# AMD Phenom SuperPi Performance



## malware (Aug 30, 2007)

Let the pictures do the talk:



 



Click here for more information.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## DRDNA (Aug 30, 2007)

WOW thats just awful if true !


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 30, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> WOW thats just awful if true !



Don't worry too much, thats a socket F(1207) not AM2+/3.  It's an old preliminary core not a production release core.  They are just finally allowed to release the info on test they did months ago.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, for one thing, his SuperPI checksum (0FDB2108) doesn't validate... (Try it yourself at http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/)

EDIT:
Nope, I'm a dumbass, never mind.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 30, 2007)

awww mad gay mad mad gay....and how is he using cpu-z 1.41..........we better add that to the dl section....but i just downloaded mine yesterday and on the site its 1.40.5


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 30, 2007)

Really liking all the caches and what not, but not too sure aboute the actual performance.


----------



## jtleon (Aug 30, 2007)

*That better not be real....My Prescott Xeons can do that! (read NETBURST!)*



Namslas90 said:


> Don't worry too much, thats a socket F(1207) not AM2+/3.  It's an old preliminary core not a production release core.  They are just finally allowed to release the info on test they did months ago.



Those are truly ridiculous results - event for an "old preliminary core".  If I saw that several months ago, I would seriously go back to the drawing board.

As far as I know, the Opteron 2XX series can beat those results as well.

Regards,
jtleon


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 30, 2007)

jtleon said:


> Those are truly ridiculous results - event for an "old preliminary core".  If I saw that several months ago, I would seriously go back to the drawing board.
> 
> As far as I know, the Opteron 2XX series can beat those results as well.
> 
> ...



I think Intel posted those images


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 30, 2007)

I was just thinking the same thing lol, they have like a million things running in the background to take up all the CPU time and what not


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Aug 30, 2007)

i'd just wait for the actual chip to be released before making assumptions on it...


----------



## Xtant25 (Aug 30, 2007)

If you want to see more benches on this check here........http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=157136


----------



## Sent1nel (Aug 30, 2007)

Guys don't be so surprised if these benchies are close to Phenom's performance. What i don't get is how a lot of people on this forum where quick to jump and say how much potential of truth theInq's benchmarks could have, but when it comes to showing poor performance there is a lot of opposite talk.
These results are a lot more solid than that of theinquirer and yet still its called false. I don't believe them myself as the performance is too low for any company to call that product competitive on todays market. But really there is lots of doudt on AMD just now and for good reason. If you had a killer product, it would be advertised like no tomorrow, despite production availability etc, as it would keep share holders happy. So for sure there is somthing wrong with this processor release, it might not be performance problems but i get the feeling this will have been a rushed product, much like ATI's latest R600.


----------



## Dark_Webster (Aug 30, 2007)

I don't know if this can compare with the Phenom but check out my super pi result on 1M:
http://darkwebster.no.sapo.pt/piresult.JPG

It is soooo close to the Phenom


----------



## jtleon (Aug 30, 2007)

*Hmmmm....Perhaps AMD is using REVERSE Phsycology here....*



Sent1nel said:


> Guys don't be so surprised if these benchies are close to Phenom's performance.... So for sure there is something wrong with this processor release, it might not be performance problems but i get the feeling this will have been a rushed product, much like ATI's latest R600.



Perhaps now we know why AMD is promoting the LWP software fix to allow more cores to contribute to low thread count software (aka SuperPI).

However, from a product differentiation perspective, AMD is certainly unique such that new CPU's are slower than current product.  This should bring new life into the older, obsolete AMD products.....lol.

Regards,
jtleon

P.S.  What if these results are achieved when this processor only draws 10W of power????  Would they suck then???


----------



## OnBoard (Aug 30, 2007)

I like that score, makes my computer look like a monster, when it does same 1M in half the time  (hope more FSB give way better results, or superpi doesn't utilize all cores)


----------



## von kain (Aug 30, 2007)

dark webster 
1 u have same windows updates
2 uninstall the speed touch tools.


as for the cpu i think they are fake for a couple of reasons   cpu 1.41 version,sse4a,windows 2003??


----------



## infrared (Aug 30, 2007)

IMO that's not too bad for a *stock* result on a *preliminary* processor, and the guy who took those screenshots (Coolaler) is more than up to the job of benchmarking the new cpu. So all of you that said it's propaganda from intel have no idea what you're on about.

