# Pre-release Tests Conducted on AMD Denreb



## btarunr (Jul 11, 2008)

*Pre-release Tests Conducted on AMD Deneb*

AMD Deneb is the code-name for the 45nm quad-core CPU which AMD plans to release soon. Chinese website ITOCP got their hands on two engineering samples. They used these samples at various clock-speeds set by altering the FSB multiplier and Vcore voltage. These chips were then subjected to rounds of Super Pi 1M benchmark. The results look rather luke-warm compared to what we saw of the Intel Bloomfield chips recently. The Deneb CPUs were supported by an AMD RD790 motherboard and 2 GB of DDR2 800 MHz unganged memory, running at timings of 5-5-5-18. The Phenom X4 Deneb 45nm will feature 6 MB of L3 cache apart from the usual 512 KB L2 caches dedicated to the cores.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## kenkickr (Jul 11, 2008)

Alex, I'll take the 3.4Ghz for $235!! JK.  If I read that right 3.4Ghz @ almost 1.6v!!  Wonder how they are cooling it.  Anyways can't wait to get my grubby hands on one.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 11, 2008)

That looks a bit voltage hungry,my E6750 does 3.6ghz at 1.41v/3.2ghz at 1.35v.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 11, 2008)

my e6400 does 3.2 @ 1.225V


----------



## Judas (Jul 11, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> That looks a bit voltage hungry,my E6750 does 3.6ghz at 1.41v/3.2ghz at 1.35v.



Lol your's is a dual core this is a quad, mind you it does seem quite power hungry


----------



## DOM (Jul 11, 2008)

Judas said:


> Lol your's is a dual core this is a quad, mind you it does seem quite power hungry



look at specs that is alot of volts


----------



## Judas (Jul 11, 2008)

DOM said:


> look at specs that is alot of volts



lol very funny


----------



## Wayward (Jul 11, 2008)

> Pre-release Tests Conducted on AMD Denreb



Denreb?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 11, 2008)

Those super-Pi times are pretty bad, I would be embaressed.


----------



## Basard (Jul 11, 2008)

seems like they could have used a better system setup.... unganged memory, that is not dual channel, right? and crappy timings... 

im not sure if that has much impact on superpi, but it does on everything else...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 11, 2008)

Basard said:


> seems like they could have used a better system setup.... unganged memory, that is not dual channel, right? and crappy timings...
> 
> im not sure if that has much impact on superpi, but it does on everything else...



That is Dual Channel.  And 5-5-5-18 isn't terrible timing for DDR2-800, in fact they are pretty standard timings.


----------



## kenkickr (Jul 11, 2008)

unganged is best used if you are running alot of multi core apps since it will allow the Phenom to use both memory controllers.  Unganged is 64-bit dual channel, ganged is 128-bit dual channel.


----------



## postumus (Jul 11, 2008)

these are really early "results", so let's just wait and see.  also it's pretty pointless to compare a dual core intel vs a quad core+IMC amd in terms of power consumption.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Jul 11, 2008)

I got quite a jolt from looking at all those volts that the CPU needs to run.  Looks like I'll be needing a new PSU.


----------



## jydie (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Those super-Pi times are pretty bad, I would be embaressed.



I thought Super-Pi was not "multi-thread friendly"?  Is there a new version that actually benefits from having more the one core in your CPU?  If not, then Super-Pi is not really a good benchmark for the current multi-core CPU's.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 11, 2008)

wow... poor amd... :shadedshu


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 11, 2008)

jydie said:


> I thought Super-Pi was not "multi-thread friendly"?  Is there a new version that actually benefits from having more the one core in your CPU?  If not, then Super-Pi is not really a good benchmark for the current multi-core CPU's.



It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform.  If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.


----------



## jydie (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform.  If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.



OK... thanks!  That makes sense.  As long as people realize the fact that it is only measuring one of the cores, then I can see it's use for benchmarking.  So, then you should be able to run 4 Super-Pi tests at the same time on a quad-core, and they would finish MUCH faster then running 4 tests on a single core CPU... right?


----------



## Darren (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform.  If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.



I don't see why you are concerned about Super PI results. Who cares about synthetic benchmarks as long as the processor performs in real world tests and is cheaper than the competition. The Q6600 would beat the 9850 BE in Super PI yet would loose in majority real world tests.



btarunr said:


> It's not like synthetic-benchmarks aren't indicative of real-world performance at all.



Whatever. Super PI has no baring on the results one may achieve in a game or in a spreadsheet or any other application one uses on a day to day basis.



phanbuey said:


> ERM.... I would LOVE to see those tests... Here's some that say the exact opposite:
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/735/1/
> 
> 9850 can barely touch the Q6600 (at stock clocks), and only matches it in 2-3 tests. BTW the 9850 gets KILLED in the Excel spreadsheet tests.




The Q6600 and 9850 BE are equivalent processors, my point is that the Q6600 would win in Super PI but a huge margin yet but won't win in other benchmarks (mostly real world) by the same margin, and hence why SuperPI isn't the best indication of performance.



yogurt_21 said:


> damn this is crazy amd needs t lose the phenom ide and move onto something better and totally redesigned. while the performance ios definetly higher than current phenoms super pi's it isn't anywhere near what current or future intel quads.



Again who cares about SuperPI as long as the CPU's perform well in the game your playing, or the application you use and the performance decent and is cheaper than the competition (Intel) that's all that matters not some silly score on some silly program.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 11, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> That looks a bit voltage hungry,my E6750 does 3.6ghz at 1.41v/3.2ghz at 1.35v.



My E8200 does 4gig on 1.3V


----------



## btarunr (Jul 11, 2008)

It's not like synthetic-benchmarks aren't indicative of real-world performance at all.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 11, 2008)

Darren said:


> I don't see why you are concerned about Super PI results. Who cares about synthetic benchmarks as long as the processor performs in real world tests and is cheaper than the competition. The Q6600 would beat the 9850 BE in Super PI yet would loose in majority real world tests.



ERM.... I would LOVE to see those tests... Here's some that say the exact opposite:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/735/1/

9850 can barely touch the Q6600 (at stock clocks), and only matches it in 2-3 tests. BTW the 9850 gets KILLED in the Excel spreadsheet tests by intel dual cores.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 11, 2008)

damn this is crazy amd needs t lose the phenom ide and move onto something better and totally redesigned. while the performance ios definetly higher than current phenoms super pi's it isn't anywhere near what current or future intel quads.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jul 11, 2008)

Awesome...45nm ftw.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 11, 2008)

jydie said:


> OK... thanks!  That makes sense.  As long as people realize the fact that it is only measuring one of the cores, then I can see it's use for benchmarking.  So, then you should be able to run 4 Super-Pi tests at the same time on a quad-core, and they would finish MUCH faster then running 4 tests on a single core CPU... right?



Yes, running 4 SuperPi tests at the same time would finish much quicker on a quad than on a single core.  Also, because of the shared cache, if you ran 4 SuperPi tests at the same time, the times would be slower than if you just run 1.  When you run 1, that single test gets the entire cache on the processor for itself.  When you run 4, they have to share the L3 cache.



Darren said:


> I don't see why you are concerned about Super PI results. Who cares about synthetic benchmarks as long as the processor performs in real world tests and is cheaper than the competition. The Q6600 would beat the 9850 BE in Super PI yet would loose in majority real world tests.



I also would like to see the tests proving the 9850 BE beating the Q6600 in the majority of realworld tests.  Everything I have seen show otherwise.

And superpi is important because it does give an idea of processor performance.  It doesn't give a well-rouned idea, it only shows a single aspect of the processors performance, but it is still important.  It shows how good the processor is at pure number crunching.





Darren said:


> Whatever. Super PI has no baring on the results one may achieve in a game or in a spreadsheet or any other application one uses on a day to day basis.



In the past, SuperPi results have been very good indicators of real world performance.  Can you show me proof otherwise?




Darren said:


> The Q6600 and 9860 BE are equivalent processors, my point is that the Q6600 would win in Super PI but a huge margin yet but won't win in other benchmarks (mostly real world) by the same margin, and hence why SuperPI isn't the best indication of performance.



We are all waiting on these benchmarks to prove this.





Darren said:


> Again who cares about SuperPI as long as the CPU's perform well in the game your playing, or the application you use and the performance decent and is cheaper than the competition (Intel) that's all that matters not some silly score on some silly program.



We care because it gives us an idea about how the processor performs.


----------



## Darknova (Jul 11, 2008)

45nm with 1.6v! That's going to cause a lot of damage even with adequate cooling. Shouldn't really put 1.4v through a 45nm chip.

Mind you, AMD may have come up with some way of reinforcing the chip against those kind of volts, but bloody hell...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 11, 2008)

Darknova said:


> 45nm with 1.6v! That's going to cause a lot of damage even with adequate cooling. Shouldn't really put 1.4v through a 45nm chip.
> 
> Mind you, AMD may have come up with some way of reinforcing the chip against those kind of volts, but bloody hell...



They are only using that much voltage in the extreme overclocked shots, probably just doing it for a benchmark run.  They were only using 1.4v @ 3GHz.


----------



## vojc (Jul 11, 2008)

i can only say......finaly something from AMD, not much but something


----------



## pagalms (Jul 11, 2008)

Sub 20s


----------



## Darknova (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> They are only using that much voltage in the extreme overclocked shots, probably just doing it for a benchmark run.  They were only using 1.4v @ 3GHz.



But even so, if it requires 1.6v to reach what on an intel platform is considering a "mild" OC then AMD are doing something wrong...


----------



## Kei (Jul 11, 2008)

*Think before you post sometimes...*

Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!

If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!

Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with *nothing* turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)

Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz

Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.

On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.

K


----------



## Darren (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> And superpi is important because it does give an idea of processor performance.  It doesn't give a well-rouned idea, it only shows a single aspect of the processors performance, but it is still important.  It shows how good the processor is at pure number crunching.



But who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.



newtekie1 said:


> In the past, SuperPi results have been very good indicators of real world performance.  Can you show me proof otherwise?
> 
> We are all waiting on these benchmarks to prove this.



Well according to the article phanbuey sent earlier, despite most of the benchmarks being synthetical the 9850 BE was still performing equivalently, in some benchmarks better in some worst, in some just trailing behind. If you were to measure the two CPU's using SuperPI  it would show a huge gap between the two CPU's in favour of the Q6600 maybe 10 seconds between? in most tests according to phanbuey's article the performance difference wasn't abnormally different, which completely contradicts the readings Super PI would of gave.



pagalms said:


> Sub 20s


That shut people up. lol


----------



## Kei (Jul 11, 2008)

Oh, and those tests were done with plain jane timings and nothing else was overclocked. Also the ram was very clearly in single channel/unganged mode for these tests (which are not multicore so we know how that affects ganged/unganged). My mouth is watering already to see what they can do when the rest of the system is turned up even a little bit.

K


----------



## vojc (Jul 11, 2008)

Kei said:


> Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!
> 
> If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
> 
> ...



if that is true, than this CPU is not bad at all


----------



## Kei (Jul 11, 2008)

Darren said:


> But who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Darren don't argue with them about number crunching ability...if they were really concerned and wanted the best in number crunching then they wouldn't be cheap @sses and would buy the fastest processor in the first place not the cheap one they heard could be overclocked to be fast. They're simply here to throw dirt and that is all...I don't see any AMD guys over in the new Intel thread doing that, as a matter of fact I remember praising the new Intel processor (the 2.66Ghz one not a fan of the 2.93Ghz model).

I'm done let the kids have their fun...your turn

K


----------



## breakfromyou (Jul 11, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> my e6400 does 3.2 @ 1.225V



my E7200 does 4 GHz @ 1.25v...and your point?

I hope AMD has some headroom for overclocking. The small performance gain is nice, but we still need more if AMD is going to try to compete with Intel.


----------



## Darknova (Jul 11, 2008)

Kei said:


> Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!
> 
> If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
> 
> ...



Yeah, but don't let the Intel fanbois hear ya 

My old Venice 3000 at 2.6Ghz and OC'd RAM did 18 seconds in SuperPi, I was happy with that lol.


----------



## vojc (Jul 11, 2008)

and my phenom does 4.5GHz at 1.225V


----------



## Kei (Jul 11, 2008)

vojc said:


> if that is true, than this CPU is not bad at all



I'm trying to find a shot of my setup with the 1M SuperPi time on the screen but can't find it only the 32M test. Either way I'll put up the SuperPi results (full list) and the lowest I can do 3Ghz at...for relevancy that's FOUR cores running 3Ghz with a stability test to prove it at only 1.232v

Just because a processor comes at a certain speed doesn't mean that's literally what it took for anybody to get that speed. systems differ..my low voltage thread pretty much proves that completely. I can boot 3Ghz as low as 1.20v on all four cores but it takes a small bump to get it stable. Btw, I wish they used a different 790 board I'm not a fan of the MSI FX board at all...the bios doesn't have nearly enough options for the Phenom.

K


----------



## Kei (Jul 11, 2008)

breakfromyou said:


> my E7200 does 4 GHz @ 1.25v...and your point?
> 
> I hope AMD has some headroom for overclocking. The small performance gain is nice, but we still need more if AMD is going to try to compete with Intel.



You've seen a single test and fail to put that into perspective...the Phenoms now are significantly slower than the new models shown here. Those same current Phenoms are competition for Intel today perhaps not the exact speed of some of the Intels but far far far from slow.

Homework assignment for you: Define the word "competition"...then define the word "we"

Forgive me if it seems as thoguh I'm slinging mud at you; just saying choose your words more carefully and check as many facts as you can first. 



Darknova said:


> My old Venice 3000 at 2.6Ghz and OC'd RAM did 18 seconds in SuperPi, I was happy with that lol.



Dayumn! That's really fast! 

Why can't all Intel guys and AMD guys get along like this...in the end we're all computer people.:shadedshu

K


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 11, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> My E8200 does 4gig on 1.3V



My E3110 Xeon (E8400) does 4Ghz at 1.4125V  (24/7 stable)

You got an awesome chip.


----------



## wiak (Jul 11, 2008)

my next will be 45nm deneb


----------



## cdawall (Jul 11, 2008)

hey they just about hit 3.5ghz on SB600 thats not something to insult remember the SB750 boards are supposed to be alot better oc'rs



and just to ask WHEN HAS AMD BEEN GOOD AT sp? what i'm seeing is they are doing alot better clock for clock and th scaling looks very good on these chips


----------



## pagalms (Jul 11, 2008)

My dog does 360° in 1,2s


----------



## Darknova (Jul 11, 2008)

Kei said:


> Dayumn! That's really fast!
> 
> Why can't all Intel guys and AMD guys get along like this...in the end we're all computer people.:shadedshu



Heheh, I'm going back to AMD at some point, probably around Xmas time. I'm not getting stuck with Intel and their constant socket changes.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 11, 2008)

My old AMD BSODs in 34 seconds. 

Intel fanboys......???

To be a fanboy you would buy a sub par product over a better one just because of your brand preference. Thats a fanboy..... an AMD fanboy. Some AMD's are a good price but there quads are not if you like to OC.

Buying a Pentium D over a AMD X2 would be a fanboy thing to do. (when they were in the competition)

I just pointed that out because somebody felt the need to call Intel purchasers, fanboys. :shadedshu

The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's. 

I am glad there are people out there willing to buy AMD processors because if they didn't, we all know Intel would charge us whatever they pleased due to lack of competition. Although I would like to see AMD step it up in the Quad department more than what we have just seen. Mainly because I don't think Intel is really feeling the heat from AMD, despite the high voltages in those benches.


----------



## Kei (Jul 11, 2008)

pagalms said:


> My dog does 360° in 1,2s



 I need to upgrade my dog!

K


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 11, 2008)

although everyone is wanting to speculate on this CPUs performance based on OCs . . .


I think that's rather absurd - what I see here is an AMD CPU that appears that it will perform more on par with some of Intel's quads . . . that right there is enough for many OE companies to start designing systems . . . and if AMD prices it low enough to be pricererformance competitive, for both consumers and OEMs, this CPU definitley comes across as being able to help AMD start getting their foot back through the door.

And this is still just an engineering sample - not a finished product, yet.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 11, 2008)

Kei said:


> I need to upgrade my dog!
> 
> K



Why not OC the dog? Use the 'herbal' method. 


We must be happy that these Denreb parts _are overclocking well_. They took a 2.3 GHz to almost 3.5 GHz alebit unlocked multipler and voltage.


----------



## Darknova (Jul 11, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> My old AMD BSODs in 34 seconds.
> 
> Intel fanboys......???
> 
> ...



A fanboy is someone who feverently believes that they chosen company is better than the others even if the other company has been proven to be better in certain things, or overall.

There are still Intel fanboys who believe that you can't get better than Intel, and in raw performance they aren't half right, but having used Intel for over 18 months now as impressed with the raw performance and incredibly high benches, I'm looking for something more stable that will last me longer (IE no socket changes or being forced to change motherboard to use the latest tech).


----------



## vojc (Jul 11, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> My E3110 Xeon (E8400) does 4Ghz at 1.4125V  (24/7 stable)
> 
> You got an awesome chip.



u all forget something, we talk abaut 4 cores here, not 2 cores, tell me how many q6600 or q9*** can work on 4ghz at 1.25V?  my q6600 need 1.475 for 3.2-3.4GHz


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 11, 2008)

vojc said:


> u all forget something, we talk abaut 4 cores here, not 2 cores, tell me how many q6600 or q9*** can work on 4ghz at 1.25V?  my q6600 need 1.475 for 3.2-3.4GHz



Q6600 is 65nm. Not 45nm.


----------



## Kei (Jul 11, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's.



A Phenom at the same clocks as the dual core AMD chips is significantly faster. I run my Phenom in X2 mode majority of the time as I don't need the power all day and I am VERY much faster than any of the Athlon 64 X2 chips at the same speed. As long as we can get the same clocks the Phenom is much faster...in order to equal the Phenom in speed the Athlons need to be clocked significantly higher, so in a round about way you just complimented the Phenom and we thank you haha.

K


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 11, 2008)

Darknova said:


> A fanboy is someone who feverently believes that they chosen company is better than the others even if the other company has been proven to be better in certain things, or overall.
> 
> There are still Intel fanboys who believe that you can't get better than Intel, and in raw performance they aren't half right, but having used Intel for over 18 months now as impressed with the raw performance and incredibly high benches, I'm looking for something more stable that will last me longer (IE no socket changes or being forced to change motherboard to use the latest tech).



They are behind in game benches..... thats not synthetic... thats real performance.


Pentium D was crap. Early Phenoms were crap. You win some, you lose some. I just find it funny when people dodge the facts.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 11, 2008)

That was the biggest thing I noticed, the oc potential. Its a hell of a lot more than the current phenoms, even their black editions. I also like the 6mb of l3 cache, much needed for them. @45nm this engineering sample is a tad bit higher on volts than Id like, but most AMD chips have higher than normal voltages compared with Intel. This is the first step, I foresee alot more chips with better potential from AMD.

Also, SuperPI was never AMDs strong point. the p4 vs a64 shows that.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 11, 2008)

Kei said:


> A Phenom at the same clocks as the dual core AMD chips is significantly faster. I run my Phenom in X2 mode majority of the time as I don't need the power all day and I am VERY much faster than any of the Athlon 64 X2 chips at the same speed. As long as we can get the same clocks the Phenom is much faster...in order to equal the Phenom in speed the Athlons need to be clocked significantly higher, so in a round about way you just complimented the Phenom and we thank you haha.
> 
> K



So you would pay the price for a quad, and have to compare it to the same companies old tech, to make it look good, rather than compare it to the opposing companies product line?

~Largest run-on sentence in the world^^^^


----------



## rhythmeister (Jul 11, 2008)

Good god that thing is making me want to wait for a release date instead of going Phenom 8750 and ocing in a 780 based mATX board!

Good old AMD, how much would the intel fanbois be paying for their "quad" cores without AMD nipping at their heals and giving us all superb value for money? 

I've got an old 2500 XP-M that takes more than 1.65V to touch 2.3GHz and these new beasts are hitting 3.4GHz with four cores? It's insane I tells ya!


----------



## cdawall (Jul 11, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> They are behind in game benches..... thats not synthetic... thats real performance.
> 
> 
> Pentium D was crap. Early Phenoms were crap. You win some, you lose some. I just find it funny when people dodge the facts.



i have an early phenom i wouldn't call 2.8ghz crap


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 11, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i have an early phenom i wouldn't call 2.8ghz crap



My main reasoning was the errata.

PS You could make whatever processor you picked up clock well. You aren't scared of frying anything. You bought a Celeron just to murder it. That phenom better do what you want it to, or you will decide to murder it and grab another. Its a massacre!


----------



## Paintface (Jul 11, 2008)

Ill be finally upgrading to quadcore when these 45nm phenoms come out.

The performance is more than good 

Most important though remember the prices are of the CPUs you compare it to, along with the cost of the mainboard, both which AMD is usually cheaper then intel comparing the same performance.

I think its wrong to compare the best intel has to the best AMD has but neglecting the price difference, but sadly many look at who has the best performing CPU and than go down the list of what CPU they can actually afford.

Im not a die hard fanboy but i do prefer AMD, i had their CPUs since 1994, they made it even possible for me to afford a PC back then, they always had good price/performance even when they wrecked the competition with their athlon 64s, which cant be said of Intel.
Also even if the fastest AMD is half the speed of the best intel, games dont require quadcores or that kind of performance, so its not an issue for me at all either.

Glad to see they are back on track, ill get it along with a new mobo and a 4870 end of the year.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jul 11, 2008)

Phenoms are solid processors. They are not huge overclockers and we all know that. When they were first released they were the much cheaper quad core option. If your not an overclocker or your a content builder its a good choice. I'm pretty satisfied with mine. Crysis performs much better on it then people give it credit for. With my CrossFired 3870 setup I get 35fps in HIGH at 1680x1050, this is at 2.3GHz. Thats not bad at all. I've seen people with the same GPU setup with a Q6600 at 3.4-3.6GHz get the same fps. So that shows you that the Phenom is not bad in ALL AREA's.


----------



## Darkrealms (Jul 11, 2008)

I really hope AMD has a lot more work planned for these : (  They don't look BAD but they need something impressive at this point.  Decent and price point will only take them so far . . .

Common AMD give us something to look forward to!


