# AMD Phenom X4 CPU Prices Emerge



## malware (Nov 4, 2007)

ISA Hardware, AMD's master distributor of processors, has updated its price list to include AMD's first native quad core CPUs. Three new desktop Phenom X4 processors are now listed as actual:



HD9500WCGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9500 (4MB,95W,AM2) box $247.00 
HD9600WCGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9600 (4MB,95W,AM2) box $278.00 
HD9700XAGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9700 (4MB,125W,AM2) box $288.00




*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

whoa sweet!!!!! thats way cheap!!!!


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 4, 2007)

thats redistributor price


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> thats redistributor price



aww, i that that was msrp.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Nov 4, 2007)

panchoman said:


> aww, i that that was msrp.



SAME!  Darn, that is cheap.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

but its a lot cheaper then the penryn one, which is like 285 on the chart thing.


----------



## wiak (Nov 4, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> SAME!  Darn, that is cheap.


"Excluding VAT and are Estimates" 
if you ask me


----------



## Snipe343 (Nov 4, 2007)

whats the differnce between redistributor price a msrp?


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

distributor price is like what newegg will pay for the cpu. and then msrp is what amd will tell newegg to sell it to us for.


----------



## Ben Clarke (Nov 4, 2007)

I live in England. I can expect about double those prices :shadedshu


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

Ben Clarke said:


> I live in England. I can expect about double those prices :shadedshu





wonder how much damulta will have to pay to get it shipped to the mars base


----------



## erocker (Nov 4, 2007)

Halleluliah!!!  Phenom, here I come!


----------



## Ben Clarke (Nov 4, 2007)

Moon base, idiot. 

j/k.

Any news on how these fare against C2Q's yet?


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

erocker said:


> Halleluliah!!!  Phenom, here I come!



ditto


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Nov 4, 2007)

panchoman said:


> ditto



+1


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105165

the price of that on isa's site was 361, and neweggs is 379. so the price on isa's site might be the msrp. cause i dont think that 8 bucks is all that the egg is gonna profit from each barcelona that they sell.


----------



## erocker (Nov 4, 2007)

Opterons generally cost more.  Now, the only way that we can assure Newegg doesn't go off price-gouging again, is to buy them slowly.... if that makes any sense?  I'm sick of thier damn pricing!


----------



## Dark_Webster (Nov 4, 2007)

Sweeet! Even if they are redistributer pricing, they are waaay too cheap for a quad-core.. Imagine the price of a dual-core one.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

Dark_Webster said:


> Sweeet! Even if they are redistributer pricing, they are waaay too cheap for a quad-core.. Imagine the price of a dual-core one.



i dont think theres gonna be a phenom x2, but i wonder how the x3 will be priced.


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 4, 2007)

It is very likely more than $300 for the cheapest, and unless it performs way better than expected it will not be worth that much. The 2.0~6400+ dual core, and that bodes poorly imho. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 4, 2007)

panchoman said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105165
> 
> the price of that on isa's site was 361, and neweggs is 379. so the price on isa's site might be the msrp. cause i dont think that 8 bucks is all that the egg is gonna profit from each barcelona that they sell.



Now $250 would not be so bad, but still depends on performance.


----------



## Dark_Webster (Nov 4, 2007)

Really, I like those prices... even for an AMD processor with 65nm. When they come out, we will see who is going to be the champion: Phenom or Penryn


----------



## erocker (Nov 4, 2007)

jpierce55 said:


> Now $250 would not be so bad, but still depends on performance.



, ease of use, stability, memory, and HT performance...


----------



## DaMulta (Nov 4, 2007)

Ben Clarke said:


> Moon base, idiot.
> 
> j/k.
> 
> Any news on how these fare against C2Q's yet?



No teh mars base.

Nice prices


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 4, 2007)

Wait, these are the chips that are outperformed by Intel currently offerings clock for clock, right?  And AMD is charging more for them?  I don't see how people are saying this is a good thing.


----------



## jocksteeluk (Nov 4, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> Wait, these are the chips that are outperformed by Intel currently offerings clock for clock, right?  And AMD is charging more for them?  I don't see how people are saying this is a good thing.



its the amd fan's logic, lol


----------



## Weer (Nov 4, 2007)

Those numbers are very close to the ones Intel is going to use..


----------



## Dark_Webster (Nov 4, 2007)

Well, we all have seen some comparisons but I don't trust on a review that is made before the product gets on the stores so I say: Hang in there, AMD!(I am not trying to make flame wars)


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 4, 2007)

Prices seem nice, TDP is less attractive though.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 4, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> Wait, these are the chips that are outperformed by Intel currently offerings clock for clock, right?  And AMD is charging more for them?  I don't see how people are saying this is a good thing.



leave them, they may attack ...


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 4, 2007)

Dark_Webster said:


> Well, we all have seen some comparisons but I don't trust on a review that is made before the product gets on the stores so I say: Hang in there, AMD!(I am not trying to make flame wars)



I feel the same way, except that these should be close to the performance of Barcelona.  And there's been reviews on Barcelona.  So that's where I think people are drawing the performance numbers.  Just a heads up there.  

Hope these chips are faster than like 2.6 ghz for the fastest one.  Cause AMD really needs to start pumping clock speeds.


----------



## Dark_Webster (Nov 4, 2007)

And starting increasing performance-per-watt... and clock


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 4, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> I feel the same way, except that these should be close to the performance of Barcelona.  And there's been reviews on Barcelona.  So that's where I think people are drawing the performance numbers.  Just a heads up there.
> 
> Hope these chips are faster than like 2.6 ghz for the fastest one.  Cause AMD really needs to start pumping clock speeds.



2.6 is the fastest on initial release, Q2 has an FX expected at 2.8, but not known yet. I will wait until more is known, but most likely if I get a knew cpu it will be the 5000+ black box.


----------



## Scrizz (Nov 4, 2007)

-.-


----------



## devguy (Nov 4, 2007)

What is this about:



> HD9500WCGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9500 (4MB,95W,*AM2*) box $247.00



I wonder how a site like this could make a mistake like that?  Either way these prices aren't bad.  



> i dont think theres gonna be a phenom x2, but i wonder how the x3 will be priced.



I remember reading somewhere that the x2 version is going to keep the Athlon name, but like the rest of these rumors, take them with a grain of salt.


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 4, 2007)

Dark_Webster said:


> And starting increasing performance-per-watt... and clock



Oh jeez anyone look at Tom's hardware recently?  They tested a QX9650 (Penryn) which at idle only needed 3.79 watts  (2ghz) and 73 watts at stock 3.0 ghz, and 135 watts at 4ghz (on air).  I mean that's crazy...Pentium D's used that much at stock.  AMD really has their work cut out for them.  Those are some seriously good numbers.


----------



## nflesher87 (Nov 4, 2007)

I just hope AMD gives us something worth buying...


----------



## DaMulta (Nov 4, 2007)

Oh they will be competitive.


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 4, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> I just hope AMD gives us something worth buying...



Yeah in some area.  Like I wouldn't mind if they gave us CHEAP quad cores with nice consumptions but Intel's gone crazy with Penryn.  Honestly 4 ghz at below 1.5 v on air....craziness.  Even power consumption is way better with Penryn.  This ain't looking to good for amd.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 4, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> Oh they will be competitive.



with what, a central heating unit?


----------



## mandelore (Nov 4, 2007)

Ben Clarke said:


> Moon base, idiot.
> 
> j/k.
> 
> Any news on how these fare against C2Q's yet?



hes since moved...


----------



## Ben Clarke (Nov 4, 2007)

mandelore said:


> hes since moved...



But _I_ wanted to live on Mars


----------



## von kain (Nov 4, 2007)

ehmmm   guys 1 question who i have to kill to get one???



the rest is my job...


----------



## Basard (Nov 4, 2007)

Are they charging more than intel? Maybe they are better than Intel, I still haven't seen any REAL benchmarks. The only thing I saw was some crap graph, that was poorly made.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

no they are cheaper i believe. the redistributer price of the cheapest new intel cpu is 285 i think.


----------



## von kain (Nov 4, 2007)

from what i have seen untl now the msrp will be at least 50`60$ more so i still believe there are gonna be cheap for a native quad core


----------



## wiak (Nov 4, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> Wait, these are the chips that are outperformed by Intel currently offerings clock for clock, right?  And AMD is charging more for them?  I don't see how people are saying this is a good thing.


dont think so, Phenom X4 and intel Core 2 Quad are in the same alley
Phenom X4 2.0ghz scores around the same as a X2 6400+ and thats good, a X4 2.4ghz should be around 20% faster than X2 6400+ on 3dmark,pcmark etc, but where the preformace is is when it comes to encoding video (HD 1080i to 720p using x264 with all cores), there a quadcore phenom x4 will realy hit the jackpot by outpreform X2 6400+ by over 50% i estamate



devguy said:


> What is this about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i bet they just added them as AM2 as they are backwards compatibility


----------



## Basard (Nov 4, 2007)

They are cheaper, the cheapest Intel quad-core is 270 bucks.  Or you could pay an extra 750 bucks for .6Ghz more on the QX6850.  That doesn't seem fair.  At least AMD prices it fairly.  Crap, if I had 1000 bucks to drop on a cpu, I would just build TWO AMD systems.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 4, 2007)

Basard said:


> Crap, if I had 1000 bucks to drop on a cpu, I would just build TWO AMD systems.



or a multi cpu system. wonder if anyone has tried dropping 4 barcelonas in one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813151089

will phenoms work on socket am2? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813151008 could be looking at 16 cored system.