I don't want to see anymore of these fanboy comments.


----------



## mandelore (Aug 30, 2007)

lol... cmon, how can it be so slow? thats just stupid... put it this way, how can an AMD dual core get a better score? i think somethings not right here.

did they overclock the processor at all? coz 2ghz vs 3ghz + is ALOT of difference


----------



## mandelore (Aug 30, 2007)

why does cpuz state opteron?

btw, has any1 got any values for intels quads at similar speeds on similar setups?


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 30, 2007)

jtleon said:


> P.S.  What if these results are achieved when this processor only draws 10W of power????  Would they suck then???



Good point.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 30, 2007)

My E2160@*1.8GHz* does it faster than that...come on AMD!


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 30, 2007)

mandelore said:


> why does cpuz state opteron?



Exactly!


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 30, 2007)

mandelore said:


> why does cpuz state opteron?



Because CPU-Z is often wrong when dealing with pre-release processors.


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 30, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> Because CPU-Z is often wrong when dealing with pre-release processors.



True, but look at the version he says he is using in that screenie!!??


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 30, 2007)

Namslas90 said:


> True, but look at the version he says he is using in that screenie!!??



So, what does the fact that he is using the latest version have to do with anything?


----------



## malware (Aug 30, 2007)

Namslas90 said:


> True, but look at the version he says he is using in that screenie!!??


Yes, what about it? You can also download this version: http://www.cpuid.com/beta/cpuz.zip
That doesn't help much?


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 30, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> So, what does the fact that he is using the latest version have to do with anything?



Well, it's easy to assume it would include support for the Phenons, but then again may not.
@ Malware...thanks for the link.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 30, 2007)

this is hilarious if true!


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 30, 2007)

Namslas90 said:


> Well, it's easy to assume it would include support for the Phenons, but then again may not.
> @ Malware...thanks for the link.



Why is it easy to assume it would fully support Phenons?  It at leasts detects the core and clock frequencies, I say that is pretty good considering it is a processor that is only available to a select few people currently, and chances are the developer of CPU-z hasn't even seen the processor.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Aug 30, 2007)

Shaving 4s off superpi... at 2ghz isn't too bad.

Considering the A64 doesn't begin to speed up until about 2400-2500mhz....

Its amazing how things scale when they get clocked higher 



newtekie1 said:


> Why is it easy to assume it would support Phenons?  It at leasts detects the core and clock frequencies, I say that is pretty good considering it is a processor that is only available to a select few people currently, and chances are the developer of CPU-z hasn't even seen the processor.



seriously people, it sees it as phenom with a logo.

No shit it has phenom support. They just photoshopped the logo in?

You people are the most skeptical bunch I have ever seen in my life.

Chances are if it DIDNT have phenom support, the benchmarker in question would have been working with the guy that made it.

Seeing as he hangs out around XS and directly helps with cpu-z bugs and all.


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 30, 2007)

Random Murderer said:


> this is hilarious if true!



Yeah, this realy is fun...


----------



## mandelore (Aug 30, 2007)

Namslas90 said:


> Yeah, this realy is fun...



lol, well prepare to be bitch spanked when the phenom gets released, Ill wager


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 30, 2007)

mandelore said:


> lol, well prepare to be bitch spanked when the phenom gets released, Ill wager



OK, so what are you saying, the phenom is better than the benchies listed or the same(worse).

I'm betting better.


----------



## niko084 (Aug 30, 2007)

Although it may scale well when clocked.....

In the real big picture that makes the chip pretty much useless to most people.
And completely useless to business server environment.

But I wont get all in a fuss and think the chip sucks because of a sample release that was tested with who knows what other equipment. I'll wait until the full release of the chip and see what kinda numbers people are posting, if they don't look great I wont sell them or buy them.


----------



## erocker (Aug 30, 2007)

I love it how people base thier opinions on a craptacular early engineering sample.  Isn't Coolaler an Intel robot anyways?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 30, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> seriously people, it sees it as phenom with a logo.
> 
> No shit it has phenom support. They just photoshopped the logo in?
> 
> ...



Yes I know that, I meant to say "fully support".  Obviously some support is there, but some information is going to be screwy until they have some more time to work out the kinks.


----------



## Namslas90 (Aug 30, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes I know that, I meant to say "fully support".  Obviously some support is there, but some information is going to be screwy until they have some more time to work out the kinks.



Um...You did...



newtekie1 said:


> Why is it easy to assume it would fully support Phenons?  It at leasts detects the core and clock frequencies, I say that is pretty good considering it is a processor that is only available to a select few people currently, and chances are the developer of CPU-z hasn't even seen the processor.


----------



## theonetruewill (Aug 30, 2007)

erocker said:


> I love it how people base thier opinions on a craptacular early engineering sample.



Bare in mind that after crap early benches for the HD 2900XT we all got it handed to us the way it had been shown. It did not live up to hopefuls fans' expectations. I;m not saying these results are true- but I'm worried.


----------



## niko084 (Aug 30, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> Bare in mind that after crap early benches for the HD 2900XT we all got it handed to us the way it had been shown. It did not live up to hopefuls fans' expectations. I;m not saying these results are true- but I'm worried.



Unlike our video cards, which are being fixed by drivers very quickly, processors are not as easily fixed by drivers....

But give it some time people, early stage work is exactly that, not a finished project.
Lets see where this goes and how it progresses.


----------



## laszlo (Aug 30, 2007)

remember that big scores and all the fake scores before the 2900xt release;how good is & how better than  8800GTX is? i see the same pattern with Phenom now; let's hope i'm wrong but if not sorry AMD my next rig will be a core2; i'll buy considering performance 1st from now on;i can afford to throw money just for support you!

that post about the power leakeage caused by the transition to 65nm posted a while ago has some truth also;they have compressed to much on die !


----------



## theonetruewill (Aug 30, 2007)

laszlo said:


> remember that big scores and all the fake scores before the 2900xt release;how good is & how better than  8800GTX is?



Most were to the contrary- and thats basically how it turned out; disappointing.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 30, 2007)

Namslas90 said:


> Um...You did...



I editted the post after my mistake was pointed out.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 30, 2007)

interesting little quote from movieman on the extremesystems forum,it was him who seems to have done some testing on this amd chip.

movieman-
"I have been saying for the last 8 months that these clovers are the damnest things I've ever seen. I can load all 8 cores at 100% and it still doesn't slow down. nn_step can tell you, I run the 2 of these machines at 3157/8mb/1402 at 100% load 24/7 doing DC work..Thats nonstop 100% load except for a few benches and updates since last December..In March this machine had a 99.8% uptime, I remember that figure. I'd done 4 reboots for updates..Thats it..Yea, I could go to work selling these for Intel they are so good."

reading through it,he seems genuinly dissapointed with the performance of this chip.


----------



## Exceededgoku (Aug 30, 2007)

erocker said:


> I love it how people base thier opinions on a craptacular early engineering sample.  Isn't Coolaler an Intel robot anyways?



Uh no... Coolaler is exactly the opposite and just posts what he gets, I trust his leaked scores more than I trust benchmarks after the release of products. Him and all XIPs are really honest people within the benchmarking community and the fact that they live near all the tech helps them to "acquire" it early. But I get your point, the fact that its an early engineering sample has a huge effect. Also multiple core CPUs are worst at superpi, I remember also that Intel did a load of tweaking to get high superpi scores.. Infact I think their whole architecture is based on it.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 30, 2007)

and remember though it doesnt count for raw preformance....maybe theyll come out w/ a quad opti. i mean the dual core opti. did alot for my rig woot sync time stamps ftw!!


----------



## Dehx (Aug 30, 2007)

I like how these images emerge THE DAY AFTER The Inquirer says the phenom is bitchin with 30k + 3dmark06.


----------



## mandelore (Aug 30, 2007)

Dehx said:


> I like how these images emerge THE DAY AFTER The Inquirer says the phenom is bitchin with 30k + 3dmark06.



that was with a 3ghz phenom, this is a 2ghz barcelona


----------



## DRDNA (Aug 30, 2007)

I guess we will have to just wait and see after they do official release...But looks like I am almost certainly going to a Intel quad on my upgrade...I am switching sides ...I have never had a decent Intel rig ..actually I have only had one Intel chip ever and it was a lame HP laptop with like a 1.2 or 1.4 GHZ chip in it(hated that lappy)all my other rigs have been AMD...It may be a refreshing change


----------



## jtleon (Aug 30, 2007)

*Clock for Clock, this sample drags behind Core Duo T2500*



mandelore said:


> that was with a 3ghz phenom, this is a 2ghz barcelona



My notebook T2500 Core Duo @ 2Ghz kicks out 1M SuperpiMOD1.5 at 30.75s at fsb166.

Now I'm sure if we all think back in history just a few short years ago, we can remember what happened when Intel introduced the first NetBurst chips vs. the pentium III chips at the time.

Of course at that time, AMD was kicking Intel's but with the Athlons/Opterons - AMD owned the server market, putting the Xeons to shame.

Now it appears that AMD may be walking down "netburst" avenue just like "almighty" Intel did not so long ago.

Unfortunately, AMD's pockets may be too shallow to recover - This is a truly worriesome condition.  The last thing we need is no competition for Intel.  On the other hand why don't we all visit:

http://www.tilera.com

and see who the true power house of the future will be.....hmmmmm.....are they on NASDAQ yet??

Regards,
jtleon


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 30, 2007)

i hate amd fanbois


----------



## hat (Aug 30, 2007)

My dual core Athlon did better at stock settings (2600MHz).


----------



## DRDNA (Aug 30, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> i hate amd fanbois


Hate is  an awfully  Strong  word  for being a  fan  of  something ,try having  compassion  for  us lower performing  brothers


----------



## theonetruewill (Aug 30, 2007)

jtleon said:


> My notebook T2500 Core Duo @ 2Ghz kicks out 1M SuperpiMOD1.5 at 30.75s at fsb166.
> 
> Now I'm sure if we all think back in history just a few short years ago, we can remember what happened when Intel introduced the first NetBurst chips vs. the pentium III chips at the time.
> 
> ...


More worryingly, clock for clock this dwindles behind my aging Pentium M @1.86Ghz; let alone when overclocked to 2.2Ghz:shadedshu However as said the checksum doesn't work.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 30, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> Hate is  an awfully  Strong  word  for being a  fan  of  something ,try having  compassion  for  us lower performing  brothers



loathe?


----------



## niko084 (Aug 31, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> loathe?



Same thing....

I find fan boys annoying all together, especially when they are customers and they throw a fit because I told them to get a 8800gts 640mb over a 1950pro for elite gaming 6 months ago and they didn't listen....

Now they say its "MY" fault their video is slower than they wanted....

Yes because I control ATI.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Aug 31, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> More worryingly, clock for clock this dwindles behind my aging Pentium M @1.86Ghz; let alone when overclocked to 2.2Ghz:shadedshu However as said the checksum doesn't work.



*Sub 2Ghz the A64 has always performed VERY sub par.*

Breaking 2.5Ghz, the A64 starts to scale much more effeciently.

Performance is not linear.


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 31, 2007)

Ditto, any A64 below 2.5GHz sucks hard. Go to 2.8GHz or faster, and the suckers start to scream.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 31, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> However as said the checksum doesn't work.



yes, yes it does.


----------



## Basard (Aug 31, 2007)

*boycott superpi*

that makes a lot of sense, somehow a dual core 3800+ works faster according to techpowerup's benchmarks.... im sure amd would really spend years making a processor slower than their previous generation.  

if i got my hands on a phenom proc, then ran superpi and got a god awful score like that, i think i would just run a DIFFERENT benchmark and post the results of that as well. if the program doesnt work well with multiple cores then WHY USE IT TO TEST MULTIPLE CORE SYSTEMS?? i dont get it, run a real benchmark...

not even worth the use of grammar.... YAWN


----------



## mas0n (Aug 31, 2007)

for all we know he has the memory clocked at 200MHz with stupid timings. I don't trust a Super Pi result as a reference of true performance without also seeing the memory tab of CPU-Z.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 31, 2007)

mas0n said:


> for all we know he has the memory clocked at 200MHz with stupid timings. I don't trust a Super Pi result as a reference of true performance without also seeing the memory tab of CPU-Z.



obviously you've never heard of coolaler.


----------



## mas0n (Aug 31, 2007)

Random Murderer said:


> obviously you've never heard of coolaler.



Obviously you've never heard of skepticism. I don't care if God herself hands me half-assed results and verification, they are still half-assed.


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 31, 2007)

Err my T7200 at 2 ghz on a 166 mhz fsb gets 27 secs.  I know people have been saying it doesn't scale linearly.....but let's say core 2 does....it's still a big amount of scaling to get it up to core 2 efficiency.  Take a 6000+ to a e6750....no competition.  Another thing is...it's most probable that Phenom won't clock as well as Core 2 because Phenom has a 11 stage pipline vs Core 2's 13 stage pipline.


----------



## hat (Aug 31, 2007)

Reminds me of previous generations Athlons pwning the P4s lol


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Aug 31, 2007)

This is so sad...


----------



## hat (Aug 31, 2007)

On the other hand SuperPI is a single threaded app, you would need something else to measure it's true performance. Core 2 processors are still better though as shown by kwchang.


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 31, 2007)

hat said:


> On the other hand SuperPI is a single threaded app, you would need something else to measure it's true performance. Core 2 processors are still better though as shown by kwchang.



Single threaded...yup.  But from what I understand Core 2 has also beat it in Pov-ray...but I don't believe it's as big of a margin of victory.  The big thing with native quad-core is the reduced latency, not bandwidth.  So it'll be interesting to see how K10 performs, what I'm thinking based on these benchmarks (I'm not included those 3d mark numbers because they just seem outlandish) K10 will lag behind in most areas except for bandwidth and floating point operations, two strongs of K8.  I also predict K10 to rule in the multi socket server sector.  Also....if AMD completely switches to 65 nm.....I believe their price to performance ratio will come close to...if not beat Intel's.  Oh and overclocking....probably will scale to ~3.5 ghz on 65nm.....but these are just my predictions.


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 31, 2007)

Punch for punch I'm going to call stalemate between Intel and AMD, for now.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 31, 2007)

bout what I expected for super pi and all other non multithreaded apps. the strogn point of this cpu isn't going to be single core operation, it's gogin to be multi core operation. (as is already evident with the athlon x2's gaining more performance for the secong core that intel does.) so sure super pi ( a bench made eons ago lol) isn't the best thing to run with the phenoms, so what? it's not like you sit down after work, turn on your comp and run super pi for 3 hours before dinner. lol


----------



## InfDamarvel (Aug 31, 2007)

I wonder why anyone thinks this is real, AMD woudln't release such a slow processor. Its either a flaw in super pi or its a fake. No way it would go back to Pentium D performance.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 31, 2007)

it is only a 2GHz chip. While intels may beat them at current clocks, we dont know what release clocks will be - they could throw them out at 3.4Ghz, the 2GHz one could be a 35W low heat model etc etc.

Yeah, its slow - THIS one is slow. Doesnt mean the other 10 models will be slow too.



InfDamarvel said:


> I wonder why anyone thinks this is real, AMD woudln't release such a slow processor. Its either a flaw in super pi or its a fake. No way it would go back to Pentium D performance.



Pentium D's (prescotts) needed 3.6-4.0Ghz to achieve this speed. Doing that at almost half the clocks is not the 'same speed' - i think the flaw lies within you, not superpi.


----------



## driver66 (Aug 31, 2007)

I love how people call this real http://www.techpowerup.com/?38494



And the same people call this thread fake?  :shadedshu


----------



## Mussels (Aug 31, 2007)

driver66 said:


> I love how people call this real http://www.techpowerup.com/?38494
> 
> 
> 
> And the same people call this thread fake?  :shadedshu



Nevermind that its a different CPU, with a 50% higher clock speed. noooo, the 2Ghz model just isnt cool now. AMD should only release 4Ghz models, cause the AMD fans say so.


----------



## affinity0 (Aug 31, 2007)

Wow, my 2.6 X2 runs superpi 1M in 34s....that cant be right...


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2007)

I don't buy these benches, nor do I buy into 3DMark benches. I'll wait for them to lift the NDA, before I make a judgment.


----------



## driver66 (Aug 31, 2007)

Wile E said:


> I don't buy these benches, nor do I buy into 3DMark benches. I'll wait for them to lift the NDA, before I make a judgment.



Exactly!!!  
Everybody hold off on the speculation and WAIT until some REAL #'s come out  :shadedshu


----------



## WarEagleAU (Aug 31, 2007)

As I stated on the Inq thread, Ill wait for final release before I believe anything let ot.


----------



## laszlo (Aug 31, 2007)

this is a Phenom cpuz real picture i hope;


----------



## gR3iF (Aug 31, 2007)

To give you some information:
The Screenie comes from i Cpu with only one Core a disabled L2 Core and its a pre Testing Cpu from Amd. 

So the Screenie hasnt that much to do with real Performance.


----------



## hat (Aug 31, 2007)

Nah, I don't think it's real.


