Phenom 9700, AMD's 1st Quad-Core CPU

[Crank]

Considering the problems that AMD has had with 65nm fabrication - the reasons that their clocks are so low - I don't have much hope for them to get 45nm right anytime soon. For the sake of the market I hope that they do get it right, but my next rig will be Penryn-based. I always overclock and I like the headroom reported for that chip. Hell, I mod my cars and guitars, too.

 

[elbert]

Except the Intel platform will use 2x HD3870X2s. Unless you are speaking of Skulltrail. Otherwise it's an nVidian platform for SLI.

That could occur in the future but at the same time you could have 4X HD3870X2's on AMD spider at least in theory. AMD is stating a 3X performance boost using spider so a topped out rig using 2 GPU's in SLI with Intel could be beat using 4X GPU's in CF with AMD for games. That of course is if AMD isn't fudging the numbers where more than 2 GPUs are used.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3151&p=10

 

[techguy911]

Odd amd claims the phenom will be low price than q6600 , just got my advanced price on them they are more expensive, i get my q6600 for $259 and 9700 is priced at $310?.

Not that any of my customers want one after looking at benchmarks and price why buy one?

I think amd dropped the ball here they are not competing against anything, which is a bad thing because if they disappear intel could jack prices up.

 

[drysocks]

Hi guys,
...
Thanks for your participation everyone,
Patrick

Patrick:
Thank you for the article. It was well done. If you're US, take a step back away from "the computer" and have a Happy Thankgiving!.
Chris

 

[Slobogob]

They prolly did it as a write off

Actually they'll just crank up the oil prices...

 

[hairycat101]

Interesting release... I can't find a place to buy one. Paper launch?

 

[Slobogob]

In the end, I can see a lot of information and a plethora of facts and benchmarks in the article, which most of the other websites don't have. We'll fix the bugs shortly. If you find something serious, please tell us via the feedback form: http://www.tomshardware.com/site/submission/feedback.html

Thanks for your participation everyone,
Patrick

It was quite a review and contains a whole lot of facts that i did find interesting. As you already pointed out, with a new product there is always more you can do and no chance to do it all. I suppose we will see some updated article or a "K10 revisited" once you have newer mainboards available.

There are a few things i really would like to see then.

- memory performance. A short comparison between the different memory speeds and timings and their relation with the new k10. Just comparing DDR2 533 (loose timings), DDR2 800 (loose timings) with DDR2 533 (tight) and DDR2 800 (tight) would do the trick.

- hypertransport. Does HT3 affect performance compared to HT2? Hopefully the new mainboards can switch between HT modes. This shouldn't be much work since switching beween HT modes (or different boards with HT2 and HT3) will be needed to compare the powersaving features anyway.

-64 bit performance. Does the K10 work better with 64bit or 32bit? Does it come closer to Core 2 performance using Vista 64 or not?

These are, from my point of view, the most important facts that i would like to see.


There is one last thing i would like to mention though. Most people have waited for K10 quite some time. During that time it was hyped to be somthing it couldn't be and most people have become quite emotional and almost fanatical pro or contra AMD. No matter what you write, do or say you can't please that crowd. Either people will call THG AMD biased or intel biased - one could think there is something in between, like an objective solution, but that's not true. Trying to find that balance will probably end in being called AMD biased AND Intel biased. To me it seems that some forum members have just become fond of complaining and crying.



PS: adding the wallpapers was a nice touch. I would call it AMD biased but they are not working so THG is obviously Intel biased.

 

[onestar]

Something seems amiss. Surely the Phenom should perform better than these reviews relate. It feels as though some critical piece of the puzzle has been left out....it feels like SABOTAGE!

That's it! Wooden shoes in the spokes! Oh well, I quess my decision to go with a P35/6750 was not a bad one.

 

[NMDante]

Something seems amiss. Surely the Phenom should perform better than these reviews relate. It feels as though some critical piece of the puzzle has been left out....it feels like SABOTAGE!

That's it! Wooden shoes in the spokes! Oh well, I quess my decision to go with a P35/6750 was not a bad one.

Hard to sabotage something they (AMD) presented in a controlled test environment, ain't it? Or maybe it's an inside job? One of the techs who setup the systems jammed in a DDR module into the DDR2 slot? Yeah, that's it.



I hope AMD does recover from this, but it will be a hard road. They have no lived up to any of their claims for K10 yet, and any reputation they had might be gone.

 

[ap90033]

Did anybody else notice that both articles - the Phenom and Paper Tiger articles - were by the same author. No doubt he's a copy writer for AMD.

I agree, hope he gets some free stuff from them... Slow but heck at least it would be free!

 

[tekzor]

Thank you for showing us that the price/performance is going to go to AMD in the future. Its not enthusiast that will make AMD the money! Once again the average joe and big companies will win!

Im happy to use the low ends in my desktop(3600+) and laptops(C2D 5200) as thats what I can afford.

