# AMD To Crank Up Phenom II Clock-Speeds Upto 3.50 GHz, Planning New Models



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2009)

Beating its chest on the "massive headroom" (read: clock speed increment potential) its newest line of processors, the Phenom II have, it was about time the company utilized the said headroom to carve out new SKUs. With the AM2+ exclusive Phenom II X4 940 already showing impressive overclocking potential, while shipping with a clock speed of 3.00 GHz, the company is planning to increase stock clock speeds in increments of 100 MHz (0.5x multiplier) with a string of SKUs post Phenom II X4 950. This according to the insider sources a German website called AMD News caught up with.

All the upcoming processors will be built on the AM3 package, making them compatible with DDR3 and DDR2 memory standards. With the Phenom II X4 950 being clocked at 3.10 GHz, succeeding SKUs take 100 MHz steps, starting from a Phenom II X4 960 at 3.20 GHz to a Phenom II X4 990 at 3.50 GHz. Despite the high clock speeds, the chips will continue to maintain rated TDPs of 125W. At some point within the succession, AMD will crank up the HyperTransport interconnect speed from 1,800 MHz to 2,000 MHz. The launch-schedule for these processors will be spread throughout 2009.



The models in the new series consist of:

Phenom II X4 950 (3.10 GHz, 15.5 x 200)
Phenom II X4 960 (3.20 GHz, 16 x 200)
Phenom II X4 970 (3.30 GHz, 16.5 x 200)
Phenom II X4 980 (3.40 GHz, 17 x 200)
Phenom II X4 990 (3.50 GHz, 17.5 x 200)

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## tcorbyn (Jan 30, 2009)

NICE! Would be great if AMD could put out somthing to compete with Core i7!


----------



## Jakl (Jan 30, 2009)

WOW... Fricken amazing AMD ! I cant wait! It will probably be released in Summer


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 30, 2009)

so if im right lets hope i am

if you get an am3 cpu and you put it in a am2+ board you can use ddr2, swap the chip to a am3 board and you can use ddr3

am2+ cpus are am2+ board only

im right in thinking that dual ram boards arnt that good


----------



## Jakl (Jan 30, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> im right in thinking that dual ram boards arnt that good



Yea its better to stick either DDR2 or DDR3 ... less complications


----------



## ASharp (Jan 30, 2009)

That's right Kieran. AM3 chips have both DDR2 and DDR3 memory controllers so they'll work on both AM2+ and AM3 boards. AM2+ chips only have the DDR2 controllers so they'll only work on the AM2+ boards. That and I think the AM3 socket has one less pin so you won't be able to fit an AM2+ processor in the slot anyway.

In any case, this is awesome news for AMD! I wonder how much headroom the 3.5GHz chips will have seeing as how they're already clocked so high. Hope these new chips will overclock even higher...maybe even 4.5-5GHz on air? C'mon AMD!


----------



## Crystal (Jan 30, 2009)

I don't buy it. The same website posted this on 19.01.2009.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2009)

Crystal said:


> I don't buy it. The same website posted this on 19.01.2009.




The current news is a sort of an update of the same thing, cross-checked with two sources, according to them. There won't be chips touching ~4 GHz this year, they made up that "C4 stepping" part back then.


----------



## Weer (Jan 30, 2009)

btarunr said:


> The current news is a sort of an update of the same thing, cross-checked with two sources, according to them. There won't be chips touching ~4 GHz this year, they made up that "C4 stepping" part back then.



And yet now we believe them?


----------



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2009)

Weer said:


> And yet now we believe them?



Yes and no. Yes, that source has been cited by many websites, no it's only borderline plausible and builds on the logic of conservative increments over the 950, an SKU that is verified to be true.


----------



## Salsoolo (Jan 30, 2009)

are those black edition ?


----------



## wolf2009 (Jan 30, 2009)

Just a ploy to sell pricier processors and make profits like Intel does by raising the multiplier by 0.5 and sell it for $50 more.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2009)

That's pretty institutional   The Core 2 Duo 8500 sells for $188, the E8600 with a mere 0.5x multiplier increment (= 167 MHz) sells for ~$270.


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jan 30, 2009)

With the difference that AMD isn't as stupid at pricing as Intel is.

I highly doubt they will all be Black Edition, perhaps 1 or 2 of them and that's it. Of course, I could be wrong.

And if AMD doesn't go stupid on the pricing, I might as well get that 990, as long as they don't wait until Christmas to release.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2009)

Mega-Japan said:


> With the difference that AMD isn't as stupid at pricing as Intel is.



It was. A lot of us tend to forget that AMD did sell processors at ~$1000+, basically the same pricing you call stupid,  when its Athlon64 /X2/FX line worked. Now it just can't afford to charge premiums, hence black editions at $230, etc.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 30, 2009)

i think ill be getting a one of the new coming AM2+ boards and pair it with an AM3 seems good to me

no point getting DDR3 just now when i can swap everything ditch the mobo and cpu


----------



## r9 (Jan 30, 2009)

This can be taken in two ways. 
One yey AMD moving forward they can`t beat i7 MHz vs MHz but they can clock higher to match overall performance.
Other way all the great one CPU that are going to come from AMD fab are going to be tested and separated, better overclocking ones are going to have different sticker and would cost more that is not to great.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 30, 2009)

Any idea on price ,3.5GHz stock is dam good.


----------



## Error 404 (Jan 30, 2009)

This, I really hope, will bring down the current price of AMD PII CPUs; my next rig will probably have one in it, or maybe even the architecture after PII, because Australia is too hot to overclock!


----------



## Polarman (Jan 30, 2009)

Phenom III anyone ?