_Fanboy note AMD/Nvidia, I want something good to come from AMD_


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 11, 2008)

It's not too bad, it's a reasonable release. It may not out-perform the Intel current 45nm Quad-core, but It'll probabaly have a really attractive prices. And all the current users who have AM2 motherboard still can use this CPU.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 11, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> My main reasoning was the errata.
> 
> PS You could make whatever processor you picked up clock well. You aren't scared of frying anything. You bought a Celeron just to murder it. That phenom better do what you want it to, or you will decide to murder it and grab another. Its a massacre!



meh TLB fix is off and i have yet to have an issue however no idea what you mean i have yet to kill a chip 

i just have no problem cranking volts through things everyone i see is a pansy and gets scared with the smallest increase lol no problem with 2v through my 5000BE if it lets me hit the WR on it


----------



## mamisano (Jul 11, 2008)

This is quite good news, considering how much better the CPUs are supposed to overclock with AMD's upcoming SB750 southbridge. 

Deneb + 790GX + SB750 + HD4700x2 would be a sweet system!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 11, 2008)

Darren said:


> But who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.



A processor doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg to crunch number or to outperform this processor.  A Q6600 is sub-$200 and crunches numbers like crazy.



> Well according to the article phanbuey sent earlier, despite most of the benchmarks being synthetical the 9850 BE was still performing equivalently, in some benchmarks better in some worst, in some just trailing behind. If you were to measure the two CPU's using SuperPI  it would show a huge gap between the two CPU's in favour of the Q6600 maybe 10 seconds between? in most tests according to phanbuey's article the performance difference wasn't abnormally different, which completely contradicts the readings Super PI would of gave.



Where you looking at the same benchmarkes I was?  Most of them were not synthetic, or at least as non-synthetic as a benchark can get.  They were testing real work applications.  Just because they weren't games, doesn't mean they aren't real world.  The world consists of a lot more than games.

ProShow is a real world application, and the Q6600 destroys the 9850.  Sony Vega is a real world application and the Q6600 beats the 9850 again.  Excel is a real world application, and again the Q6600 hands the 9850 it's ass.  Cinebench is a benchmark program based on a real world 3D Modeling app, essentially what a time demo would be to a game, and this is the only real world benchmark the 9850 managed to equal the Q6600 in one of the two tests. POV is another real world app, and the Q6600 beats even the 9950 in one of the tests, and just barely loses to the 9850 in the other.

I agree, that measuring the two with SuperPi doesn't give the whole picture, but it does give part of the picture.  SuperPi cores are no where near the end all and be all of tests, but to a lot of poeple they are important.  Different processors are always going to be better at different things.

Right now, all we have to go on is SuperPi times.  As more details emerge, we will get a better idea of the performance of these processor.  But for right now, all we have to go on are the SuperPi times, and they suck.  Yes, they are better than the previous AMD processors, but saying they are better than the worst* isn't really saying much is it?

*I'm not saying AMD processors are the worst, I'm just saying they have the worst SuperPi times.


----------



## aGeoM (Jul 11, 2008)

Nice to see some earlier tests on Deneb, it will be my next CPU to replace the B2.

Nice work AMD, now put them out.


----------



## holy_ (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm happy that AMD will release 45 nm Quad  
Hope can get this when I have money


----------



## robodude666 (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Those super-Pi times are pretty bad, I would be embaressed.



Remember a couple of things. SuperPi is hungry for Cache which AMD processors lack in comparison to Intel. The Intel CPUs will always get better SuperPi results regardless of speed.

To get these types of SuperPi results with an Athlon X2 or other processor you'd need to OC to some CRAZY high speeds with LN2. My X2 3800+ @ 3GHz w/ 1000MHz memory was only getting 30s from superpi. So 23s at 3GHz is a free 7s drop which will mean nicer gaming performance.

The 3rd thing to remember is that SuperPi is not the only benchmark. There are other bunchmarks which are important to take into account. Maybe the new Phenoms are bad at SuperPi but they a ton faster at other important real world tests?

So far I like what I am seeing. Might have to dust off my 790FX-DQ6 later and get one for a test bed.

-robodude666


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform.  If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.



Yes, still they could run 4 instances of superpi at the same time, each in their respective core.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 11, 2008)

Kei said:


> Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!
> 
> If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!
> 
> ...



I agree completely but if you look at it from a slightly different perspective then....well, I will leave you to decide, I had one peach of a single core Athlon 4000+ San Diego chip about 20 months ago and got it to about 3.2gig which at the time I think got me the top AMD superPI score in these forums, thing is, even today, a 2008 AMD chip running superPI at 3.2gig will not post a time greatly faster, why, because the basic architecture, instruction set and to some degree ...efficiency in AMD's chips has not moved forward at any real pace, now if you go back those same months, see what time in superPI a 3gig P4 chip was posting, compare that with a wolfdale at 3gig and their is a VAST difference because Intel has made HUGE leaps in technology, architecture and efficiency.

Dont get me wrong, I am not a fan of artificial benchmarks and I am a fan of AMD and always will be, I was brought up on them, where superPI does work though.....is in identifying those performance hike's by making realistic comparisons between architectural changes.


----------



## vojc (Jul 11, 2008)

hmmmm....well intel did two steps backwards on  c2d CPUs (FSB )
so that why pentium 3 was faster than P4 on same clock C2D is mor like P3 in general, ok they have sse3,4......


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 11, 2008)

wtf did I just get lumped in as an intel fanboy? wow, that's a stretch. just because my system has an intel cpu doens't mean i wouldn't jump back over to amd at the first sign of good performance. the problem is that no phenom out now or about ot be relerased can best my current cpu. so I keep the intel. 

it's funny that the term fanboy has been thrown about so easily because my last intel before this one (in my primary rig) was a pentium 2 since then it's been nothing but amd's till the q6700. I went from pentium 2 to a  duron 600, to an athlon t-bird 950MHZ, to a 1.4GHZ athlon t-bird, to an athlon xp 2000, to an athlon xp 2500 barton, to an athlon xp 2600m, to an athlon 64 3500 newcastle, to a 4000 sandiego, to an fx-62. then finally the q6700. 