High scores on benchmarks don't mean jack in RL.

 

[ap90033]

Direct quote(s) from the article:

For reference, Intel sells its smallest quad-core CPU, the Intel Core 2 Q6600, which is also rated at a TDP of 95 W, for around $323. These prices are for the box versions.

Last I checked the Q6600 can be had for $279...

The AMD Phenom 9500 (2.20 GHz) will sell for only $248 (€169), while the Phenom 9600 (2.3 GHz) comes with a price tag of $279 (€190).

Which which happens to be the exact same price as the Q6600, which makes it the same price, yet the Phenom is still 13.5% slower!

Viewed from a price/performance perspective, we can say that at this price, AMD's processor offers about the same value for money as Intel's Q6600 quad-core part.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong (if your AMD pricing is right, because I know your Intel pricing is wrong). Please update the article!

Newegg Has the INTEL Q6600 for $279.99 WITH FREE Shipping... Hmm same price, better performance... Seems like a no brainer to me!!!! Seems like the "Phenom" has no "Venom" LOL :lol:

 

[yomamafor1]

Thank you for showing us that the price/performance is going to go to AMD in the future. Its not enthusiast that will make AMD the money! Once again the average joe and big companies will win!

Im happy to use the low ends in my desktop(3600+) and laptops(C2D 5200) as thats what I can afford.

High scores on benchmarks don't mean jack in RL.

um... no.

For average joes, dual core is sufficient for them.

 

[mactronix]

I think its great that it will work with AM2 and current AM2 chipsets. With Intel, you will need yet another chipset, the X38 wont even work with the new 45nm processors. You can bet these boards (x48) will be outrageous in price like the c2d mobos were when they came out.

Right first things first some of you may have seen me around the graphics part of the forums and i am the first to admit that my CPU knowledge isnt what it should be but i cant help thinking that some of you are being needlessly hard on the poster of the above post.
The key word as far as i can see is NEW as in"the new 45nm processors"to me that means the QX9770 onwards which according to Toms own review/preview will indeed need a X48 mobo which has nothing to do with the FSB but rather the TDP which as Toms says Intel themselves say is going to be 136watts and the P35 and X38 chipsets are 130watts max.
Now assuming that the article is correct i really cant see how at least one of you guys couldnt see that?
As i said my knowledge on the subject isnt up to scratch just calling it as i see it please feel free to point out where the article or myself are going wrong with this as i would like to learn more about CPU'S.
Thanks Mactronix

 

[Scotteq]

Mac - To put it charitably, both the Article and our "Mrs" Bytch friend are wrong about mobo compatibility for 45nm.

List: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3138

You're out of luck if you have a 965/975 chipset, but anything newer than that would need a Bios flash, at most.

 

[NMDante]

Right first things first some of you may have seen me around the graphics part of the forums and i am the first to admit that my CPU knowledge isnt what it should be but i cant help thinking that some of you are being needlessly hard on the poster of the above post.
The key word as far as i can see is NEW as in"the new 45nm processors"to me that means the QX9770 onwards which according to Toms own review/preview will indeed need a X48 mobo which has nothing to do with the FSB but rather the TDP which as Toms says Intel themselves say is going to be 136watts and the P35 and X38 chipsets are 130watts max.
Now assuming that the article is correct i really cant see how at least one of you guys couldnt see that?
As i said my knowledge on the subject isnt up to scratch just calling it as i see it please feel free to point out where the article or myself are going wrong with this as i would like to learn more about CPU'S.
Thanks Mactronix

Well, I don't know.

Anandtech did a preview of the QX9770 using an X38 motherboard. If it couldn't run on the X38 due to the TDP, then how did they do it?

The old Intel would've waited for the X48 chipset, which will bring official 1600MHz FSB support. The old Intel wouldn't have even recognized the QX9770 as existing on its roadmap. The new Intel not only pre-announced the chip, but it also encouraged reviewers to overclock X38 chipsets to support the 1600MHz FSB required by the QX9770.

I think it's just a conservative TDP that Intel is using. Just cause it says 136W TDP, doesn't mean it will hit that voltage.

I think THG didn't get a sample of the QX9770, so they had to go with what they had, which was an email, and not an actual CPU. If you read their article, they are assuming things. Even the first page CPU-Z states that "This is what a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 could look like come 2008."

Now, that's not to say that the QX9770 ES CPU isn't hot or sucks up power, cause it did cause a lot of issues for Anandtech reviewers. But it is still only an ES, and not retail, and anything can happen between now and release.

