Ouch - The new AMD CPU's are slower than the Q6600!

tehlexinator

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
53
0
18,630
0
According to The rumor feed the new AMD CPU's are actually slower than the good old Q6600. So how the hell can they even compare to Intel's Nehalem?

What will AMD's catch be with this new generation? Low power consumption? Low cost?

Yeesh looks like the die shrink didn't really do anything for AMD. I was going to wait for the Deneb but why bother now? I will be switching to Nehalem when it becomes available.

Thoughts?
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0
Why don't they ever post a picture of the internal memo in question? This has to be the 2nd or 3rd "internal memo" that claims either Deneb is awesome or sucks. Show us the memo...let us read it and see what it says. Blank out the name(s) in the memo, but let us read it. Is it that hard to post the "memo"?

Also, why in the world would AMD send an internal memo with comparisons of Deneb and Q6600? AMD would not be sending any memo comparing their CPUs with Intel's, and Intel would not either. They would usually compare their next generation with their own previous generation. Why? For the same reason if this was a real memo. If it was leaked out, it could potentially be devastating. So, why send out an internal memo out?

I call BS on this. Unless the blogger can show the memo, it's all fantasy as far as I am concerned. Blank out the name(s) involved, if necessary. Otherwise, I would wait until more "trusted" 3rd party performance results are available.
 

snarfies1

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
226
0
18,680
0
I heard a rumor that MNDante is actually Dick Cheney. I totally saw an internal whitehouse memo about it. Sorry, can't share it - classified.
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0

That is NMDante, not MNDante. (for New Mexico - Not Minnesota)
And I'm actually Steve Jobs, not Dick Cheney. I come into PC forums to steal ideas for my next iMac and MacBook line.
 

tehlexinator

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
53
0
18,630
0
Well I assume it's to hide the source since you can trace where the memo came from even if you blank out the names, etc.

Why would Microsoft mention Linux in their memo? Why would Intel mention AMD? No idea, but they do.

Check some of the other rumors on that site. Some already came true.
I also followed the guys rumors when he posted on betaleaks and rumorsource. Even if 30% of your rumor's come true, then it's all good and this guy has a much better track record than that. Plus he is not a fanboy like the Inq, so not all of his stuff is anti Nvidia and pro AMD.

Btw, how do we know that NMDante really isn't Dick Cheney?
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0


I have yet to see an Intel memo that specifically mentions AMD's product compared to Intel's products.
I have seen Intel mention AMD, but mostly repeating what is found in other sites, ie. The Register, The Inquirer, CNET, etc.

So, if Intel is sending memos about AMD's performance vs. Intel's, I have not seen one yet.

And I'm not Dick Cheney...I know how to shoot a gun, don't have heart problems, and I'm an old white guy. :kaola:
 
Well, there are questionable benches on some asian sights, but they seem to test the new phenoms at 2.3 GHZ (same speed as the 9600) and one compared that to a Q6600 (which is at 2.4GHz). Considering though that I've never heard of half the suppliers that make up their test systems I take those results with a grain of salt. The one thing that seems interesting though is that one site showed a picture of the new phenom that had fewer pins, which I'm guessing is going to be the new AM3, but it does look like it would fit in an AM2+ board, which is presumably what they tested it on.

Looks like AMD is moving up the 45nm launch to this month, so we'll see what happens. Don't jump to any conclusions until you see some reliable, or at least semi-reliable, test results. It would be nice to see some real reviews soon, but for now you just have to wait and see.
 

trinix

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2007
197
0
18,680
0
It's slightly slower? Slower in what? Slower in games? Slower in benchmarks? slower in real life aps? Slower in Pi?

AMD isn't better than Intel in some aps, that didn't change. It will not OC as well as Q6600. But what does it say? The AMD is clocked higher to begin with? If both chips can run 3.6 ghz, one starts at 3ghz the other at 2.6 ghz, then yes, the 2.6 ghz is an overclock wonder, but don't they both get to the same in the end.

That's what AMD and Intel need to do, clock one at 1ghz. Then let people OC it to 4 ghz. The OC'ers will be happy.
 

godmode

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2008
69
0
18,630
0


lmao....just what i was thinking. :kaola:
 

tehlexinator

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
53
0
18,630
0


Hmm, that sounds exactly like something Dick Cheney would say!

P.S..
Please don't shoot me!
 

Verge

Distinguished
Jul 30, 2007
20
0
18,510
0
Yes and no. I wouldn't really be surprised if the die shrink has done nearly nothing for AMD's IPC: cache size could have made a difference and I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has done some minor things like adjusting the number of entries in TLBs. So, unless AMD has been hiding something, I'm expecting the main significance of these changes to be an (eventual) improvement in clock speed and an improvement in AMD's costings.

Now, given that this is a new process, I would expect it to take AMD some time to get yields up at the higher clock speeds, but that there will be an eventual improvement in the availability of higher clock speed parts and maybe some decrease in prices on the middle and lower speed parts.