----------



## happita (Nov 4, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Prices seem nice, TDP is less attractive though.



exactly what i was thinking


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 4, 2007)

erocker said:


> Opterons generally cost more.  Now, the only way that we can assure Newegg doesn't go off price-gouging again, is to buy them slowly.... if that makes any sense?  I'm sick of thier damn pricing!



Think yourself lucky, whatever you pay, we in the UK can expect to pay between 25 - 50% more


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 5, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> +1


+2 along with http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=43690


----------



## wiak (Nov 5, 2007)

panchoman said:


> or a multi cpu system. wonder if anyone has tried dropping 4 barcelonas in one of these:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813151089
> 
> will phenoms work on socket am2? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813151008 could be looking at 16 cored system.



the first one will work with barclona cpus
the secound is socket 940 and will not

AMD Phenom will work in AM2 and AM2+ Motherboards
AMD Athlon & Sempron will work in AM2 and AM2+ Motherboards

AMD DDR3 CPU will work in AM2, AM2+ and AM3 Motherboards
AMD Phenom, Athlon & Sempron will not work in AM3 Motherboards

talk about a easy upgrade path 
AMD Athlon DDR2 Dual COre > AMD Phenom X4 Quad Core > AMD DDR3 CPU


----------



## WarEagleAU (Nov 5, 2007)

Very nice. I do know for a fact, or from press releases, they are gonna have Phenom X2 chips...and regular Athlon chips. These should spar well, but obviously not overtake Intel. Not with these batches of chips. these are very reasonable in price and Im all warm and fuzzy waiting for them to be released.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 5, 2007)

OK, kiddies. Here's a tiny sample lesson on TDP! Intel lies, AMD exaggerates power usage. There, I said it, now shut up and sit down.
Intel gives an "average" of what the cpu might use. AMD gives an absolute, theoretical MAXIMUM of what it can use. See the difference.
If you still haven't figured it out yet - Intel means that you need to add probably 15 watts. AMD means take away about 10 or more watts. AND AMD also has the IMC adding w/e wattage (we have no clue, but I think the rough estimate is 5 watts, maybe a lil more).

/rant

P.S. Anymore complaining and the next one is gonna end with /kicking your ass


----------



## mandelore (Nov 5, 2007)

TheGuruStud said:


> OK, kiddies. Here's a tiny sample lesson on TDP! Intel lies, AMD exaggerates power usage. There, I said it, now shut up and sit down.
> Intel gives an "average" of what the cpu might use. AMD gives an absolute, theoretical MAXIMUM of what it can use. See the difference.
> If you still haven't figured it out yet - Intel means that you need to add probably 15 watts. AMD means take away about 10 or more watts. AND AMD also has the IMC adding w/e wattage (we have no clue, but I think the rough estimate is 5 watts, maybe a lil more).
> 
> ...





*loooks and finds alot of peeps now sitting on the floor

Its true tho I believe, AMD uses a differnt thermal envelope classification system, they try to make it as comparable to Intels for obvious reasons, but I think uising the absolute max for its TDP is more sinsible, It means you can go get an appropriate cooler that will handle this load.

It did look a tad worrying jumping from the 9600 95W to the 9700 125W tho, and this worries me about potential overclocking. BUT, I would believe 125W would be at 4x100% core useage? and that normally never happens during gaming. 

(I better be bleedin able to overclock the 08 Q1 FX's or im not gonna b happy)

Just gonna get an X2 4000+ or sommit to see me on the M3A32 till Q1 of 08

Edit: **On a very diff side note:

you think its the lack of an IMC that allows intel chips to clock so high? Ive always wondered that tbh


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 5, 2007)

Ben Clarke said:


> But _I_ wanted to live on Mars



Space friggin cadets the lot of you!


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 5, 2007)

von kain said:


> ehmmm   guys 1 question who i have to kill to get one???
> 
> 
> 
> the rest is my job...



You dont need to kill anyone,,,,,,before long they will be giving them away as they all rush for Penryn's........trust me


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 5, 2007)

wiak said:


> dont think so, Phenom X4 and intel Core 2 Quad are in the same alley
> Phenom X4 2.0ghz scores around the same as a X2 6400+ and thats good, a X4 2.4ghz should be around 20% faster than X2 6400+ on 3dmark,pcmark etc, but where the preformace is is when it comes to encoding video (HD 1080i to 720p using x264 with all cores), there a quadcore phenom x4 will realy hit the jackpot by outpreform X2 6400+ by over 50% i estamate
> 
> 
> ...



Thats good?  The much awaited Phenom can only just about match (if at all) current 65nm C2D's.....if that really is the case thats a catastrophie because all it does is confirm what all us AMD lovers fear most......and thats that we will be playing "2nd fiddle" yet again to Intel.  So we live in hope that the price difference will make the AMD the smart move..........and that wont last long because as Intel continue to take 70% of the sales they will be in the financial position to lower their prices in 6 months time, reap huge profits and break the back finally of AMD.......sorry was having a grim reaper moment then 

The other problem of course is that because of the success of C2D, 65% of anyone who has either bought a PC or done a major upgrade to a PC in the last year now has a S775 motherboard, the Phenom prices wont look so inviting if they dont come with the performance if current Intel owners have to pay for the new motherboard as well (me)


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

Price difference ALWAYS makes AMD the smart move.  You're gettin a quad=core, for Intel's dual-core price.  