I've followed amd in both good times and bad and this has to be the longest period I've seen them not be competitive. the k-6's flopped but they resurrected themselves one year later with the Athlon, the most successful period in amd's history. (yes revenue and stocks were higher than the athlon 64 empire) the athlon 64x2's became dated and amd decided to launch the phenom, now more than 2 years later and still no competitve cpu. 

fanboyism is one thing, but seriously I need some proof that amd is doing more than just play around and highlight ati. I need the k7 day amd back. ability to offer a product cheap that beats intel in gaming but loses in multimedia. (as with modern gpu's, lack of multimedia performance can be offloaded by the gpu) 

I'm not saying I'm taking this as the definitive performance os the new phenoms, I'm just saying that I think amd needs to move on past the phenoms and make something better, the k6's were set for a 2 year run, amd cut that off and intro'd the k7 early to stay competitive. they need to do the same here.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2008)

Kei said:


> A Phenom at the same clocks as the dual core AMD chips is significantly faster. I run my Phenom in X2 mode majority of the time as I don't need the power all day and I am VERY much faster than any of the Athlon 64 X2 chips at the same speed. As long as we can get the same clocks the Phenom is much faster...in order to equal the Phenom in speed the Athlons need to be clocked significantly higher, so in a round about way you just complimented the Phenom and we thank you haha.
> 
> K



I agree. I'm an owner of both an Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom X4, both systems are 2.2Ghz.
I work in video encoding and even in 2 cores, the Phenom is faster, so worth the upgrade on the cheap. 

TMPGEnc 5000 frames Xvid file (virtual dub as frameserver)
Athlon X2 4200 2.2Ghz:

1 threads...133s
2 threads...71s

Phenom X4 9550 2.2Ghz:

1 threads...108s
2 threads...55s
3 threads...50s
4 threads...50s

Phenom X4 9550 2.2Ghz
2 instances of TMPGEnc (+2 instances of Virtual dub server):

1 threads...207s
2 threads...106s
3 threads...79s
4 threads...59s


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 11, 2008)

Agreed the problem is very simple though if you compare overall designs you end up with something scary and it makes sense.

The AThlon 64 is an Athlon K7 class chip at its heart, it has 64bit interngers and an IMC but at its roots its a K7, but thats not to bad honestly.

Core2 Duo at its heart is actully a pentium Pro, its P6 based design tweaked. 

Now we all say the last major P6 design lost to AMD i correct you, AMD K7 lost to Coppermine in every gaming test or multimedia test, why did they well so well, well because the coppermine launched behind sechudle and topped out at 1ghz as the 1.13 was unstable and by the time the P3 was fixed the P4 was out and the AThlon XP was months away. But P6 was always stronger than K7 thats where Intel got them, AMD has to go back to thinking like they did then, how to undercut intel how to sell say a 3ghz chip for 50% less than intel ect


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 11, 2008)

Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
Socket AM2 was released in 2006.

So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.

Back on topic, this is what I want to see from AMD. I'm not expecting them to take the performance crown anytime soon, but if they can bring much improved performance to the table and continue to undercut Intel's prices, they should see good adoption of the Denebs.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 11, 2008)

One positive I can tell you from Intel regaining the performance crown a year and a half ago, AMD no longer is really selling mainstream CPUs at $1000. I am so grateful for that. I couldnt afford to build or piece together a pc a few years back with the price wars going on. Hell at least a decent system at that. However, Today, I have affordability and some top notch AMD procs to choose from. Or I can go dark side and get a nice Intel monster. That I am thankful for.

I dont need AMD to be King Dingaling in the procs. I need them to be competitive and offer price/performance. If you ask me, I believe they have done that. I dont need the fastest, hell most of the world dont need the fastest. If you need AMD to make a proc to kill an intel proc, you seriously have issues. If you are happy with what you got, terrific I applaud you. Im going to stay in AMD and I plan to move to either a 9850 BE or a 9950 (or one of these 45nm Quads when they are released if priced right).


----------



## Oliverda (Jul 11, 2008)

Assimilator said:


> Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
> Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
> 
> So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
> ...



OK, let's try to put a C2D CPU into a Socket 775 board which made between 2004 and 2006. It won't work thanks to Intel's "customer friendly" marketing strategy.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Jul 11, 2008)

Folks,

Let's try to keep things in perspective.

K8 and K10 (and apparently K10.5) don't do particularly well in SuperPi, when compared to Conroe/Kentsfield or Wolfdale/Yorkfield.  This is perhaps the worst possible way to compare the Green and Blue teams.

For example, it only takes a Wolfdale/Yorkfield operating at 2.40 GHz to achieve 1M SuperPi in approximately 20 seconds and it takes a Deneb @ 3.44 GHz to achieve the same time.  A Deneb @ 3.44 GHz would decimate a Wolfdale/Yorkfield @ 2.40 GHz in virtually every single benchmark or application (other than SuperPi).  In my estimation, that is why these SuperPi times were allowed to be leaked… because it doesn’t truly reveal the performance potential in just about every other scenario.

Here's another tidbit to consider.  At 3.00 GHz Current Agena (65nm) Phenoms achieve 1M SuperPi in 27.531 sec and the new Deneb (45nm) Phenoms in 23.547.  That's a 14.4% increase in single-thread performance, at the same clock.  This will erase and overcome the (approximately 8%) clock-for-clock advantage Yorkfield currently has over Agena.

In other words, clock-for-clock, these Denebs are likely to be as fast as or faster than Yorkfields in most scenarios (outside of SuperPi).

This demonstrates how Bloomfield and derivatives are an absolute must for Intel, rather than a technological luxury.


----------



## Gallatin (Jul 11, 2008)

Oliverda said:


> OK, let's try to put a C2D CPU into a Socket 775 board which made between 2004 and 2006. It won't work thanks to Intel's "customer friendly" marketing strategy.


i was using a nforce 4 sli intel edition with a C2D E6400


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 11, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> It is a guage on how a single one of those cores performs, which we can then use to get an idea on how all 4 will perform.  If 1 core performs like crap, adding 3 more crappy performing cores just gives you a quad-core processor that performs like crap compared to other quad-core processors.



It doesn't help that the NB and L3 is running at low speeds, just like the shitty, current quads.

If the NB would be jacked up and the L3 ran like cache is supposed to be (full core speed), then superpi time would be fast. Idk wtf their problem is. It's a simple solution and it's not like it can't be done easily.


----------



## DOM (Jul 11, 2008)

Oliverda said:


> OK, let's try to put a C2D CPU into a Socket 775 board which made between 2004 and 2006. It won't work thanks to Intel's "customer friendly" marketing strategy.



Im running a 45nm Q in my 2006 mobo  ASUS


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 11, 2008)

ohhhh man, I can't wait till they come out.  They should be really good, my two cents.


----------



## Darknova (Jul 11, 2008)

Assimilator said:


> Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
> Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
> 
> So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.



Whine. Whine. Bitch. Bitch. I'm running Intel because it outperforms AMD by miles, and I'll freely admit that. I'm running Intel because I want the best. If I am such a fanboy as you say I'd still be running AMD and claiming it's better than Intel.

775 may have been out for 4 odd years, but can you go out and put a brand spanking new 775 chip in a board from the early days of 775? No.
Can you put the latest AM2 chip in an AM2 board from the early days? Yes, sometimes via BIOS update.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 12, 2008)

no dark you can not, a Phenom will not work on early AM2 boards, it only sees 3 cores i tired it on my ECS Nforce4 board and got it from a few others. Quads are not supported on sevral early chipsets. Nforce4, Exrepess 200, Express 3200, and K8T890 and K8T800


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> no dark you can not, a Phenom will not work on early AM2 boards, it only sees 3 cores i tired it on my ECS Nforce4 board and got it from a few others. Quads are not supported on sevral early chipsets. Nforce4, Exrepess 200, Express 3200, and K8T890 and K8T800



not true support for quads is determined by the manuf they can choose to update the BIOS or not xpress 3200 does support quads as does nforce4 look just cause your cheap ECS choose not to offer support doesn't mean its not supported by others


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 12, 2008)

Darknova said:


> 775 may have been out for 4 odd years, but can you go out and put a brand spanking new 775 chip in a board from the early days of 775? No.
> Can you put the latest AM2 chip in an AM2 board from the early days? Yes, sometimes via BIOS update.



That is true, you can't put a brand new processor in a 775 board from 4 years ago.

However, you can put one in a board from 2006, which is the same time AM2 was released.


cdawall said:


> not true support for quads is determined by the manuf they can choose to update the BIOS or not xpress 3200 does support quads as does nforce4 look just cause your cheap ECS choose not to offer support doesn't mean its not supported by others



Exactly, a lot of the CPU support issues has to do with the manufacture of the board.  There is no universal truth.  New AM2 processors will not work in all AM2 motherboards.  Just like not all 775 processors from 2006 will support the latest Processors.  However, my P5B that I bought mid-2006 still supports the latest quad-core processors.  So the current 775 socket has been around for pretty much just as long as AM2.


----------



## Amdguy (Jul 12, 2008)

Assimilator said:


> Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
> Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
> 
> So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
> ...



Well my name is amdguy, but i'm running intel not only because it is currently faster but because i got a good deal. 

But now that we've gotten over my name, you have to admit that even though intel has not changed their socket in a while, every time they do a little revision you need to buy a good motherboard to run their "latest cpu's" even though it is socket compatible, call it what you will but i think that's reality, Amd has given people are better  upgrade path.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 12, 2008)

I think this may have a hard time really earning price/performance honestly. $230 right? I guess we'll have to see, I would imagine around that time intel will release the q9650, drop the price of the q9550 to $299 and the q9450 to $230 or so, which will beat this pretty handily. Still nice upgrade for the amd users, big jump in superpi.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2008)

idk about you guys but i'm grabbing a AM3 BE/FX CPU, AM2+ board, and a 4870 Graphics card


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 12, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> idk about you guys but i'm grabbing a AM3 BE/FX CPU, AM2+ board, and a 4870 Graphics card



When's AM3 being released? Is it confirmed to work w/ AM2+?



Amdguy said:


> Well my name is amdguy, but i'm running intel not only because it is currently faster but because i got a good deal.
> 
> But now that we've gotten over my name, you have to admit that even though intel has not changed their socket in a while, every time they do a little revision you need to buy a good motherboard to run their "latest cpu's" even though it is socket compatible, call it what you will but i think that's reality, Amd has given people are better  upgrade path.



I don't know if that's necessarily intel's doing. The p35s have been around for a while, they just have needed bios updates and revisions to run the 45nm's. AMD has released new chipsets to do the latest and greatest better too, it's just improvement. I like amd's approach to multi-card gaming much better though, as they require much less cash, which is already going to have to go to buying multiple cards.


----------



## suraswami (Jul 12, 2008)

ha ha another Green vs Blue fight thread,  nothing really constructive.

Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70.  Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally.  4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron.  That is called best bang for buck.  Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 12, 2008)

suraswami said:


> ha ha another Green vs Blue fight thread,  nothing really constructive.
> 
> Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70.  Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally.  4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron.  That is called best bang for buck.  Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)



That's a silly argument, I won't take the time to counter it, just think a little more. Is amd green, I've thought of them as red for some reason........


----------



## suraswami (Jul 12, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> That's a silly argument, I won't take the time to counter it, just think a little more. Is amd green, I've thought of them as red for some reason........



