New AMD Phenom X3 Vs. Phenom X4

[Guest]

We compare three and four core AMD Phenom X CPUs, along with a large number of Athlon 64 X2 and Intel Core 2 two and four core models.

New AMD Phenom X3 Vs. Phenom X4 : Read more

 

[rhorwitz]

The Phenom is a still born product, much like the K-5 back 15 years ago. AMD is facing bankruptcy and all they can do is piss away money to release a product that can't even compare with the technology they made 5 years ago. How pathetic!! AMD would have been more successful if they invested in shrinking existing technology to 45 nm and and placing two 2-cores on a chip like Intel.

 

[yadge]

On page 12, I think you mean the X3 8750 is 3.2% faster than the Core 2 Duo E6550.

 

[Arnagath]

Well as it is now, amd can turn of a core and we have the X3, so I think it is the smarter solution. Sort of more long term than intels choice, intel still has not caught up with AMD in some areas and this is one area.

I still have faith the tide can always be turned, something you thought impossible with Pentium D vs AMD 64 X2. So it can happen again, if not I think we should make the EU take money from intel and give to AMD

 

[rhorwitz]

Arnagath,
Intel's interim solution was the Pentium D, which was basically taking two P4 and placing them on a chip. It didn't match AMD's performance, but it kept them in the hunt. AMD's response to conroe should have been the same; take two shrunken k8+x2 and place on a die. In this fashion they could have created some distance so that they could have come to a proactive solution to Intel's salvo.

 

[caamsa]

My understanding is that these X3 phenoms are in place of a X2 phenom.

Got this from AnandTech:

AMD doesn't have the resources to spin a dual-core Phenom die, so what better way of repurposing the quad-core die (especially if one core is defective) than to make a Phenom chip with less than four cores. Sure it's not the most efficient way to manufacture, but AMD doesn't have the luxury of producing a number of different Phenom die at this point. The triple-core Phenom strategy makes perfect sense if you're AMD, the question is: does it make sense if you're an end user?

 

[lopopo]

[citation][nom]rhorwitz[/nom]The Phenom is a still born product, much like the K-5 back 15 years ago. AMD is facing bankruptcy and all they can do is piss away money to release a product that can't even compare with the technology they made 5 years ago. How pathetic!! AMD would have been more successful if they invested in shrinking existing technology to 45 nm and and placing two 2-cores on a chip like Intel. [/citation]

very true

 

[Guest]

i think your totally mistaken

 

[cabose369]

The small Phenom X3 model, the 8750, clocks at a rate of 2.10 GHz. When compared to the Athlon 64 6400+ with 3.20 GHz and 6000+ with 3.00 GHz, it simply can’t keep up for many applications.

I think you mean to say the small Phenom X3 model, the 8450.

 

[callahs]

I've gone from x2-4200 to a new intel E8400. What a difference! I paid half as much ($189 and 4 gig of ddr800@ $59)and the intel chip just crushes the AMD in every way at stock settings. With the difference of 2 1/2 yrs, AMD should have produced quads soon after with the old x2 format but that may have only treaded water against the conroe. Intel did their homework and gets an 'A'.

I'd like to see the sony 'core' put into action other than yellow dogs lunix or Mercury's blader...sweeeet. They have six unit ps3's making 1 tflop @ 19k! :}

 

[quanger]

i wouldnt waste my money on a triple core phenom when i can get a 6400X2 for less. I wouldnt even consider it if they were the same price. These phenom triple cores may sell more than X2 because its easier to market if one product has more "cores". Anyways, AMD should stop dicking around and focus on raising the Phenom X4 clocks quicker.

 

[radnor]

This X3 Phenoms are just a a way to make a profit of CPU with 1 damage core. Doesnt seem a bad way to make money, becuase what was supposed to be a total loss, becomes little profit or little loss. So seems fine imho.

For us that ussually read these pages, Fanboys and enthusiasts ( im in both categories ), this product is not for us. We are less than 1% of total users in the western world. Im a power user/tecnitian. But none of my family is. But all 4 of them (mom, dad, 2 bros) have 1 computer. So its seems a great marketing strategy where Intel can hardly touch. For its performance, seems a very good product. With a 780G Chip on it, looks to me like a hell of a platform. Nothing that Intel can touch atm. It seems a very nice (price/performace) platform for home use, bussiness side. I might fancy 500€ GPUs and 400€ CPUs and Mobos much more expensive than that im just 1. In my company for example we have above 500 work terminals, and this platform would fit right in IF we were going to remodel some. Seems like a very good strategy for once.

Yes, im a AMD/ATI Fanboy. But I tried to make a unbiased comment.

 

[yipsl]

i wouldnt waste my money on a triple core phenom when i can get a 6400X2 for less. I wouldnt even consider it if they were the same price. These phenom triple cores may sell more than X2 because its easier to market if one product has more "cores". Anyways, AMD should stop dicking around and focus on raising the Phenom X4 clocks quicker.

You people miss the market for this CPU, when an X3 8750 is paired with a 780G board, it's very viable. It will be even more so when the 790G boards arrive (i.e. that allow triple hybrid Crossfire).

At under $200 though, we think the Phenom X3 8750 could appeal to two completely different audiences, and for two totally different reasons. In the mainstream space, the Phenom X3 8750 could easily be used in a budget PC when paired with an AMD 780G-based motherboard. In that usage model, you could have an AMD triple-core with arguably the best IGP available to-date, versus an Intel dual-core with an inferior IGP. If you're planning to build a PC and use integrated graphics, the Phenom X3s and 780G make a great combo.

Considering how well the Phenom X3 8750 overclocked, and the relatively low price of AMD 790FX-based motherboards and DDR2 memory, the X3 8750 should also appeal to modders on a budget. In this space, the choice isn't as clear cut because Intel's recent price cuts and the excellent overclockability of its processors make them extremely attractive. However, AMD's platform is significantly more compelling than it was just a few weeks ago, thanks to the release of B3 Phenoms and these new tri-core processors.

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X3_8750_TriCore_Processor/?page=9

More reviews:

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7669.html

Yes, it will be marketed to OEM's where 3 is more than 2 in the minds of customers at Best Buy, but for a budget PC used for video encoding and other tasks where the 8750 does well against several C2D, it's a good deal.

Keep in mind that G35 is lousy. G45 may not even bring the H264 support that Intel needs in it's IGP. Two of our PC's at home aren't gaming PC's. One uses 690G and the other 780G. The 780G is clearly superior when encoding, playing back high definition video. Perfect for Blu-ray, now that prices for player only drives have dropped to near a hundred.

I like the Hot Hardware review because it includes an X2 4600+ (very few other sites include X2's lower than the 5000+ BE), so I can see how my year old CPU stacks up against the new B3's. Overall, it does well enough.

You people need to learn that not every enthusiast PC is a gamer's rig. My gaming system is budget, and I'm not sure whether it's worth it for me to go B3, or just wait for Deneb. I do know that it's worth it on our video oriented PC's. There, the 8750 is a clear winner.

 

[amdfangirl]

^ I'm waiting for a tri/quad with a lower TDP (I don't wanna blow a board)

 

[tgstyle]

You know when 8 core CPUs are produced we will see 7 core 6 core and 5 core procs.

 

[rhorwitz]

Intel has recently pulled their pants down again and have drastically lowered the prices of their value-line processors. The price vs performance is almost equal to that of AMD. Driving my original post home, AMD should have done their homework before releasing the Phenom core. Releasing a product 6 months late with known errors is asking for failure. Perhaps this is why AMDs CTO and many others have been booted out the door. Let's hope that AMD can redeem itself with the upcoming 45 nm core.

 

[sailer]

The Phenom is a still born product, much like the K-5 back 15 years ago. AMD is facing bankruptcy and all they can do is piss away money to release a product that can't even compare with the technology they made 5 years ago. How pathetic!! AMD would have been more successful if they invested in shrinking existing technology to 45 nm and and placing two 2-cores on a chip like Intel.

I think you have it backwards. While Phenom may be boring to the enthusiast crowd, other than to diehard AMD fans, it is not boring at all to the Joe Average out on the street. Its exciting to him. After all, he can go into Best Buy and get a tri core AMD for less money than a dual core Intel, and that looks very good to him.

As for the idea that all AMD "can do is piss away money to release a product", they aren't pissing away money at all. Just the reverse. They have a given number of quad core CPUs that have a bad core. So they can either throw away the faulty CPU, or deactivate the faulty core and sell it as a tri core. This doesn't cost them anything to do, while it gives them a chance to make at least some money out of the product. The only failure here is that the tri cores are too expensive compared to the quad cores. Bring the tri core down another $50 and it would look like a fair deal. As it is, its too close to the quad core in price to make it worthwhile.

As for 45nm technology, AMD needs money now just to survive. It has to pay off creditors before it can do any R&D. So it sells what it has. Fortunately, AMD also has the ATI division which is selling video cards fairly well and with th upcoming 4xxx series cards, it may have a real winner. Also, it has the ATI chipsets which bring in money. But for the moment, income to pay off debts is the major need for survival, not making CPUs that will overclock great for the tiny amount of enthusiasts who like such things.

As for making two dual cores on one chip, a reasonable question is, why? Sure its cheaper than making a native four core chip, but why not just make a chipset that allows two dual core chips to be used? Oh yes, some people will remember the QFX and laugh, what a failure it was, yet the failure was not in the idea, but in the design and the high heat CPUs that were used. Even then, the design was OK for business useage, but not for gamers. So change the chipset design and use two dual core chips wired in to work like a single quad core instead of two dual cores. Should work, should be cheaper than making quad core chips, whether glued together or native. Problem is, AMD doesn't have any dual core chips which might work. A couple 5000+ BE chips would look good, but the built in memory controllers would become a problem. Could one chip have the memory controller turned off and then only one chip would control everything? Maybe, but I don't know that answer.

All that said, I think the tri core is good marketing of chips that would otherwise end up in a scrap heap.

 

[technoholic]

Excuse me but neither phenom x3 nor x4 is a price efficient selection for me because of the mentioned 780 chipset mobo. Those mobos are sold for an arm and a leg in my country...

 

[Apodo]

[citation][nom]technoholic[/nom]Excuse me but neither phenom x3 nor x4 is a price efficient selection for me because of the mentioned 780 chipset mobo. Those mobos are sold for an arm and a leg in my country...[/citation]

I know what you mean. In US you pay 99.00 bucks for the GA-MA78GM-S2H, but if come down were i live, that it comes to be Argentina, you will pay at least 150 uss for it.
What is the price for a phenom 9500 here? 235 uss at least (not to mention that we are talking about the faulty B2 version).
What is the average salary here? 900 pesos argentinos = 300 uss. And that is the "official" date, you will find here that number is just a joke, because you have to earn at least 1000 pesos to be considered over the line of poverty.
I came to this page only to dream with a hardware i would afford in at least a year.
There is a crappy feeling about that the only page i can comment the tom hardware are the ones that are restricted only to Europe, Asia or North America... as far as i know, we live on same continent fellas...

 

[amdfangirl]

^ how's $79 AUD for a 690G and $160 for a 780G in Australian shops

 

[wild9]

rhorwitz, AMD is not just CPU's..check out their latest IGP chipsets: smaller, faster..more efficient than anything Intel has. Pair that with a cheap, powerful processor like this and you have a great HTPC solution. Most people don't use the fastest CPU's. I think AMD should take credit where it is due, by not putting all it's eggs in one basket.

 

[amdfangirl]

^ exactly, everyone loves the 780G (where I come from (alt reality HTPC club))

 

[Guest]

Yeh, I was totally thrown off by that, if the percentages are relative to the X3 then I think you meant to say
"The smallest Intel quad core processor, the Core 2 Quad Q6600, costs approximately 45 euros (26.4%) more than the fastest Phenom X3 and is approximately 14.6% SLOWER."

 

[bluekoala]

You're all biased fanboys!
Everyone should know that there is nothing more powerful in the world than the "Tandy 5000 MC"
It uses an Intel CPU that most of you could never imagine would exist.
It also supports operating systems you may not have even heard of.
A system with this processor usually would cost around 10 000$
But here's a great deal for only 8500$

http://andy.saturn9.ws/Photo%20Albums/1989_tandy_pc_ad.jpg

 

[skgiven]

AMD now have a new and unchallengeable sales niche:

The Tri Core AMD cpu's now offer an unchallenged and very competitive CPU option that lies between the performance bracket of dual core and quad core processors!

Basically Dual Cores (AMD or Intel) offer between 1.3GHz per core and 3.2GHz per core; so the frequency Range is roughly between 2.6GHz to 6.4GHz.

Quad cores start at 2.2GHz per core = 8.8GHz and rise to about 3.4GHz (May 2008) = 13.6GHz.


Obviously the top ranged 6.4GHz is very pricey (about the same as the low end quad cores)

After that you have to get dual socket and quad socket systems (for example a dual socketed system with two Xeon X5482 CPUs would give you 25.6GHz).