Intel's greed will always make me shy away from buying, even though I know deep down that they are faster and overclock better.  If there were no laws on monopolies I'm sure Intel would have cut AMD's throat back in 1998.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 5, 2007)

such ignorance in this post ...


----------



## Frick (Nov 5, 2007)

Basard said:


> Price difference ALWAYS makes AMD the smart move.  You're gettin a quad=core, for Intel's dual-core price.
> 
> Intel's greed will always make me shy away from buying, even though I know deep down that they are faster and overclock better.  If there were no laws on monopolies I'm sure Intel would have cut AMD's throat back in 1998.



Greed? It's a company, and it's sole purpose is to contribute to the global market and making money for the stock holders (if they have any stock holders). Also, Intel has been the best move for money the past year anyway.

Another thing: If AMD had Intels position now, would you complain and feel sorry for Intel? I think not.. AMD has just the same amount of greed as Intel, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Fanboism is evil and should be banned, hunted down and then exterminated.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 5, 2007)

Frick said:


> Greed? It's a company, and it's sole purpose is to contribute to the global market and making money for the stock holders (if they have any stock holders). Also, Intel has been the best move for money the past year anyway.
> 
> Another thing: If AMD had Intels position now, would you complain and feel sorry for Intel? I think not.. AMD has just the same amount of greed as Intel, otherwise they wouldn't exist.
> 
> Fanboism is evil and should be banned, hunted down and then exterminated.



exactly .. the spouting of by fanbois in this thread and other phenom threads is absolutely disgusting, sickening even.


----------



## Mediocre (Nov 5, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> exactly .. the spouting of by fanbois in this thread and other phenom threads is absolutely disgusting, sickening even.



Agreed....but its ALWAYS fun to pick apart the poorly contructed arguments of said fanboi's



Basard said:


> They are cheaper, the cheapest Intel quad-core is 270 bucks.  Or you could pay an extra 750 bucks for .6Ghz more on the QX6850.  That doesn't seem fair.  At least AMD prices it fairly.  Crap, if I had 1000 bucks to drop on a cpu, I would just build TWO AMD systems.



FYI, the Intel Price cuts were JULY 22, 2007, SIX MONTHS AGO...something tells me they can drop them ANYTIME and still make $$ on them...FYI - the 1000 tray re-distributor $$ WAS (in JULY) $266 for a Q6600 (@ 2.4)...and these are showing $247?? For the slowest one? (is that 1.8 or 2.0?)...Then you've got the 'mid' range one @ $278(2.0 or 2.2)...So the AMD is MORE expensive than the intel, clock for clock...Did I mention the Intel's been out for MONTHS?

And Intel could drop the price 10% in a HEARTBEAT and still make $$...




Basard said:


> They are cheaper, the cheapest Intel quad-core is 270 bucks.  Or you could pay an extra 750 bucks for .6Ghz more on the QX6850.  That doesn't seem fair.  At least AMD prices it fairly.  Crap, if I had 1000 bucks to drop on a cpu, I would just build TWO AMD systems.



OK so the cheapest Intel quad is $270. The AMD that would compete with that is $278 IN 1,000 PIECE QUANTITIES...


I'm not a fanboi of either. I like competition. Its better for business. Unfortunately, AMD isn't as competitve as they have been. Thats a shame.

If I were AMD I'd release these without too much media fan fair, as Intel can just demo a 45nm quad and SMOKE these...

Its unfortunate, it really is, but thats no excuse to ignore the facts.

end rant;


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

How many times has AMD been under investigation for anti-competitive practices?  And saying that Intel can drop their prices 10% and still make $$ just shows the greed there.  AMD keeps their CPUs priced fairly, Intel overcharges for the brand name. If the roles were reversed and AMD was under investigation, and overcharging for their cpus, then yes, I would cry for Intel.  But, the roles aren't reversed.

It all depends what type of business practices you want to support when you buy a CPU.  Perpetuate the SLOW moving lonely giant. Yes, Intel was crawling along, sucking our wallets dry, with no innovation in site, until the release of the Athlon.  I would say that AMD's "greed" is more like an aspiration.

Now I'm an "evil fanboi" because I have a valid opinion about something.  Post whores with nothing better to do than cut peoples opinions down by exaggerating the facts, and using big words should be banned, hunted down, and exterminated.


----------



## R_1 (Nov 5, 2007)

Intel has demonstrated 80 core CPU with tremendous performance a year ago, but they still can't deliver a native 4 core CPU?
I think that Intel will give us it's recently developed CPUs if only Phenom is good enough to compete with 2xC2D from 2005 year on 45nm process (Penrin).


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

R_1 said:


> Intel has demonstrated 80 core CPU with tremendous performance a year ago, but they still can't deliver a native 4 core CPU?
> I think that Intel will give us it's recently developed CPUs if only Phenom is good enough to compete with 2xC2D from 2005 year on 45nm process (Penrin).



Exactly, just like the demonstrated their "skulltrail" bullcrap or whatever.  Good job demoing some technology, now lets see you put it on the shelf.  IBM was "demoing" their Ghz chip long before either AMD or Intel were close, but that didn't amount to anything, look at IBM now.  Stick some sick air cooling on a Phenom, then oc to 3.5Ghz and see what happens, but who cares its a demo.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 5, 2007)

Basard said:


> Price difference ALWAYS makes AMD the smart move.  You're gettin a quad=core, for Intel's dual-core price.
> 
> Intel's greed will always make me shy away from buying, even though I know deep down that they are faster and overclock better.  If there were no laws on monopolies I'm sure Intel would have cut AMD's throat back in 1998.



Your kind of missing the point here, I prefer AMD to Intel, always have done but firstly.....look at the pricing of the lower end Intel 45nm quads, then go back over your statement for accuracy, secondly, it soes not mater if you get 8 cores for the price of the two.....if the 8 dont perform as fast, remember, there are very few genuinly multithredded (as opposed to 2 core optimisation) apps out there at present, although of course  there will be more to come but just to put it in a gamers perspective, since the first dual core hit the retail shelves some what?........21 months ago now....roughly, out of all the hundreds and thousands of games released since then probably only 5 - 10% of them use more than one core............and before you say it, yes I know, not everyone is a gamer and of course one of the true benefits of a multi core system is multi tasking not just multi thredding, all I am doing is trying to put things into perspective.

If the Phenom is half decent, can more or less match the Yorkfield quads for a competative price then I am definatly in for one, my fear is, that maybe they wont and without that some people are going to be a little dissapointed.

I'll save you the trouble, $266 for a 1333FSB 45nm quad........Available January, stocks at 2.5Gig, 6MB L2 cache, cheaper than 2 of the 3 phenoms shown in post 1:

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/07-10-13/intelcpuchart.gif


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 5, 2007)

R_1 said:


> Intel has demonstrated 80 core CPU with tremendous performance a year ago, but they still can't deliver a native 4 core CPU?
> I think that Intel will give us it's recently developed CPUs if only Phenom is good enough to compete with 2xC2D from 2005 year on 45nm process (Penrin).



and what is the benefit of a native quad core?


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 5, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> and what is the benefit of a native quad core?



Greater efficiency, less heat, less TDP etc etc


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 5, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Greater efficiency, less heat, less TDP etc etc



how comes this doesnt show thru comparing teh TDP?


----------



## Grings (Nov 5, 2007)

Plus, considering (most) games barely use 2 cores let alone 4, they'll have use of the entire chips cache, where with a dual dual core layout a core/pair of cores can only use half the cache (though this isnt a problem for intel quads as they have plenty of cache anyway)


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

Grings said:


> Plus, considering (most) games barely use 2 cores let alone 4, they'll have use of the entire chips cache, where with a dual dual core layout a core/pair of cores can only use half the cache (though this isnt a problem for intel quads as they have plenty of cache anyway)



This is most likely the reason Intel's chips need so much more cache. Since a native quad core acts more like a single CPU, it uses its cache more efficiently.  Every game I run on my system, Even Diablo II (very old), uses both cores of my X2 4000+ about equally.  I'd say most NEW games are multi-threaded, at least the ones worth playing are... and if they aren't multi-threaded, they probably don't need to be. 

So AMD isn't the king of performance per watt.  But they are the king of performance per cache, it that even exists.  I'd like to see how a Core2 performs with 512k cache per core.


----------



## erocker (Nov 5, 2007)

People who back Intel disgust me.  People who defend any large souless corporation disgust me.  AMD disgusts me.  I... am disgusted.


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 5, 2007)

Basard said:


> This is most likely the reason Intel's chips need so much more cache. Since a native quad core acts more like a single CPU, it uses its cache more efficiently.  Every game I run on my system, Even Diablo II (very old), uses both cores of my X2 4000+ about equally.  I'd say most NEW games are multi-threaded, at least the ones worth playing are... and if they aren't multi-threaded, they probably don't need to be.
> 
> So AMD isn't the king of performance per watt.  But they are the king of performance per cache, it that even exists.  I'd like to see how a Core2 performs with 512k cache per core.



First Intel needs more cache not because it's not native but because they're memory subsystem SUCKS compared to AMD.  Idc if your an Intel or AMD fanboy, but it's flat out true.  Second, Intel likes lots of cache because the core microarchitecture was built to access memory less and more cache helps that (check Tom's hardware's report on penryn).  Diablo II...I really honest to God doubt that was the game's programming.  Perhaps they just used two threads cause it was easier for them to design..but to build it for multi-core highly doubt that.  Probably between the different threads and WINDOWS using some of the cpu.

People may say that native quads are better, but in terms of buisness Intel's multi die on a single package is actually better because they can throw out bad ones whereas AMD has to cut one core if it doesn't clock high enough, Intel can take that die throw it into one it's pentium dual core or allendale or slower conroe bins.  Oh and native quad core, the benefit is you have less latency because you don't have to communicate across an external bus BUT since AMD uses L3 to connect all the cores you have worse latency than if they used L2, so Intel's quads still do better in a program meant for two cores.


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

I highly doubt Diablo II was designed for a dual core system, being as it came out when systems were at 400Mhz.   I'm just saying that it uses both cores almost equally on my 4000+.  splits it about 60/40%, so that tells me that the AMD dual core pretty much splits up the load between the core--meaning native dual core, right? So, in theory, the native quad core will split it up amongst the 4 cores, equally, if the program is multi-threaded or not, unless I'm just plain wrong about that.


----------



## Mediocre (Nov 5, 2007)

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH I'm a post whore at less than 2 per day AHHAHAHAAHAHHAH

I take almost as much pleasure in that as I do when I get acussed of 'cheating' b/c I'm decent and the other person has no skillz...

I bet my 'dissection' upset you somehow...

Well I'm at it again...




Basard said:


> How many times has AMD been under investigation for anti-competitive practices?



Are we talking about processors or business practices? Not sure that statement applies here...sorta like saying 'how many times has MICROSOFT been under investigation...' And I don't see Linux in your system specs...



Basard said:


> And saying that Intel can drop their prices 10% and still make $$ just shows the greed there.


FYI - Most companys like to avoid RAZOR sharp margins. And you won't find an established company selling for a loss (unless there is a business case for it - take a loss on a console and make it up selling s'ware for that console).
So it's greedy to make $$? I guess you missed the whole section on 'free market economy' and 'supply and demand' in class...
Companies don't last long unless they are making $$ (or borrowing $$). I guess AMD's 1/4 BILLION dollar losses (every 3 months) are better?
But again we're talking PROCESSORS not BUSINESS...



Basard said:


> AMD keeps their CPUs priced fairly,


Is that why they lost over 200 million in the last 3 month period??



Basard said:


> Intel overcharges for the brand name.


I'm guessing you have access to Intel's accounting? How do you know what it costs to R&D, Market, and sell a PAPER CLIP, let alone a microprocessor...



Basard said:


> If the roles were reversed and AMD was under investigation, and overcharging for their cpus, then yes, I would cry for Intel.  But, the roles aren't reversed.


You can charge WHATEVER YOU WANT. Their is no PRICE GOUGING for processors. It's supply and demand. If your demand is high, you can charge what you want - think Wii on ebay for $500...
I'd like to see proof of this 'investigation'. There is an ANTI-TRUST suit right now...not a 'did intel overcharge' investigation



Basard said:


> It all depends what type of business practices you want to support when you buy a CPU.


um....Microsoft...



Basard said:


> Perpetuate the SLOW moving lonely giant. Yes, Intel was crawling along, sucking our wallets dry, with no innovation in site, until the release of the Athlon.


So are we talking about socket 939, or 775 and AM2(+)?
If there is NO competition, why would you SPEND $$ to stay ahead. What exactly are you staying ahead of?
This is why I don't support ANY MFG over another. Competition only helps the consumer. AMD's in-ability to produce a competitive product is EXACTLY why intel was 'crawling'...Oh and how do ANY of us know what Intel was up to behind closed doors? 

I'll tell ya this much. Intel isn't crawling anymore. Fastest CPU's out now (hands down), and new generations coming every year. 

IMO I'm glad AMD got their shit together a few years ago...I sincerly hope they can do it again.



Basard said:


> I would say that AMD's "greed" is more like an aspiration.


Aspiration doesn't take the books outta the red



Basard said:


> Now I'm an "evil fanboi" because I have a valid opinion about something.


Never said you were 'evil'... 


Basard said:


> Post whores with nothing better to do than cut peoples opinions down by exaggerating the facts


First off, less the 2 posts per day is no 'post whore'. Sounds like you're the one 'exaggerating the facts'
Oh and BTW, I learned this format from one of the best - DantheBanjoMan...Yes its intimidating, but it sure worked when he sent one my way. Set me straight right off.



Basard said:


> , and using big words should be banned, hunted down, and exterminated.


I can't resist - Do the big words confuse you? I guess we should just exterminate everyone with some writing skills and an education. That would fix EVERYTHING 


And FYI - I'm the only one out of 6 pc's (that I care for) that is intel. The rest are 939 (one 754) systems. I've got nothing against EITHER company. Just trying to give FACTS and not OPINIONS...(but science tells us that people with OPINIONS overlook the FACTS so as not to change their OPINION - Think politics - its been case studied...)


I am NOT trying to start flaming (or finish any pre-existing flaming). I invite you to dispute everything i've said (I invite you to post a reference or two). I just wish you would read, re-read, and investigate before calling someone out.
Oh and staying on the topic of the debate helps too


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 5, 2007)

Basard said:


> I highly doubt Diablo II was designed for a dual core system, being as it came out when systems were at 400Mhz.   I'm just saying that it uses both cores almost equally on my 4000+.  splits it about 60/40%, so that tells me that the AMD dual core pretty much splits up the load between the core--meaning native dual core, right? So, in theory, the native quad core will split it up amongst the 4 cores, equally, if the program is multi-threaded or not, unless I'm just plain wrong about that.



lol just wrong, sorry.  Just that windows or what not uses the 40%....hardware doesn't dictate how the load is balanced, software dictates that.


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

Mediocre said:


> AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH I'm a post whore at less than 2 per day AHHAHAHAAHAHHAH
> 
> I take almost as much pleasure in that as I do when I get acussed of 'cheating' b/c I'm decent and the other person has no skillz...
> 
> ...


 
Wow, cry more man, I have no idea why you think I was talking to you. 

And both of my cores are at 0-1% usage at idle, when I load diablo, both cores start working, and they keep working, as with every other game I play. Let me load up Duke Nukem 3D and see how the cores work on that. ill post a screenie.


----------



## Mediocre (Nov 5, 2007)

^^^^ AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH^^^^^^^^^^^^

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So it IS true....you're completely BONKERS

EDIT: Nice edit by the way...


If you post in a forum, you are talking to EVERYONE that reads it. 

And whether I'm talking to you or not, does that make my points invalid? 

I hope for your sake you read it through TWICE. Maybe you could get over it and put some sense in your head. But as I said above, science has proved that humans hold onto opinions even when presented with clear, concise facts.

It would be better for the entire community if people would get over their fanboi status and embrace competition.


As for your CPU usage, I would bet that you could explain it with the AMD dual core optimization driver. Neither of those applications are multi-threaded (natively). So they get ZERO performance increase by using more than one core. I would even go out on a limb and say theat it makes everything else (in the background) run slower because it is taking resources it doesn't need. With your PC you SHOULD be able to do a virus scan and play EITHER of those games with minimal performance hit. But with your screenshots, doing a scan (while gaming) would kill your FPS. 

One of the purposes of multiple cores is to increase application speed (another would be running many apps at once). 
Whether thats encoding, decoding, or playing a game, a truly multi-threaded app will enable that program to perform better than it would on a single core. That does not fit the case for duke or diablo....why are we talking about 5-10 year old games?

Edit 2 - but then again none of this should be going on in a NEWS thread. Maybe if we stayed on topic (that topic being 'AMD Phenom X4 CPU Prices Emerge' 
not 
Look at my task manager -> performance....see DukeNukem3d is MULTI-THREADED!!!


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

mediocre, i was never talking to you in the first place, so we weren't having a discussion.  

heres my duke nukem 3d using  BOTH cores


----------



## Mediocre (Nov 5, 2007)

Basard said:


> mediocre, i was never talking to you in the first place, so we weren't having a discussion.
> 
> heres my duke nukem 3d using  BOTH cores



LOL, another good laugh. Man you ARE funny, I'll give ya that...BTW...I edited my previous post too...

Again, I bet what you're seeing is from the AMD dual core driver...

Well looking into that BRIEFLY (as I'm at work )


			
				amd; said:
			
		

> AMD Dual-Core Optimizer - The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer can help improve some PC gaming video performance by compensating for those applications that bypass the Windows API for timing by directly using the RDTSC (Read Time Stamp Counter) instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for the affect of power management mechanisms on the rate at which a processor core's Time Stamp Counter (TSC) is incremented. The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer helps to correct the resulting video performance effects or other incorrect timing effects that these applications may experience on dual-core processor systems, by periodically adjusting the core time-stamp-counters, so that they are synchronized.



So IMHO IDK whats going on with your system. 

I can tell you that you don't get a performance increase from that (not on those games). 

So I'd say you actually have a PROBLEM: 
You can't run two things at once (maybe diablo and winamp or something) without seeing a performance drop in both. And that really sux.

With that old single threaded game, you SHOULD be able to run that and something else on another core nearly independantly (as the cache isn't shared between cores..HDD is...)

If I were you I would try and fix that. Doesn't seem right, and you get ZERO performance increase (in those games) with them running on both cores...


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 5, 2007)

Basard said:


> This is most likely the reason Intel's chips need so much more cache. Since a native quad core acts more like a single CPU, it uses its cache more efficiently.  Every game I run on my system, Even Diablo II (very old), uses both cores of my X2 4000+ about equally.  I'd say most NEW games are multi-threaded, at least the ones worth playing are... and if they aren't multi-threaded, they probably don't need to be.
> 
> So AMD isn't the king of performance per watt.  But they are the king of performance per cache, it that even exists.  I'd like to see how a Core2 performs with 512k cache per core.



Again you are confused between "multi thredded" and dual core optimised, there are currently only 8 multi thredded games (1,2,4,8 cores - no matter how many you have a genuine multi thredded app will use them all).

By Christmas there will be 11-13 available.  And I agree about the native quad core being more efficient but it dont mean much if it's slow, to be competetive it has to match the competition in performance, price and efficiency.


----------



## Basard (Nov 5, 2007)

Yeah, I never downloaded, or installed the Dual-Core Optimizer.  I read about it and it seems pretty pointless.  I'll get it and see what the CPU does then.

Weird, theres no difference... It didnt even ask me to restart, I did though and still no difference.  My friend's X2 5200+ has the same pattern on almost every game.  What program would the driver actually make a difference on anyways?


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 5, 2007)

Basard said:


> Yeah, I never downloaded, or installed the Dual-Core Optimizer.  I read about it and it seems pretty pointless.  I'll get it and see what the CPU does then.
> 
> Weird, theres no difference... It didnt even ask me to restart, I did though and still no difference.  My friend's X2 5200+ has the same pattern on almost every game.



Well I mean part of it is that your computer has to run more than just the game.  Like your firewalls, your antiviruses, keeping everything that needs some cpu time happy.  Seeing as that's an old game, I'm guessing it itself doesn't push a core to 100%, and the os moves some things around to the other core.  Now if you really really want to know if its the game doing that, do this limit the game's affinity to one core.  If one core jumps to 100% and the other is quite low, than that's weird imo.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 6, 2007)

Basard said:


> Yeah, I never downloaded, or installed the Dual-Core Optimizer.  I read about it and it seems pretty pointless.  I'll get it and see what the CPU does then.
> 
> Weird, theres no difference... It didnt even ask me to restart, I did though and still no difference.  My friend's X2 5200+ has the same pattern on almost every game.  What program would the driver actually make a difference on anyways?



And you have it showing as a ACPI multiprocessor in Hardware Manager?  And did before dual core optomiser?

Start > settings > control panel > system > Hardware > device manager > computer


----------



## Basard (Nov 6, 2007)

Ok, yeah, my friend's X2 5200+ does the same thing with every game I've seen him play, including diablo.  My firewall is not using 50% cpu useage on my second core, thats for sure, and neither are any of my other background processes.  I've always seen it like that.  I figured it was somewhat weird, because of how dual cpu systems work, but then I just figured thats what they meant by Native Dual and Quad core.

Yes, it is running as an ACPI Multiprocessor PC.  I dont know what to tell you guys, other than to run the same tests on your system, because as far as I know, this is how the cpu is supposed to act.

And by the way, regarding the actual topic here, if you look at the prices for all of the other cpus on the page, they all see pretty HIGH, like the X2 4000+ lists at $76 (in quantities of 1000.) I paid newegg $65 for the same cpu with free shipping.  So maybe this is just a shitty  supplier, and maybe the phenom prices will actually START around 200 from a better supplier.

Btw, how do I limit the affinity to one core?

It seems like you are all running intel cpus in your specs. Does anybody with an Athlon x2 have any input?


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 6, 2007)

what do u need input on? though i dont see how core usage varies between intel or amd...they both have 2 cores their going o act relatively the same imo


----------



## Basard (Nov 6, 2007)

I don't even know.  Maybe core useage does vary between the two, since everyone is saying that mine is weird.  Does Intel's show the same pattern in the same games?  If not why is it different?


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 6, 2007)

idk perhaps its because intel core2's dont have this time stamp problem because they use a diff arch as for my rig in single threaded apps i get both my cores fireing up it happens all the time i just assumed it was windows or the optimizer adjusting for me so i didnt get stuttering etc..


----------



## kwchang007 (Nov 6, 2007)

Basard said:


> Ok, yeah, my friend's X2 5200+ does the same thing with every game I've seen him play, including diablo.  My firewall is not using 50% cpu useage on my second core, thats for sure, and neither are any of my other background processes.  I've always seen it like that.  I figured it was somewhat weird, because of how dual cpu systems work, but then I just figured thats what they meant by Native Dual and Quad core.
> 
> Yes, it is running as an ACPI Multiprocessor PC.  I dont know what to tell you guys, other than to run the same tests on your system, because as far as I know, this is how the cpu is supposed to act.
> 
> ...



Oh no no single background process is going to take up that much....but together maybe...maybe


----------



## Basard (Nov 7, 2007)

Single process, no, together, no.... As I type, CPU usage is at 0%.... Background processes cant be at 50% thats impossible, unless something is horribly wrong.


----------