OTOH, do I believe that this memo is genuine? Not really. Nothing in it is different from what an outside oberver would conclude from knowing the background. It doesn't add any new insight.
obfuscate the consumer
is pretty illiterate, and you would expect that an educated person wouldn't make that kind of mistake (but you'd often be wrong). It also seems that the author doesn't accept AMD's recent marketing thrust; given that this kind of thing can be career death, it is at least a slightly surprising thing to go into print with.

the overclocking potential of the CPU’s is once again dwarfed by the overclocking potential of the Q6600
Again a surprising statement; not a surprising "fact", but surprising to look at in that way. Given that one way of looking at overclocking potential, is as the amount of margin that shipped parts have inherent in them. From that point of view, and given the context, it is massively unsurprising that AMD is having to ship parts with less unutilised margin than Intel. In fact, assuming that AMD is being succesful at this (ie, not getting excessive rates of returns), you could say that this is a sign of success; in spite of having a less good hand to play, AMD is succeeding at playing it as well as could be expected (not that this is what overclockers want to hear).

the memo kept mentioning how the CPU’s will get a performance boost when used in conjunction with the new sockets
OK, some good news, at last, I suppose...But oddly, percentages aren't mentioned. I would have expected anyone making this kind of case to be saying "and, of course, we have to remember that the existing clock speed parts overtake (eg) Q6600 when the (eg) 10% boost from the new platform is available" (except that I expect the speed boost from the platform to be lower than that)

which lead me to believe that all these internal tests were done using already existing sockets, which means that even AMD does not have the new AM3 or G34 socket ready
Or that the initial CPUs are packaged in the existing packaging. Given that its a bit of a pain to get a new part into a new package if you don't already have the target package in production on another producty, this would be unsurprising. But it could indicate that AMD have had to devote all resources to getting Deneb out in time to rain a little on Intel's parade and haven't yet been able to put enough R & D resource onto the new platform, which be a little worrying, but hardly surprising.
 

speedbird

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2007
547
0
18,990
2
Some random person writes a post on a blog, with no proof what so ever! I didn't even think anyone had actually been given a Deneb for testing yet? and when they do it's usually some random chinese site trying to impress us all with supid Super PI benchmarks, wow like that's the definitive benchmark on how a CPU performs :sarcastic:

Even Thunderman links to more reliable information :lol:
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0


I have to concur Dante. Frankly, I am of a mind to just delete this thread and all the other "rumor without proof" threads ala Inquirer/Fudzilla. I would add the caveat that even if a 'blogger' could produce a 'copy' of any such memo, it would still fall into the catagory of 'B.S.' Sharikook is a blogger.

Now, if a trusted site, THG, Anand, HH etc posted such proof, that would be a different story.

On the topic of deleting these type of posts, I wont. These posts do have value as examples/proof of who can be trusted and who can be ignored
 

petevsdrm

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2007
533
0
18,980
0


I was just thinking along those same lines, that is, that threads like these flush out the AMD fanboys.

Similarly there were a few threads some months back that had wildly inaccurate rumors concerning the gaming performance of Nehalem that flushed out the Intel fanboys.

And they have great entertainment value, which is perfect when I am bored at work.


So please don't delete em oh Turpit of the disconcerting avatar, they are useful to me. :p

P.S. why don't I have a "show signature" checkbox anymore?
 

tehlexinator

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
53
0
18,630
0


If you think this post is bogus, really why not delete the thread? I like to read rumor sites. I used to frequent betaleaks while it was good, I still like the Fud and I really enjoy The rumor feed. Rumors are just that, rumors. But I do think it's fun to discuss them. Also if your rumors tend to come true, well that's even better.

If you play Warhammer you would know that the changes he said would be coming have been recently confirmed by the developers. One of them has anyway.

He said the Opti's come out November, and hey that has been confirmed now, while Fud reported them coming out in October.

He said TES 5 is coming in 2010, this was confirmed days later by gamesindustry.biz.

He said Windows 7 will launch with DX10.1, and that has been confirmed as well.

Back when he posted on Beta Leaks he posted a lot of info on the 4850 and 70 that turned out exactly how he said it would.

I have followed the guys leaks for a while and like to read his writing. If you don't, then sorry that I bring it up. I just think these kinds of rumors are fascinating.

 

Just_An_Engineer

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2008
535
0
18,990
1


I think most people here like to read the rumor sites but I doubt that many of us take them seriously. This particular rumor you posted about appears less believable than most. Given that the current 65nm 9950's @ 2.6Ghz are pretty much on par with the Q6600's @ 2.4Ghz, the prospect of a faster 2.7Ghz Deneb being slower than a Q6600 is questionable to say the least.
 

spathotan

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2007
2,390
0
19,780
0
The current Phenoms are slower than the Q6600. What sane person, no....what sane BUSINESS would put out a new chip that is not only slower than the competitions last generation/most popular chip, but slower than their OWN **** which is....slower than the competitions stuff.

Confusing eh? Dosent make sense, and neither does this rumor. Its not even worthy of the "rumor" title, its just **** spewing ****. Sounds like something that the "octocore FX-92 with intergrated Havok FX" guy made up. Sucks that thread got deleted.
 

enigma067

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2007
208
0
18,680
0





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

I don't think so......
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0


Show sig is still here, its called "display your signature"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY