for $169, DDR2 1066 - much cheaper than DDR3 - and a <$300 qad core chip. You can get a whole Phenom system for around $600. That's not bad at all.

 

[yomamafor1]

The appeal is a XFire board for $169, DDR2 1066 - much cheaper than DDR3 - and a <$300 qad core chip. You can get a whole Phenom system for around $600. That's not bad at all.

And you can get a similarly configured Q6600, or even Penryn, and a Xfire board, for the same amount of price, while performing better.

That's not bad at all.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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?

So now you can tell me what I think? No wonder I get so upset. I said according to someone who I trusted, the 3GHz Phenom would blow everything out of the water. I gave no perf numbers or %.

Perhaps the case was that they had a few B3 Phenoms before that and did OC to 3GHz and had no L3 errata, which I think has some bearing on these scores. It's not the best situation when you have to release a chip with errata, but they had to pull the trigger.

I'm confident that CTI will take over in the next months and improve all aspects of the chip, AS USUAL. I may have to throw these benchmarks out until someone can prove that the errata does not affect any normal function in 2.3GHz Phenom.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

You're right. I hope they go out of business and Intel charges a 40% premium to cover added costs. That seems to be the only thing that will make you happy.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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?

Yeah the future where you spend $300-$500 on a video card to run at 800x600. I'm still happy with the launch and will more than likely go with it when I can find a CoolIT water cooled chassis.

I'll get QFX speed with one chip and 1066 RAM and serious tweakability.

 

[yomamafor1]

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?

Yeah the future where you spend $300-$500 on a video card to run at 800x600. I'm still happy with the launch and will more than likely go with it when I can find a CoolIT water cooled chassis.

I'll get QFX speed with one chip and 1066 RAM and serious tweakability.

Not only I get QFX with one chip, cheaper RAM for the same performance, and superior overclockability. The most important thing is, I got mine about more than 6 months ago. 😀

 

[cnumartyr]

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?

Yeah the future where you spend $300-$500 on a video card to run at 800x600. I'm still happy with the launch and will more than likely go with it when I can find a CoolIT water cooled chassis.

I'll get QFX speed with one chip and 1066 RAM and serious tweakability.

It's still odd you think it's either all ATI/AMD or all Intel/nVidia.

I think I'll "settle" for my P35, HD3870X2, Q6600, and DDR21066. Should be just as costly as whatever AMD has to offer.

The ONLY thing that would make this entire thing easier is if P35 supported full bandwidth CF or 8x8. Unfortunately for that you have to move to X38. So we can just use CF on a PCB and get it when they come out in January.

I'm a big fan of ATI cards.. I try to support DAAMIT where I can. I can deal with the performance loss by not shelling out $500 bucks to get a GTX and picking up an HD3870 instead. I can't deal with getting 15% less performance for the same price in the processor market.

And I'll probably end up getting a good X38 mobo with DDR2 support (for OCing.. Maximus SE or something) and run dual HD3870s. The only extra cost there will be in the motherboard.

 

[Scotteq]

Gonna reiterate what I posted in a semi-related thread.... Bits for either side to chew on.



For the AMD fans: Accept the truth guys. From a product~for~product performance perspective Intel currently bends AMD over the knee, lifts the skirt, and SPANKS away. You can justify your feelings on the matter any way you like. Or make up whatever crap you want about X processors not being compatible on whatever chipset. Or cry about stepping revisions.. When you're done whining, KNOW that the Phenom people will be able to buy is *only* roughly equivalent in some aspects to a year old Q6600. Clock for Clock. Dollar for Dollar. No Excuses. No Spin. Full Stop.

AMD's delays have put the company nearly a full generation and process behind Intel. Apples to Apples, Product for Product. If you somehow think that's "Good", then you need to sell whatever it is you're smoking on streetcorners. Or maybe give it to Hector for him to do it for you. Use the profits accordingly.


Now that I've completely p*ssed off the AMD crowd... Where I *DO* see significant added value for an AMD based system is in Gaming on their new chipset. 4 GPU's would go a long, long, long way towards taming the newest games. Look at Dollar for Dollar on the whole system with the "BEST" from each (AMD/ATI and Intel/nVidia): A system with a $1200 Intel Extreme Quad plus $600~$1200 for one or two 8800 GTX's on one side. A $300 AMD Quad, and FOUR $400 ATI cards on the other. The first one makes a $18~2,400 hole, depending on if you use 2 GPUs or not. The second a $1,900 one. Set aside implementation questions/drivers for the moment: It wont take a rocket scientist to see which offers the superior gaming setup per dollar spent. And if done right, it has the potential (again - from a Gaming perspective) to be superior in the ultimate sense, as well. Of course, we will all mix/match, but there *is* a viable story here. Though 32 bit memory limitations being what they are, it's going to take 64 bits to make it work.


From a consumer perspective: Your primary target for gaming is high school/college aged peeps. They have limited funds, and e-peens. A "Double Quad" system can save some cash and provide the needed massaging... Plus, as pointed out earlier, it can be bought piecemeal. This is not a bad story at all - I've been a sales goon in my past, and I could definitely sell this.


Now that I've sufficiently pissed off both sides: (1) There's more to selling a system than "just" the processor. (2) From a Gaming perspective, we are GPU limited, not CPU, and (3) 1 Processor and 2~4 video cards all sold by the same company has the potential for much higher gaming performance *and* profits than 1 processor plus video cards from a company that is not Intel.

If AMD can pitch the entirety of the system to get around Intel's superior components, it can do a lot of good for AMD's bottom line.


The big question now is "Will the Public Buy the 'Platform' Argument"??? A VERY big question, at this point.

 

[cnumartyr]

AMD platform will be a bit cheaper than what you quoted.

It's already been said the HD3870 will be in the mid to low 200s at launch and beat 2900 XTs.

 

[yomamafor1]

Good summary. Personally, I currently have Q6600, P35 board, and 8800GTS 320. I'm opting for HD3870 Xfire, because they simply perform a lot better than 8800 series (single card), and I can't do SLi.

Bottom line: Phenom will be a good chip if you have an AM2 system, and just want to upgrade. It'll be competitive. But for those who wants a new system, I still don't see why Phenom is a good choice. (unless you want Crossfire X of course).

 

[the_vorlon]

A few quick thoughts:

Why the Bullsh*t from amd on benchmarks... "40% faster on a broad range of applications" - PLEASE!

On balance...

Not a bad CPU - Anandtech noted its aboutt 13% slower..... But also noted it was abut 13% cheaper... so it is a sane choice. It's at least in the game

If I had an AM2 board kicking about with and older/slower cpu in it - this would be a heck of a cost effective and painless upgrade.

Finally, it may not be a "winner" but it's enough to keep Intel honest. - I think thinks means that the $270 quad Q6600 stays at $270

The upcoming 2.66 ghz 45 nano quads will still likely land at $325 +/-

I don't like grapefruit, I prefer oranges. but if grapefruit was $1 a pound and oranges were $3 a pound, I'd buy grapefruit.....

The phenom is good enough to keep the Intel quads sanely priced.. and that's good enough for me..

 

[paq7512]

3d rendering and gaming Intel Kills

 

[Harrisson]

And you can get a similarly configured Q6600, or even Penryn, and a Xfire board, for the same amount of price, while performing better.

That's not bad at all.

For 790FX features you would have to go for X38 or even X48, good luck with similar price as Spider platform In games Phenoms performance is very close to Q6600, you would have to wait for quad Penryn low cost offspring to gain short distance. Till its released, or if you have recent AM2 MB, Phenom isnt a bad deal per $ at all.

I know we all wanted for AMD to release killer cpu, at the very least so intel would have to lower >1000$ to ~500$, but its not going to happen in forseable future. Same can be said about ATI 3800 series, it doesnt even kill 8800GT, still it rocks for its price, so do Phenoms (just to the lesser extent), especially concidering 790FX MB with all the bells and whistles.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

You're right. I hope they go out of business and Intel charges a 40% premium to cover added costs. That seems to be the only thing that will make you happy.

Nope. It would make me happy for you to admit that you've been full of **** the last few months. Now you've got numbers staring you in the face letting you know that yes, you are a fanboy.

AMD, like many have warned, got schooled today. We're not rooting against AMD, we need we need them. In fact, if they could make a competitive product I would buy AMD again. However, AMD will soon be a "remember when" and will just be another VIA or will bankrupt itself.

 

[NMDante]

For 790FX features you would have to go for X38 or even X48, good luck with similar price as Spider platform In games Phenoms performance is very close to Q6600, you would have to wait for quad Penryn low cost offspring to gain short distance. Till its released, or if you have recent AM2 MB, Phenom isnt a bad deal per $ at all.

I know we all wanted for AMD to release killer cpu, at the very least so intel would have to lower >1000$ to ~500$, but its not going to happen in forseable future. Same can be said about ATI 3800 series, it doesnt even kill 8800GT, still it rocks for its price, so do Phenoms (just to the lesser extent), especially concidering 790FX MB with all the bells and whistles.

Exactly what features does the 790FX have over the X38 or X48 that will give Phenom an advantage? Quad GPU setup? HT?
Games will always be subjective to GPU. Once the GPU starts to bottleneck, it won't matter what CPU is in the system. I can make a Sempron or Celeron run the same FPS as a QX or Phenom CPU once I push the resolutions.

I do agree that the Phenom is a decent upgrade for existing AM2 boards, but the 6400+ X2 is a much better deal for gaming, and even beat the Phenom in some other applications.

 

[Grimmy]

Well, in a sense its fortunate that phenom is slower. Only reason I say that, at least AM2 users will be able to afford the upgrade. Cause just think if phenom was actually 40%+ faster?

I think AMD users would still cry either way.

 

[yomamafor1]

For 790FX features you would have to go for X38 or even X48, good luck with similar price as Spider platform In games Phenoms performance is very close to Q6600, you would have to wait for quad Penryn low cost offspring to gain short distance. Till its released, or if you have recent AM2 MB, Phenom isnt a bad deal per $ at all.

I know we all wanted for AMD to release killer cpu, at the very least so intel would have to lower >1000$ to ~500$, but its not going to happen in forseable future. Same can be said about ATI 3800 series, it doesnt even kill 8800GT, still it rocks for its price, so do Phenoms (just to the lesser extent), especially concidering 790FX MB with all the bells and whistles.

Actually, those two are relatively close. We'll have to wait a little while for other 790FX board to debut. But I agree with you, X38 will likely cost a little more than 790FX on average.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128066 <= Gigabyte X38
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128070 <= Gigabyte 790FX

If you really want to count all of 790FX's features, there's no board on the market that can be a direct comparison. 790FX features 4 PCI-E 2.0 (2 x 16, 2 x 8), which is not available on other boards. I don't know if 38xx takes advantage of full x16 bandwidth, but I would imagine it takes no more than x8's bandwidth. At this rate, a Phenom system with Xfired 38xx will perform similarly with C2Q with P35, and Xfired 38xx.

Again, all these are just speculations. Time will tell.

 

[sailer]

Well, in a sense its fortunate that phenom is slower. Only reason I say that, at least AM2 users will be able to afford the upgrade. Cause just think if phenom was actually 40%+ faster?

I think AMD users would still cry either way.

No they wouldn't. Why I'd have my credit card out and charging right now! I'd like a Phenom that was 40% better than Intel's best!

Oh, what do you mean that there aren't any Phenoms listed by Newegg, or Zipzoomfly, or... There aren't any Phenoms listed anywhere that I see. What, Phenoms don't do 40% better? Alright, keep handing out the crying towels.

 

[Grimmy]

:lol:

Well.. I remember the days I did want to build an AMD system. Namely the X2 4400+ was on my mind (which I never did get, turns out to be E4400). That CPU was way out of my budget when I kept checking for prices to go down. And that was a long wait.

So in contrast, I don't think I'd want to image the cost of a phenom that was faster then intels best.

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

Should've overclocked more

 

[xrider]

Maybe I am out of line but alot of people are talking about not spending a 1000$ for an intel cpu as if this was the only penryn based cpu that will come out. Its funny how amd comes out with 2 phenom cpu 's( 2.2, 2.3) that you can not even get yet and they are being praised. what a joke also you can go on newegg or any other web retailer and build an intel based computer for almost the same price.

 

[pip_seeker]

1:30pm EST: AMD stock down 4%

2:30 CST INTC stock down 0.86%

so they are both losers? You can't base reasoning on stock price... who cares?


The benchmarks provided by THG puts the phenom very close to intel offerings... we are talking mere seconds in encoding benchmarks. Games and other applications are a wild card and no real determination can be made by these benchmarks IMHO. If a game is optimized to run better on an Intel chip, then it's no doubt it should perform better on that chip.

Premiere Pro HD conversion to WMV9 has a difference of 45 sec from highest Intel quad to lowest Phenom quad.
3D studio max a mere 21 seconds from lowest phenom to highest Intel quad. Amd will most likely be the value solution going forward.

Price is going to determine who buys what. There is still no clear winner today and no clear winner tomorrow. This is just one of many battles in the war for your cpu dollars.

It's important for Amd to be profitable no matter where they end up in the market place for solutions, if they fail to become profitable then I hate to see what will happen in the area of prices we pay for cpu's by an intel monopoly.

Many factors will come into play, such as the need to upgrade chipset / memory as new processor's make debuts. That is if you like to upgrade processors as new one become available, if this isn't something you do regularly then obviously it wouldn't pertain to you. [IE. It's complex to know exactly which is the better value currently based on what we know today.]