----------



## gR3iF (Aug 31, 2007)

What my Post? Or the Performance?


----------



## hat (Aug 31, 2007)

The cpu-z pic


----------



## gR3iF (Aug 31, 2007)

Its real...

Coolaler is in some way a prooved ocer.


----------



## hat (Aug 31, 2007)

How can it be real? I says rated FSB... you don't get that with AMD you get that with Intel! That should say HT link... and it should say 1000 not 200

unless since it's retarded cause it's an engineering sample.


----------



## gR3iF (Aug 31, 2007)

Cpu-z missdetecting?^^

Thinked of it?^^


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 31, 2007)

I dont care even if those times are real. The matter of the fact is AMD CPUs have always loved a much higher FSB than a lowly 200MHz. So I say dilligaf.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Aug 31, 2007)




----------



## mandelore (Aug 31, 2007)

anyways, this again, is just a 2ghz cpu, now i think that superpi would be different with the desktop 3.2ghz Phenom quad cpu


----------



## cdawall (Aug 31, 2007)

calm down 






happier now though on side note





my s754 3000+ @2.56ghz and really loose ram timings.....got 42sec @2ghz and good timings


----------



## magibeg (Sep 1, 2007)

Coolaler is actually a very well known character. Although the chip he has is probably an engineering sample i'ld say given the clock speed of the chip everything he is showing us is probably accurate.


----------



## tkpenalty (Sep 1, 2007)

Anyway... there is no point in speculating if people deny the truth constantly. Coolaler is a reknowned ES tester, he tested the DFI 965 DARK WAY before it came out. Anyway, if Super PI is what you only care about, I would honestly GET A LIFE, super pi does not really give an indication of performance if you haven't realized. Synthetic benchmarks are far from the actual truth these days of how hardware peforms. Lets see... 3D Marks doesnt really matter these days due to driver hacks, etc. I would only trust practical benchmarking, like FPS in a game, or the time it takes to encode a video. Thats what you trust.


----------



## Random Murderer (Sep 1, 2007)

the funniest part of this whole thread has to be all you idiots complaining about this so-called phenom. it's NOT a phenom, it's a barcelona. huge difference. phenom is a completely new architecture and its performance is yet to be seen. barcelona is an athlon64 architecture chip that sports "native quad-core," the first chip to be able to say so. both chips are revolutionary and nothing to be gawked at, but while you numb-skulls are going back and forth debating the ratios and in-depth architectures of core2 and phenom, you overlooked the fact that this isn't even a phenom, and kept arguing like children on a playground.
GOOD DAY.


----------



## gR3iF (Sep 1, 2007)

No comment.....

This is simply stupid. Everyone in this Thread says: Lets wait for real numbers and some retail Chips......

So lets do so and dont complain about architektures and chips. Its just too early.


----------



## kwchang007 (Sep 1, 2007)

Random Murderer said:


> the funniest part of this whole thread has to be all you idiots complaining about this so-called phenom. it's NOT a phenom, it's a barcelona. huge difference. phenom is a completely new architecture and its performance is yet to be seen. barcelona is an athlon64 architecture chip that sports "native quad-core," the first chip to be able to say so. both chips are revolutionary and nothing to be gawked at, but while you numb-skulls are going back and forth debating the ratios and in-depth architectures of core2 and phenom, you overlooked the fact that this isn't even a phenom, and kept arguing like children on a playground.
> GOOD DAY.



Actually dude....both Phenom and Barcelona are K10.  Phenom is the dual core version of K10, while Barcelona is the Quad core (I also think the server version, but I'm not to sure about that).  It's like Intel with Conroe and err Kentsfield is it? (the code name for quad core Core 2)


----------



## mandelore (Sep 1, 2007)

no.. phenom x2 and x4, so the phenom comes in dual and quad format


----------



## Dark_Webster (Sep 1, 2007)

Yes but Phenom is the name of the processor, Barcelona is the name of the core. Got it?


----------



## hat (Sep 1, 2007)

Hm, a dual-core Phenom. I would like one!


----------



## Namslas90 (Sep 2, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Actually dude....both Phenom and Barcelona are K10.  Phenom is the dual core version of K10, while Barcelona is the Quad core (I also think the server version, but I'm not to sure about that).  It's like Intel with Conroe and err Kentsfield is it? (the code name for quad core Core 2)



What does both chips being K10(series) have to do with the fact that they are diff chips?


----------