----------



## KBD (Jan 30, 2009)

let the Mhz wars begin! 

recently Intel announced e8700 clocked at 3.5 and now AMD is moving to highrer clocks on Phenom 2 which does make sense since these CPUs have great overclocking potential. In regards to how well they will overclock, who knows? But i would think that the higher clocked versions like the 980 and 990 will be cherry-picked and will overclock better and will carry the Black Edition tag. That has been AMD strategy since the launch of Phenom, all their flagship chips were BEs so its very likely that the 990 (and may be the 980) will be as well.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 30, 2009)

KBD said:


> let the Mhz wars begin!
> 
> recently Intel announced e8700 clocked at 3.5 and now AMD is moving to highrer clocks on Phenom 2 which does make sense since these CPUs have great overclocking potential. In regards to how well they will overclock, who knows? But i would think that the higher clocked versions like the 980 and 990 will be cherry-picked and will overclock better and will carry the Black Edition tag. That has been AMD strategy since the launch of Phenom, all their flagship chips were BEs so its very likely that the 990 (and may be the 980) will be as well.



Stock clocks don't worry me much, what's important is the overclock ability and the price/performancce ratio.


----------



## techie81 (Jan 30, 2009)

I'm in for a Phenom II 990 3.5GHz chip!


----------



## KBD (Jan 30, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> Stock clocks don't worry me much, what's important is the overclock ability and the price/performancce ratio.



you get no argument there from me 


I'm hoping the 990 & 980 will do at least 4.5 on air and over 5 on water. That would really be awesome.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 30, 2009)

and they said ddr2 was dead.  Its interesting that these are keeping the same TDP... From reviews ive gathered that the current phenoms suck too much power bc leakage when pushed to 3.5Ghz+...  

I wonder if the 940 BE will get the core upgrade as well since it might undermine the sales of the other chips if it does.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 30, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> and they said ddr2 was dead.



DDR2 aint dead.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.


Yet....


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 30, 2009)

WOW!!!!! I cant wait!


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 30, 2009)

Very nice, hopefully this holds some truth, me needs a 990!


----------



## cdawall (Jan 30, 2009)

wow thats nice now what about the rumors we heard about a new FX line? maybe 4ghz stock from factory wasn't insane afterall


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 30, 2009)

wolf2009 said:


> Just a ploy to sell pricier processors and make profits like Intel does by raising the multiplier by 0.5 and sell it for $50 more.



Agreed, it's nice to see they are opening up the options and offering more power, however I fear that in the higher end chips, they will simply destroy any price performance advantage they have, of course i dont know the prices but I would guess we will see at least $50 between models.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Jan 30, 2009)

Finally, its just lke back in the Pentium days eh? 3.8GHz processors, just thinking about going back to the good ol' idea of fequencies is just plain awesome. Hope I don't kill my AMD gaming friend who will brag over my 2.66GHz semi-octa Core i7 processor once he gets it.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> wow thats nice now what about the rumors we heard about a new FX line? maybe 4ghz stock from factory wasn't insane afterall


Great point but imo i think with AMD upping the clocks....... it's just going to lower the over all clock that all of us are expecting to get.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 30, 2009)

tcorbyn said:


> NICE! Would be great if AMD could put out somthing to compete with Core i7!



Heres to wishing 

Ive been reading quite a few reviews reguarding the X4 940BE & there still people comparing it to the C2D Q6600 & saying the Q6600 beats it hands down for price & overclockability etc etc....


----------



## Melvis (Jan 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> wow thats nice now what about the rumors we heard about a new FX line? maybe 4ghz stock from factory wasn't insane afterall



mmmmm indeed, thats what im looking out for is the new FX Line up  I love my FX's
I wonder if they will tell us this time there secret ingredient?


----------



## mlee49 (Jan 31, 2009)

This might actually get me to consider AMD for my next build!


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 31, 2009)

Melvis said:


> mmmmm indeed, thats what im looking out for is the new FX Line up  I love my FX's
> I wonder if they will tell us this time there secret ingredient?


Fx.... FX and how long have they been talking about the FX line?

I wouldn't hold my breath mate..... and even if they do come out with a Fx line.... and they been talking about it for month's i highly doubt it'll be over clock able by much :shadedshu


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 31, 2009)

This is wonderful news. About time they start cranking it out. I noticed in the last Maximum PC magazine that they took out like 8 - 10 pages of ads showing off the new phenoms combined with the 4000 series of cards and what not.


----------



## LittleLizard (Jan 31, 2009)

if that is phenom II clocks i cant imagine the stock speeds of the phenom fx ( if they came out )


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

Smacks of what Intel did to the P4 remember ? They just kept cranking the speed up just to keep up and every one dogged Intel out for this now that AMD is doing the very same thing you Hypocrites are saying WOW , GREAT and OMG that is FANTASTIC !!! Holly carp people if this is the best they have up there sleeves then why not call it like you did when Intel was tapping the P4 out for all it was worth  ? Why is it great and fantastic when AMD does this and provides no other real innovations other than to clock the shit out of there old crap and sell it off to you ?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2009)

sneaky buggers


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

What really get me is the fact that the Phenom II can OC well past that 3.5GHz mark and still can not hold a candle to the Q9550 when it is OC'ed as well . What gets me is that you eat this up like it is some new tech ... This is just cranking the shit out of the CPU then selling it back to you at a higher price when you can Over Clock the 920 to 940 speeds and get the same performance for a lesser price . Does this really make any sense to any one ? Do you think that since you can get a 3.5GHz CPU that you will get any more out of it than you can with the current clocked Phenom II's ? If so how do you figure this ? If the CPU can reach 6GHz ON STOCK AIR COOLING now that would be some thing but come on this is just smoke and mirrors here !


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 31, 2009)

Wonderful!  I hope they keep the prices down, like under the $400 mark.


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

# Process Type: Intel Pentium 4 Processor 640
# Frequence: 3.20 GHz
# FSB: 800 MHz
# Cache: 2 MB
# Process: 90 nm
# Socket: LGA775
# Package: OEM
# This processor includes Hyper-Threading Technology.
# This processor supports Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T).

Seems like Intel beat them to the Clock speed way back when now AMD is doing it but It is all wonderful and exciting ! 

Oh for the good old days ... Suck it it people this is going to be the theme for the next 2-3 years for AMD CLOCK UP UP UP FASTER WE NEED TO CATCH UP !!!!


----------



## KainXS (Jan 31, 2009)

AMD needs to make a cpu that can compete clock for clock with intels right now, its not like it was with the Athlon XP's and the Pentium 4's, AMD is falling behind more and more, I got a chance to put my sisters new Phenom X4 against my Core i7 and my core i7 beat it clock for clock really badly.

Things have changed, now AMD is in the position Intel was in the Pentium VS Athlon gen since the X2's came out, they need something more than this to truly compete.

they're lucky ATI is now part of AMD,


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

KainXS said:


> AMD needs to make a cpu that can compete clock for clock with intels right now, its not like it was with the Athlon XP's and the Pentium 4's, AMD is falling behind more and more, I got a chance to put my sisters new Phenom X4 against my Core i7 and my core i7 beat it clock for clock really badly.



LOL that is funny and just how is Clocking the HELL out of the current or even AM3 CPU going to do any good ? I just don't see it . maybe they will catch up to the Q9550 and Q9650 but man just raising the clock speed is not going to do shit . Just look at the ones that are already at 4.0GHz most can't even get past that and even at them speeds what do you really gain ? SMOKE AND MIRRORS . They will get them out and what is funny is that AMD heads will be buying them up and fast to !


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 31, 2009)

trickson said:


> LOL that is funny and just how is Clocking the HELL out of the current or even AM3 CPU going to do any good ? I just don't see it . maybe they will catch up to the Q9550 and Q9650 but man just raising the clock speed is not going to do shit . Just look at the ones that are already at 4.0GHz most can't even get past that and even at them speeds what do you really gain ? SMOKE AND MIRRORS . They will get them out and what is funny is that AMD heads will be buying them up and fast to !



DOWN WITH AMD! Intel needs to be a monopoly!!


----------



## KainXS (Jan 31, 2009)

I hope amd never goes down then we all know intel would rape our pockets just like nvidia did during the 8800GTX's dynasty.


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> DOWN WITH AMD! Intel needs to be a monopoly!!



YEAH !! Hey why is it ok for AMD to do this when Intel was getting nothing but smeared and pissed on for doing this ? When AMD does this ( Because they have nothing els left to do ) you Hypocrites eat it up and fawn all over AMD like the second coming of Christ ! 
What is wrong with me telling it like it really is ? I am dogging AMD for this because it is JUST what Intel did with there LAME ASS P4 to keep up with AMD's XP and Athlon now that the shoe is on the other foot I well thought that it would be fine to jeer and jab and knock AMD for this after all fare is fare . OH and AMD is not going down just trying to keep up and clocking the hell out of the CPU seemed to work well for Intel so I guess AMD is going to give it a shot now .


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 31, 2009)

trickson said:


> Smacks of what Intel did to the P4 remember ? They just kept cranking the speed up just to keep up and every one dogged Intel out for this now that AMD is doing the very same thing you Hypocrites are saying WOW , GREAT and OMG that is FANTASTIC !!! Holly carp people if this is the best they have up there sleeves then why not call it like you did when Intel was tapping the P4 out for all it was worth  ? Why is it great and fantastic when AMD does this and provides no other real innovations other than to clock the shit out of there old crap and sell it off to you ?



Actual it's really not the same.   The P4's higher number of stage pipeline (IE: netburst) is what allowed for the higher overclocks.  AMD doesn't share the same design therefore, won't see (IMO) the higher clocks shared by those prescotts of that era.   Also, take notice to what you recall from the P4 series.  Not that it was a hot oven but a good overclocker.  Something that some do take interest in.  I remember having a 660 back in the day that was 4.20Ghz stable 24/7.  Something not common for A64's.  







Did this overclock offest anything AMD offered during it's time.  IE: offset the reduced number of instructions per cycle? You betcha at 4.2GHz I was just as fast (and usually faster during encoding/watching HD quality moves) then AMD's counterpart during it's time.


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

Yeah but clock for clock the A64 was faster and even maxed out the A64's could take out the best of Intel's P4 . I remember my 4000+ doing that bench in 24 -25 at 2.8GHz .


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 31, 2009)

I doubt it and we are still talking about single cores here.  There:
-games
-decoding
-encoding
-watching HD content
-unziping
-etc
at 4.2GHz the Intel 660 was formidable for it's time.  This I remember specifically because me and my friends did comparisons back in the day


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 31, 2009)

A64 FX-51 2.8Ghz


----------



## jbunch07 (Jan 31, 2009)

I think these higher clocked phenoms are a great way to keep customers happy while they work on architectural improvements, In a way I see it as giving them more time to work on improving what they already have. We all know that they have been struggling for a while now, but now that they have something that works for them why not take advantage of the "headroom". I say good job AMD.
Now that customers are happy get to work on improving it even more.


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

jbunch07 said:


> I think these higher clocked phenoms are a great way to keep customers happy while they work on architectural improvements, In a way I see it as giving them more time to work on improving what they already have. We all know that they have been struggling for a while now, but now that they have something that works for them why not take advantage of the "headroom". I say good job AMD.
> Now that customers are happy get to work on improving it even more.



Yeah ring them out for all they got I say !


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 31, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> A64 FX-51 2.8Ghz


And this is what?
Common mate!!!!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 31, 2009)

Common what? That's a A64 FX-51 clocked at 2.8GHz. A very popular, sought after CPU of it's time. (Look at the string name in the pic.)


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

fullinfusion said:


> And this is what?
> Common mate!!!!



I think that was to show just how well the P4 really was . 
I for one think that AMD is playing the same game Intel did and now it is all ok and great and wonderful . Not like it was when Intel did it . wtf:


----------



## insider (Jan 31, 2009)

These chips ain't half bad, unlike a Q6xxx/Q9xxx purchase, you just drop the processor in and voila 3.5GHz, no need for time consuming in-depth bios voltage/multiplier/memory/strap/timings tweaking, long IntelBurnTest runs...

The prices would still have to drop further to sub £200 even for the 3.5GHz version.

As for this being compared to Intel's Netburst frequency ramping, don't be daft, this chip isn't setting any wattage records and far closer clock for clock than any P4 chip was to the Athlon XP, I used to have an Althon XP-M 2600+ @2.6GHz that destroyed any P4 chip.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Jan 31, 2009)

insider said:


> These chips ain't half bad, unlike a Q6xxx/Q9xxx purchase, you just drop the processor in and voila 3.5GHz, no need for time consuming in-depth bios voltage/multiplier/memory/strap/timings tweaking, long IntelBurnTest runs...
> 
> The prices would still have to drop further to sub £200 even for the 3.5GHz version.
> 
> As for this being compared to Intel's Netburst frequency ramping, don't be daft, this chip isn't setting any wattage records and far closer clock for clock than any P4 chip was to the Athlon XP, I used to have an Althon XP-M 2600+ @2.6GHz that destroyed any P4 chip.



Yeah, plus it gives casuals confidence that their applications will fit processor requirements. Remember those 3GHz requirements that scared people with dual cores under that speed? Total chaos for no reason!


----------



## Steevo (Jan 31, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> and they said ddr2 was dead.  Its interesting that these are keeping the same TDP... From reviews ive gathered that the current phenoms suck too much power bc leakage when pushed to 3.5Ghz+...
> 
> I wonder if the 940 BE will get the core upgrade as well since it might undermine the sales of the other chips if it does.





Leakage is not a concern, leakage would cause huge increase in temps, not in voltage requirements. I can push 1.6+ through this chip and get more heat, or I can keep the same voltage and gain a couple hundred more Mhz by more tweaking, but I have yet to see a real performance benefit for that last little bit.



AMD is making a hell of a chip for a cheap price, and that stays cool under load.


Comparing two different reviews you can draw your own conclusions. All I know is for cheap my system runs GTA4 like butter now. 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1672/2/stock_to_clocked_core_i7_920_at_3_8ghz/index.html

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16



Even in the 3DVantage scores.   


And considering the Phenom II set a (doesn't really  matter for everyday use) 3D05 record by running 6.3Ghz and running at 6.5+ Ghz, and that was with air cooled cards. Imagine what a set of Ln cooled cards would do to the vantage score with the same setup.....


----------



## erocker (Jan 31, 2009)

Please resist the urge to regurgitate your points over and over again, plus keep the insults to yourselves.  Stay on topic.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 31, 2009)

I think these higher clock speed chip will be like the 6000+ and 6400+, and that's mean won't OC as good as the lower one.

But I think the 3.2GHz chip will be the best buy, and maybe the best overclocker.


----------



## Kei (Jan 31, 2009)

trickson said:


> What really get me is the fact that the Phenom II can OC well past that 3.5GHz mark and still can not hold a candle to the Q9550 when it is OC'ed as well...



I don't really get into these types of 'discussions' but man do you sound angry! I'm not certain I understand the statement you made above....are you talking about SuperPi or something? I left out the highest clocked Phenoms because it isn't really fair, I highlighted the runs with the closest cpu speeds to make it easier to see. This is Wprime of course which is regarded as one of the more apples to apples benchmarks out there. Looking at the PII and Q9550 times I'd say the PII is holding that candle pretty steady wouldn't you? It's been shown as well that although the Core i7 is faster than fast if you turn off the extra perks they have for it (Turbo and Hyper Threading) and run just raw cpu that the PII does very well against that as well with roughly the same clock speeds. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1175966&postcount=790

Relax guys nobody even knows if this is true at all, yet some of you are going at each other like mad it seems.

Kei

Btw, trickson you need a hug


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 31, 2009)

Kei said:


> It's been shown as well that although the Core i7 is faster than fast if you turn off the extra perks they have for it (Turbo and Hyper Threading) and run just raw cpu that the PII does very well against that as well with roughly the same clock speeds. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1175966&postcount=790
> :



Why don't you just disable 2 cores on a quad and then you'll find it performs similarly to a dual.  Comparing performance of parts when one has available features disabled is useless at best, I'm not sure what your hoping to prove with that.

Anyway this is nice (albeit a bit behind), I wonder if perhaps intel will follow in kind and release some 3.5ghz chips. T'would be interesting to see a frequency dual.


----------



## Kei (Jan 31, 2009)

Perhaps you're missing the point of my post Farlex? The post was about the PII vs Q9550, I included that bit about the i7 just to add something extra.

It's pretty obvious I didn't say that the i7 should be run without it's extra incentives. I along with the owner of that processor were simply stating that when you compared only the raw processor speed of both processors that the speed overall is pretty darn close which is nice.

And for the record some of us with Quads that understand we DON'T need all four cores 100% of the time do happen to disable 2 cores to save heat and power. To some people that don't pay attention to things like that it sounds stupid because the general idea seems to be if you have excessive power it's beneath you to use only what you need. When you put the Quads (at least Phenom's whether I or II) against the Dual core processors the Quads still win when only using 2 cores. That's in the thread too. 

I do agree with you that Intel will likely put out some chips to attempt to counter AMD if these reports prove true. If both companies do this then customers should be pretty happy indeed. No real need to overclock is pretty cool. Of course the members here will still do it just because. 

Kei


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 31, 2009)

Even without TB and HT, Core i7 still ahead of PII by a great margin.

Let's see some _CPU_ scores from 3DMark tests.


----------



## Kei (Jan 31, 2009)

To OP sorry for the slight derail this is the last time.

Here you go i7 running full on and PII 940. Pretty good showing I think.

Of course when you play games the numbers for the two are even better. Nice and close both ways. 

Kei


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 31, 2009)

You're proving yourself wrong right there. Core i7 default clock is 2.66GHz vs 3GHz PII 940.

And the CPU score is so close, even though the PII have higher clock speed.


----------



## Kei (Jan 31, 2009)

I'm slightly confused on what you mean here? The i7 has the higher cpu score that I know unless you're comparing the overclocked PII speed. Yea, that's probably what you mean. I have no idea what the i7 would score if you had the HT and Turbo turned off (like in that Wprime test). When you turn those on in Wprime the score is massively quicker than the PII as well.

I didn't prove myself wrong I've showed two different things. One was with the HT and Turbo and the other was without them. Everybody knows that the i7 is faster than the PII with the HT and Turbo on in many applications.

Kei


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 31, 2009)

HT doesn't effect CPU score in 3DMark 2006 much (4 threads), It only does in Vantage (8 theads).

And with TB, the CPU top speed is 2.8GHz.


----------



## Haytch (Jan 31, 2009)

When Intel was raising the clock speeds, i got happy!
Overclocking aside for a meer moment . . .  If either Intel or AMD are releasing CPU's at higher clocks, then thats good.
Taking into consideration that most of US overclock, pretty much heavily;
a higher stock speed means a higher top end.

Trickson's Q6600 @ 2.66Ghz is indeed a great CPU.  There's not much out there that can compare with its performance/$$$ ability (It made for the ideal HTPC processor ).  Trickson's Q6600 is currently @ 3.7Ghz with his custom water cooling would pretty much be equal to the standard QX9770 with a $1500au price difference.  Making the purchase of the 9770 completely stupid for someone with Trickson's ability to overclock.

 . . . . . . . .   Would love to see what Trickson would have to say/show us if his Q6600 was infact set to 3.7Ghz stock (Yes i know that Intel have no such CPU). 

I like the smoke and mirrors because it confuses people, it blinds some, drives some away, but in the end theres only a handfull that accomplish the ending without being deceived.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 31, 2009)

Meh, I'll believe this report when I see the SKUs release. They said there would be a 3GHz Phenom on 65nm, too.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 31, 2009)

trickson said:


> What really get me is the fact that the Phenom II can OC well past that 3.5GHz mark and still can not hold a candle to the Q9550 when it is OC'ed as well . What gets me is that you eat this up like it is some new tech ... This is just cranking the shit out of the CPU then selling it back to you at a higher price when you can Over Clock the 920 to 940 speeds and get the same performance for a lesser price . Does this really make any sense to any one ? Do you think that since you can get a 3.5GHz CPU that you will get any more out of it than you can with the current clocked Phenom II's ? If so how do you figure this ? If the CPU can reach 6GHz ON STOCK AIR COOLING now that would be some thing but come on this is just smoke and mirrors here !



The Q9550 has 12MB of L2, little hard to compare a processor that released at a much higher price point than what the PII's released at. And even then I raise my BS flag, at similar clocks the 9550 will out perform a 940, but will not wipe the floor with it.

There is nothing to call here like there was in the P4 days. They aren't turning up the clocks and reselling old crap, the freaking PII's just released this month. Jump off the fanboy wagon and calm down. Don't need to write a paragraph long post every other post in the thread.

You are speculating about if these will or will not clock, let them release and let people judge then. This is completely different than the P4 days, back then you could buy a AMd proc for a cheaper price (didn't need no FX) and spank a more expensive P4. Now your saying a more expensive chip beats a cheaper chip, NO WAY, thats absolutely insanity! You are saying you get what you pay for here, I can't believe it, THIS IS MADNESS!


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> The Q9550 has 12MB of L2, *little hard to compare a processor that released at a much higher price point than what the PII's released at*. And even then I raise my BS flag, at similar clocks the 9550 will out perform a 940, but will not wipe the floor with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## krisna159 (Jan 31, 2009)

*i hope this isn't dream*

would be nice ... AMD Phenom II with higher clock+ DDR 3 can be catch up the Core i7 performance... 
also would be nice if AMD put in triple chanel DDR3 memory too
maybe this is only dream...


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2009)

krisna159 said:


> would be nice ... AMD Phenom II with higher clock+ DDR 3 can be catch up the Core i7 performance...
> also would be nice if AMD put in triple chanel DDR3 memory too
> maybe this is only dream...



The phenom II's arent a dream but the rest of ur post is, for now at least


----------



## Melvis (Jan 31, 2009)

fullinfusion said:


> Fx.... FX and how long have they been talking about the FX line?
> 
> I wouldn't hold my breath mate..... and even if they do come out with a Fx line.... and they been talking about it for month's i highly doubt it'll be over clock able by much :shadedshu



I agree they have been talking about it for awhile now, but the FX will come back i think, with this new line up of Phenom's and the way they are going there is a good chance. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg with the new K10, there is lots more to come 

Im sure your right there, they wont be overclockable by much, they never real were =/ The FX-57 had a hard time getting to 3.1GHz, because they were pushed close to there limits out of the box. If they bring out a FX at 4.0GHz i cant see it clocking much higher on air?


----------



## Melvis (Jan 31, 2009)

trickson said:


> Smacks of what Intel did to the P4 remember ? They just kept cranking the speed up just to keep up and every one dogged Intel out for this now that AMD is doing the very same thing you Hypocrites are saying WOW , GREAT and OMG that is FANTASTIC !!! Holly carp people if this is the best they have up there sleeves then why not call it like you did when Intel was tapping the P4 out for all it was worth  ? Why is it great and fantastic when AMD does this and provides no other real innovations other than to clock the shit out of there old crap and sell it off to you ?



The difference is that back then the P4's at any clock speed couldn't even match a standard clock speed of a Athlon, but now the difference isn't that much, just over clock it a little and there you go you matched it, thats the difference.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2009)

they have more up there sleeve trick, but its not ready yet


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> they have more up there sleeve trick, but its not ready yet



Well yeah I know this but for now all they have is Over clocking and well to be quite frank we can do that just fine now can't we ..
It will be nice to see just how high they are able to get them on stock air cooling .


----------



## Binge (Jan 31, 2009)

So why did this thread get so large?  I'm just curious... all these chips are is 940s with the multiplier set a tad higher.  Gimmicky.


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

Binge said:


> So why did this thread get so large?  I'm just curious... all these chips are is 940s with the multiplier set a tad higher.  Gimmicky.



I would have to say it is my fault sorry about that . I got off on a rant on how AMD is playing the same game Intel did with the P4 and well it was me sorry .


----------



## Binge (Jan 31, 2009)

Ahhh!  Nothing to apologize for lol.  This is exactly like that.  I mean people will have to pay a premium for the stock OC.  

Sorry to fuel the fire guys :-/


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

Binge said:


> Ahhh!  Nothing to apologize for lol.  This is exactly like that.  I mean people will have to pay a premium for the stock OC.
> 
> Sorry to fuel the fire guys :-/



Yes this is exactly what I have been saying pay more for that stock over clock and get nothing in return ! Let the MHz WAR resume !


----------



## cdawall (Jan 31, 2009)

didn't we already go through this trick i proved you wrong in 3dmark cpu scores, wprime and something else?

Q9550 and the PX4 overclocked perform the same now when AMD goes through with this 3.5ghz core clock thing there wont be a C2Q that can keep up@ stock. on top of that they *will* give core i7 a run for its money. if priced right they *will* be the better buy.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 31, 2009)

This is the truth as far as being a better buy. Though I'm not sure that PII will ever really give i7 a run for it's money.


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

cdawall said:


> didn't we already go through this trick i proved you wrong in 3dmark cpu scores, wprime and something else?
> 
> Q9550 and the PX4 overclocked perform the same now when AMD goes through with this 3.5ghz core clock thing there wont be a C2Q that can keep up@ stock. on top of that they *will* give core i7 a run for its money. if priced right they *will* be the better buy.



Hope you are right but I don't see it is all . from all the benchmarks and reviews I have seen the Phenom II 940 keeps up with the Q9550 yes but for you to make a statement like this is well speculation and really wrong . I am not going to get into this with you . 
I will however say sorry . I do hope to see some INNOVATIONS out of AMD as far as giving the i7 a run for the money well that just makes me  . They are not even in the same league man !


----------



## cdawall (Jan 31, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> This is the truth as far as being a better buy. Though I'm not sure that PII will ever really give i7 a run for it's money.



when you compare the currently marketed i7's it has already been proven that a 3.5ghz phenom 2 would compete with the i7 920 and i7 940




trickson said:


> Hope you are right but I don't see it is all . from all the benchmarks and reviews I have seen the Phenom II 940 keeps up with the Q9550 yes but for you to make a statement like this is well speculation and really wrong . I am not going to get into this with you .
> I will however say sorry . I do hope to see some INNOVATIONS out of AMD as far as giving the i7 a run for the money well that just makes me  . They are not even in the same league man !




funny thing about that @3.5ghz its going to be hard for the 2.93ghz i7 to blow it out of the water. also in apps that don't use HT me and chickenpatty showed that at the same clock the i7 is *NOT* faster


----------



## Binge (Jan 31, 2009)

cdawall said:


> didn't we already go through this trick i proved you wrong in 3dmark cpu scores, wprime and something else?
> 
> Q9550 and the PX4 overclocked perform the same now when AMD goes through with this 3.5ghz core clock thing there wont be a C2Q that can keep up@ stock. on top of that they *will* give core i7 a run for its money. if priced right they *will* be the better buy.



I've yet to see anyone on this forum do a stable 4.0/4.2 vantage run with their 940... how is that a better buy than the i7?  I just can't see it as a "better buy" in a normal system.  In an advanced media center or a LANbox I would agree that the Phenom II is a better choice.  It just produces less heat, but I don't see them charging more for the same chip that already has an unlocked multi would make it less of a great buy and more of a marketing scheme.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 31, 2009)

It will mark the first processor with premium pricing after C2D came out.

My prediction: it would be around $450 for the PII 3.5GHz, which force the Core i7 940 to reduce price.


----------



## trickson (Jan 31, 2009)

Well I am not going to get into this any more you are right . AMD can smoke the i7 as it is fine and the Q9xxx is just a faded memory now AMD FTW ! 
I say crank it up pay that premium price and live it up to each there own . Good luck .


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> It will mark the first processor with premium pricing after C2D came out.
> 
> My prediction: it would be around $450 for the PII 3.5GHz, which force the Core i7 940 to reduce price.



I doubt that very much....the PII 3.5 is not due out until Q4 2009, by that time there will be several other i7's out and the i7 940 will probably be as low, if not lower than the PII, and if the PII 3.5 is $450 thats not a bad price in the run of things, the first AM3 chip to come will be probably be more expensive than the current AM2+ chips purely because of their added tech etc, then factor in all those suggested versions from the OP at at least $50 a hike for each one and well, the math speaks for itself.

Anyways the lower end AM3 models as always will be the popular ones for us, lets hope that they can do 4gig+ on an AM3 board, that will definatly give them competition for enthusists, sadly though 90% of the market is mainstream.

I will buy one for my next upgrade.....not i7 but only because I am bored with the same old Intel and wanna give AMD a play once again.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 31, 2009)

Binge said:


> I've yet to see anyone on this forum do a stable 4.0/4.2 vantage run with their 940... how is that a better buy than the i7?  I just can't see it as a "better buy" in a normal system.  In an advanced media center or a LANbox I would agree that the Phenom II is a better choice.  It just produces less heat, but I don't see them charging more for the same chip that already has an unlocked multi would make it less of a great buy and more of a marketing scheme.



ill give it a go when i get home


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 31, 2009)

Westmere will actually be out by Q4 2k9 (or around the corner), ddr3 prices will be cheaper, as will boards, i5 will be out, ect. These won't compete w/ i7, they will compete w/ C2D like they do now and possibly i5 depending on how those do. It's pretty much a whole nother path they are taking, but they don't seem to be planning any kind of answer to intel's current tops for some time (probably about next year, a la PII=q9400).


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Feb 1, 2009)

Well seems it's calmed down a bit in here


----------



## Melvis (Feb 1, 2009)

trickson said:


> NO you are wrong see there you go talking the P4 down and you still have not gotten it right fact is that the P4 was as close to the A64 CPU as the Phenom II 940 is to the Intel Q9550 . Fact is AMD has nothing left but to Clock the Phenom II to the highest it can no new Innovations at all , Just like what Intel did to the P4 and when Intel did that to the P4 BTW it keep pace just fine . No my friend you have it wrong . Now AMD is playing the MHz gaming and every one thinks that it is great ? Like every one Including ME once said about Intel's P4  with out real innovations with out real change AMD is just playing the MHz game . This IS FACT .




The P4 was a overpriced, high voltage, ran hotter, under performer....FACT's
A P4 at 3.73GHz could not even match a Athlon at 2.8GHz FACT
A P4 over clocked at 4.1GHz could not even match a Athlon at 2.8GHz FACT
My m8s P4 @ 3.2GHz couldn't even match my 2.2GHz Athlon in anything FACT
I will always be talking down the P4 because they are the SUCK FACT, so many people had P4's and they had no idea about Athlon's let alone AMD in general, so all they thought was higher clock speeds meant they was faster FACT, the end. Intel new this and always kept the price high even tho they was getting beat badly against the Athlon's in raw performance.
Even the K7 vs the P4 was doing very well FACT, matching them in performance but having lower clock speeds, thats were AMD's number scheme came into play in the first place FACT. Then the K8 come out and Intel had nothing at all to counter it, the P4 had lost completely FACT.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/8482/14

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_066c.html

As you can tell the P4 could not match a Athlon at all, even with a clock speed of over 4GHz a total of 1.3GHz higher clock speed they still couldn't match the Athlons FACT. So to reference to the Phenom i dont think you need to over clock the phenom 1.3GHz or more to match intels Q9XXX series? if im wrong please prove me wrong?
I think you need to get your FACT's straight before you say anything, my guess is that you owned a P4 and got burnt bad? and spent a F load on it and got beat by a CPU half its price?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 1, 2009)

This means Intel is going to have to finally move the stock Core 2 speeds up because AMD is finally competing with them.  Problem is though that this will become a flashback to P4 and Athlon XP/64 where they don't overclock far because at stock, they are running close to their limits.  This is good news if you don't overclock, and somewhat bad news if you do.

Intel ought to consider increasing their Core 2 clocks especially after announcing they'll be around longer.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 1, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This means Intel is going to have to finally move the stock Core 2 speeds up because AMD is finally competing with them.  Problem is though that this will become a flashback to P4 and Athlon XP/64 where they don't overclock far because at stock, they are running close to their limits.  This is good news if you don't overclock, and somewhat bad news if you do.
> 
> Intel ought to consider increasing their Core 2 clocks especially after announcing they'll be around longer.



this is true but at the same time if AMD and intel start really binning there chips we will start to see a group of chips that oc like crazy. ie P4 631 and celeron D 347 and then chips that cost more and dont clock ie. P4 660.


hopefully like i said earlier in this thread maybe this will mean a new FX i see a 4ghz 150w phenom FX coming out Q4.


----------



## trickson (Feb 1, 2009)

cdawall said:


> this is true but at the same time if AMD and intel start really binning there chips we will start to see a group of chips that oc like crazy. ie P4 631 and celeron D 347 and then chips that cost more and dont clock ie. P4 660.
> 
> 
> hopefully like i said earlier in this thread maybe this will mean a new FX i see a 4ghz 150w phenom FX coming out Q4.



I tell you if AMD comes out with a STOCK 4.0GHz CPU I will be right there in line to get one . No doubt about it .


----------



## zithe (Feb 1, 2009)

I'd love to see some FX chips. If those came out, Intel would actually have to drop prices. XD


----------



## Steevo (Feb 1, 2009)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=722589


From awhile back, I can tweak more as I have pushed my GPU higher, and have ran at right below 4Ghz with a few more tenths, but I don;t want to continue to do so.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2009)

cdawall said:


> didn't we already go through this trick i proved you wrong in 3dmark cpu scores, wprime and something else?
> 
> Q9550 and the PX4 overclocked perform the same now when AMD goes through with this 3.5ghz core clock thing there wont be a C2Q that can keep up@ stock. on top of that they *will* give core i7 a run for its money. if priced right they *will* be the better buy.



I'll go clock for clock with you on some benches. Been wondering how they stack up outside of a review environment. (You know, real users, real results). Just name the cpu/ram speeds, and the benches.



Melvis said:


> The P4 was a overpriced, high voltage, ran hotter, under performer....FACT's
> A P4 at 3.73GHz could not even match a Athlon at 2.8GHz FACT
> A P4 over clocked at 4.1GHz could not even match a Athlon at 2.8GHz FACT
> *My m8s P4 @ 3.2GHz couldn't even match my 2.2GHz Athlon in anything FACT*
> ...



That's not a 100% fact. The P4 would take it in encoding tasks. That's the other reason Intel was able to keep the prices high. P4's were in demand from professionals that needed them for rendering/encoding.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That's not a 100% fact. The P4 would take it in encoding tasks. That's the other reason Intel was able to keep the prices high. P4's were in demand from professionals that needed them for rendering/encoding.



Yea you are probably right there, i should have said> in just about everything, 90% or something. Just to let ya know the CPU i was talking about was my old 3700+ sandy core, so it wouldn't of been not far off his 3.2GHz P4 id say? id have to look it up to confirm it. (encoding/rendering)

There are and always will be areas that intel (P4) do very well in, but overall i was getting at, that they was getting beat bad.

The K7 vs P4 was very close, even the AMD 3000/3200 K7 didn't realy match the 3.0/3.2GHz P4s but was very close tho, then the A64 came out and it was game over.

O and thanks to cdawall, Valdez, and wahdangun for the thanks on my last post


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Yea you are probably right there, i should have said> in just about everything, 90% or something. Just to let ya know the CPU i was talking about was my old 3700+ sandy core, so it wouldn't of been not far off his 3.2GHz P4 id say? id have to look it up to confirm it. (encoding/rendering)
> 
> There are and always will be areas that intel (P4) do very well in, but overall i was getting at, that they was getting beat bad.
> 
> The K7 vs P4 was very close, even the AMD 3000/3200 K7 didn't realy match the 3.0/3.2GHz P4s but was very close tho, then the A64 came out and it was game over.



Oh yeah, I agree. The encoding performance wasn't worth taking the hit just about everywhere else for the average user. The A64 was overall a much better processor.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I'll go clock for clock with you on some benches. Been wondering how they stack up outside of a review environment. (You know, real users, real results). Just name the cpu/ram speeds, and the benches.



i'll run a couple really quick. 3.9ghz is something almost every phenom II can do so it should be a fair speed you can name the DRAM speed mine can run all the way up to 1266 6-5-6-16

3D06, AQ3, vantage, wprime, spi 1/32m should be good to start with


my everyday setting is 236*16.5 puts the cpu@3.894ghz and ram@1260mhz 6-5-6-16




Wile E said:


> That's not a 100% fact. The P4 would take it in encoding tasks. That's the other reason Intel was able to keep the prices high. P4's were in demand from professionals that needed them for rendering/encoding.


i had a PD930 for this exact reason in encoding an AX2 could not match it in any means of the word. Even oc'd the PD could easily hold its own in this task.


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 1, 2009)

cdawall said:


> i'll run a couple really quick. 3.9ghz is something almost every phenom II can do so it should be a fair speed you can name the DRAM speed mine can run all the way up to 1266 6-5-6-16
> 
> 3D06, AQ3, vantage, wprime, spi 1/32m should be good to start with



I think you guys were beat to it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83730


----------



## cdawall (Feb 1, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I think you guys were beat to it: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83730



lol sno doesn't count


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 1, 2009)

cdawall said:


> i'll run a couple really quick. 3.9ghz is something almost every phenom II can do so it should be a fair speed you can name the DRAM speed mine can run all the way up to 1266 6-5-6-16
> 
> 3D06, AQ3, vantage, wprime, spi 1/32m should be good to start with
> 
> ...



Just my 2 penneth, it's you guys that are doing the testing, but I would sack AQ3, damn it's even more synthetic than a whore's PVC underwear   however......

PC Mark vantage would be a good one if you both have Vista.............

http://www.futuremark.com/download/pcmarkvantage/

And if you dont........ PC Mark 2005

http://www.futuremark.com/download/pcmark05/

If your memory are going to be same speed and latencies then SM2 would be good also.

Sorry for butting in!


----------



## Wile E (Feb 2, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> Just my 2 penneth, it's you guys that are doing the testing, but I would sack AQ3, damn it's even more synthetic than a whore's PVC underwear   however......
> 
> PC Mark vantage would be a good one if you both have Vista.............
> 
> ...


Anything that includes gfx in the test probably isn't a great Idea, unless the app breaks the scores down to individual segments. Not to mention I run a RAID0, so that will effect the PCMark scores as well.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 2, 2009)

Damn Wile E I guess you can't sleep ether.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 2, 2009)

cdawall said:


> i'll run a couple really quick. 3.9ghz is something almost every phenom II can do so it should be a fair speed you can name the DRAM speed mine can run all the way up to 1266 6-5-6-16
> 
> 3D06, AQ3, vantage, wprime, spi 1/32m should be good to start with
> 
> ...


I have a few linux distros on the way down, so remind me in a day or 2. Can't reboot right now. As far as ram, I can run it all the way to 1360 CAS 5, so whatever you pick is fine with me. But I can offer some friendly advice, and tell you that running 1260Mhz at CAS6 is not better than running at 1050 CAS5.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Damn Wile E I guess you can't sleep ether.



Never really do. lol


----------



## cdawall (Feb 2, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I have a few linux distros on the way down, so remind me in a day or 2. Can't reboot right now. As far as ram, I can run it all the way to 1360 CAS 5, so whatever you pick is fine with me. But I can offer some friendly advice, and tell you that running 1260Mhz at CAS6 is not better than running at 1050 CAS5.
> 
> 
> 
> Never really do. lol



it was for benchmarks that i ran cause i pushed the other bus speeds higher and this chip loves bandwidth out the ass

oh and ram does 1150 cas5 so its not that bad. will have 4GB of D9g** shortly so i can run those to


----------



## wiak (Feb 7, 2009)

lostcircuits didnt get lost just look at this nice scaling





add around 5-7% faster due to 2ghz HT/L2 + DDR3 and your abit faster
exellent review here > http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=42


----------