You can tell a fanboi when they don't weigh everything, a few seconds to a minute difference in rendering / encoding times does not make or break a cpu. Price does.

 

[Harrisson]

Exactly what features does the 790FX have over the X38 or X48 that will give Phenom an advantage? Quad GPU setup? HT?

Its interesting since what you are saying isnt what I was speaking about. My point was - AMD MBs (even high-end) costs less than Intel's high-end MBs. If we'll start speaking about 790 advantages, there are some, like Quad GPUs, the best tweaking tools in the market, etc.

Games will always be subjective to GPU. Once the GPU starts to bottleneck, it won't matter what CPU is in the system. I can make a Sempron or Celeron run the same FPS as a QX or Phenom CPU once I push the resolutions.

Thanks, now you speaking like I do 😉 For gamers GPU is in most cases way more important than cpu, thus like I said - why pay for Intel's mega beast >1000$ if ~250$ cpu (Phenom/Q6600) will do just fine, maybe with few fps less. Sempron/celeron is out of question for recent games though, but usualy any dual core and soon - any quad core is enough not to be bottleneck.

I do agree that the Phenom is a decent upgrade for existing AM2 boards, but the 6400+ X2 is a much better deal for gaming, and even beat the Phenom in some other applications.

depends on games, if they are written for single/dual threads, any faster cpu will smoke slower quads, doesnt matter if its Q6600 or Phenom, but situation will change in the next year as more and better multithreaded games are comming out.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Nope. It would make me happy for you to admit that you've been full of **** the last few months. Now you've got numbers staring you in the face letting you know that yes, you are a fanboy.

AMD, like many have warned, got schooled today. We're not rooting against AMD, we need we need them. In fact, if they could make a competitive product I would buy AMD again. However, AMD will soon be a "remember when" and will just be another VIA or will bankrupt itself.

I'm full of indignation. I have always admitted that C2Q was faster. And yes I am holding out hope that the next rev will increase perf somewhat, but like I always say, I buy NO INTEL. PERIOD!! For me it's like the writer's strike. Big company beating up on little guy while gullible consumers hope for the best.

I hate Intel for their FUD back in the dark days of sub 1GHz chips. I'll never let them or you live down how they SABOTAGED the Opteron launch and undercut the market by charging $183 for a chip that was as fast as some of the former high end P4s.
Thats my opinion on the matter and it can be as fanboy as you like, that won't change the facts. Intel knew what would happen; that AMD would have to lower prices and lose money thereby causing issues with the new design.

Of course, no one will care until every chip is more than $500, but then that's their plan. Suck in the gullible. Suck up their money. I will continue to support AMD even if they're slower because it's just not that serious.

Just let us lowly AMDers suffer at a mere 86 fps, while you Intellers zoom by at 100 fps... what, you can't tell the difference and no one times their encoding. Well, hell, give me the slower chip that represents the little guy making it through.

 

[NMDante]

Its interesting since what you are saying isnt what I was speaking about. My point was - AMD MBs (even high-end) costs less than Intel's high-end MBs. If we'll start speaking about 790 advantages, there are some, like Quad GPUs, the best tweaking tools in the market, etc.

The 790FX costs just as much or more than the X38 deluxe boards.
The overdrive utility is nice, but a lot of mobo makers have an overclocking utility included with them nowdays - ASUS A.I., Gigabytes EasyTune, etc.
Quad GPUs? Can you point out any application that takes advantage of the setup?

Thanks, now you speaking like I do 😉 For gamers GPU is in most cases way more important than cpu, thus like I said - why pay for Intel's mega beast >1000$ if ~250$ cpu (Phenom/Q6600) will do just fine, maybe with few fps less. Sempron/celeron is out of question for recent games though, but usualy any dual core and soon - any quad core is enough not to be bottleneck.

Well, I always think that gamers should concentrate more on the GPU, than the CPU. I will never, ever recommend the Extreme CPU or even the FX line (back in the day) over a cheaper, same performing CPU for gaming or anything else. The $1k CPU is for those who just want bragging rights.

depends on games, if they are written for single/dual threads, any faster cpu will smoke slower quads, doesnt matter if its Q6600 or Phenom, but situation will change in the next year as more and better multithreaded games are comming out.

Very true, but the few games coming out that will use multiple cores won't come in a one gigantic wave. I think it will slowly trickle in, allowing those with Dual cores to enjoy the same games until games begin requiring multi-core CPUs. Crysis, Alan Wake, etc are a few that might take advantage of multi-cores, but a few games doesn't mean everyone needs a quad right away.
So, I do agree with you that it all depends on how the game/app is written. And yes, it doesn't matter which Quad is used, both will perform well.