 

[mactronix]

Thanks for the replies guys yes THG were running a QX9650 overclocked to simulate the QX9770.
I have been reading while you have been replying and would like to get some clarification on the whole TDP thing.
From what i have read in the short time i have had it seems to me that you just whack on an aftermarket cooler and the TDP can get knotted? I'm assuming this is one of the reasons you need a better cooling solution when you overclock(never done it myself)I'm just trying to make sure i understand things before my next build with things the way they are in the CPU market at the min i don't want to get it wrong.
Thanks Mactronix

 

[NMDante]

Thanks for the replies guys yes THG were running a QX9650 overclocked to simulate the QX9770.
I have been reading while you have been replying and would like to get some clarification on the whole TDP thing.
From what i have read in the short time i have had it seems to me that you just whack on an aftermarket cooler and the TDP can get knotted? I'm assuming this is one of the reasons you need a better cooling solution when you overclock(never done it myself)I'm just trying to make sure i understand things before my next build with things the way they are in the CPU market at the min i don't want to get it wrong.
Thanks Mactronix

Yup, a third party cooler would be needed, but even the guys at Anandtech still had issues, even after changing out the HSF.

Gary's QX9770 wouldn't complete 3DMark '06 without switching to a third-party heatsink. Mine wouldn't run through POV-Ray or 3dsmax without giving me lower scores than the QX9650 due the processor's internal temperature protection reducing its clock speed during the benchmarks.

So, hopefully, by the time QX9770 retails, the heat and power consumption issues will be addressed. Either way, I couldn't afford one, anyway. LOL

 

[mactronix]

Thanks for that i will look at the Anandtech review as it seems to have the answers to a lot of my questions,and no i cant afford one (Yet) but when they do come down at least i now know that i can run it on the x38/P35 board that my new comp will be based on
Thanks again
Mactronix

 

[spoonboy]

They have no lived up to any of their claims for K10 yet, and any reputation they had might be gone.

Steady on old chap!

 

[dragonsprayer]

funny thing is anand has the best thread going hsf testing - they could have solved any tpd problems with the top 5

 

[spoonboy]

I don't understand why AMD "wasted" so much of it time developing the Spider platform (among other side projects) which probably diverted resources from making Barcelona/Phenom a better processor. The only individuals looking at quad SLI setups are going to be hardcore gamers and researches who can take advantage or GPGPU... seems like AMD did it all for show.

IMHO, AMD's best route to compete with Intel in the mid to high end market in the next few years is to bring what they've already begun to maturity: Torrenza. Work with motherboard manufacturers to bring a dual-socketed Phenom solution to the mainstream, leaving quad+ socketed solutions in the domain of Barcelona. Maybe even have additional sockets for an ATI graphics/FPU accelerator. By doing so, AMD would accentuate the advantages of a native quad-core and HyperTransport design. AMD, make your processors shine at what they do better best.

I mainly do programming, drafting, and video encoding on my main computer--not much gaming these days. I'd love it if AMD afforded me the opportunity to get my hands on a consumer-friendly priced 2x Phenom 9500 (8 core count) solution that's the same price as one of Intel's high end offerings.

Amen2that you have the best username.

 

[zenmaster]

Right first things first some of you may have seen me around the graphics part of the forums and i am the first to admit that my CPU knowledge isnt what it should be but i cant help thinking that some of you are being needlessly hard on the poster of the above post.
The key word as far as i can see is NEW as in"the new 45nm processors"to me that means the QX9770 onwards which according to Toms own review/preview will indeed need a X48 mobo which has nothing to do with the FSB but rather the TDP which as Toms says Intel themselves say is going to be 136watts and the P35 and X38 chipsets are 130watts max.
Now assuming that the article is correct i really cant see how at least one of you guys couldnt see that?
As i said my knowledge on the subject isnt up to scratch just calling it as i see it please feel free to point out where the article or myself are going wrong with this as i would like to learn more about CPU'S.
Thanks Mactronix

Stop Quoting the THG article.
It was clueless.

The 45nm parts will use LESS power than current Chips.
THG got their chip to 3.8Ghz and maxed out at 110w.
At 3.2Ghz, it stayed below 80watts.

Other Reviews show the Penryns hitting 4.0Ghz and still using minimal power.

 

[Crank]

Some were questioning who would take AMD's as a competitor to Intel if they went under. EDN's 2007 listing shows nearly 70 companies producing processors, including some that have been around for a long time, such as IBM, TI and National Semiconductor. It's an axiom of economics that no profitable business goes without competition.
What has surprised me is how focused Intel has become. They always put profit-taking ahead of development. Now they are leveraging their huge advantage in money to keep relentless pressure on AMD. They have all of those parallel development teams going, developing generations of CPUs simultaneously. I guess that the K8 must have scared and embarrassed them, because they aren't like the same company.

 

[onestar]

Indeed. Intel is not like the same company, they are better now. We must hope that translates into better computing for the dollar.

My fears are that Intel will maintain such a dominant lead that competition is no longer a concern which would obviously translate into more dollars from the consumer.

It is difficult to understand the failure demonstrated by AMD in the latest launch. I suspect the reasons will never surface nor be believed if they do.