Thats very true.  They have be owned by Red now a days.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 12, 2008)

suraswami said:


> Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70.  Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally.  4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron.  That is called best bang for buck.  Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)



Meh, tiger runs XFX 610i boards with E1200 combos all the time for right around the same price.  And unlike the ECS POS, the XFX 610i can actually overclock the CPU with some decent voltage controls, and has a lifetime warranty.



Amdguy said:


> Well my name is amdguy, but i'm running intel not only because it is currently faster but because i got a good deal.
> 
> But now that we've gotten over my name, you have to admit that even though intel has not changed their socket in a while, every time they do a little revision you need to buy a good motherboard to run their "latest cpu's" even though it is socket compatible, call it what you will but i think that's reality, Amd has given people are better  upgrade path.



No, you don't have to buy a good motherboard every time they do a little revision.  My P5B was bought in 2006, and it was no where near the high end when I bought it, I think I got it for under $150 at the time, and it support everything up through the 45nm quads.

The only major change to the socket was done when the Pentium Ds were released.  Most boards after that should support all the processors through the 45nm processors as long as the chipset supported it, and


----------



## From_Nowhere (Jul 12, 2008)

These seem to be good processors, especially if they are introduced at the same price as the current Phenoms.

Hopefully there will also be a higher end Phenom FX's with this generation. With a full speed HT Link (3.2GHz Core, 2.6GHz HT). Wouldn't make it a top of the line CPU (Intel Nehalem will be faster), but at ~$300 it would be hard to beat for that price.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 12, 2008)

Wayward said:


> Denreb?



Another word for "Drab"? Denreb, the drab CPU!  although, I dont think 20s @ 3.4GHz is too bad, assuming 3.4GHz is going to be the norm OC for them.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> So you would pay the price for a quad, and have to compare it to the same companies old tech, to make it look good, rather than compare it to the opposing companies product line?
> 
> ~Largest run-on sentence in the world^^^^



Well...perhaps read the rest of the two posts by myself and the other guy. He stated that the Dual Core processors from AMD are still very good (they are) so I also stated that the Phenom on 2 cores is significantly faster than those Dual cores which would mean that you should notice the Phenom is also good.

Now then...before making dumb comments like that read the rest not just a single line. And what exactly do you compare the new Intel processors to...newer ones? No you compare it to older ones.:shadedshu

While we're at it...define "crap" when it comes to performance. Because something is not faster than something else does that make it crap? What do you drive because with that statement I'll have to consider it crap. Just because something MAY not be as quick doesn't make it crap, it's just slower. Last time I checked all of these processors from both camps are very very fast just maybe not as fast as you want them, but I guess if that was true you made sure you bought the fastest thing out there...oh wait nevermind.

Speed is a very relative term people should get used to it.

Have you ever got mad because you had to sit and wait for 3 seconds longer for a program to load or lost 7-10 fps in a game when running at 75fps ...prolly not

K

Btw, that was a really long run on sentence though


----------



## theonetruewill (Jul 12, 2008)

suraswami said:


> ha ha another Green vs Blue fight thread,  nothing really constructive.
> 
> Whatever people say fast slow dumb etc, can't beat a Local Frys sale of ECS + X2 4800 for $70.  Thats what a stupid celeron + ecs mobo go normally.  4800 can do lots and lots of work way better than that celeron.  That is called best bang for buck.  Who cares if you walk around in the street naked with your stupid intel performance crown (because you don't have money to buy other necessary things)





farlex85 said:


> That's a silly argument, I won't take the time to counter it, just think a little more. Is amd green, I've thought of them as red for some reason........


I don't think that's a stupid argument. I think it's not bad actually- not 100% bulletproof but he's got a point.
Poeple may be able to get similar performance from Intel once you overclock the shit out of it- but not everyone sees the point in taking a gamble with overclocking whether it be with frying your kit or you simply got a bad chip. Overclocking is for enthusiasts not the common market. For god's sake I don't get this idea that tech enthusiasts are always promoting to everyone and their grandmother, 'just overclock it.' What a fucking stupid thing to say. Yeah void the warranty, and potentially break the hardware for a performance gain that WILL reduce the life of the chip no matter what you do. A 4800 is more than enough for most people- 90% won't be able to notice the difference between an AMD 4800+ X2 and an E8500 in realword applications unless they actually time how fast things take. We notice because we really care about it and want the best out of our machines. Using arrogant tech enthusiasts' logic is similar to Max power magazine's readers telling everyone they know to pimp out their cars to get max performance and huge exhausts from a car they use to take their kids to school. Think about whats a stupid argument before you apply your bigoted comments.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> It doesn't help that the NB and L3 is running at low speeds, just like the shitty, current quads.
> 
> If the NB would be jacked up and the L3 ran like cache is supposed to be (full core speed), then superpi time would be fast. Idk wtf their problem is. It's a simple solution and it's not like it can't be done easily.



Ummm...you must be following on a handful (if that) of the Phenoms that are out now because my 3.1Ghz Phenom is faster than your 3.3Ghz 6000+ in nearly every single test you can make up even if I'm running on only two cores. And yes I've done the testing using only two of my four cores, read my thread you'll see the difference. Even people with 3.5-3.6Ghz 6400+ systems realize that if the current Phenom was clocked at 3.2Ghz regularly it would beat the 6400+ in every single test very significantly. If your 6000+ and my Phenom were at the exact same clock (regardless of the clock) I'd leave you for dead.

No offense, but you definately didn't do your research when you made the claim "shitty current quads". And what do you consider low speeds for the Northbridge, yes 1.8Ghz isn't the fastest of all the Phenoms (which makes this even better for the results) but that doesn't make it slow. Also remember on a Phenom we can just turn our speeds up because we have control of all the cpu parameters unlike the Athlon lineup (and yes I've owned those too).

No offense to anyone in this thread but there is only a handful of responses that should even still be listed here as legit responses to the thread, the rest should be deleted or the thread should be locked because it seems as though 90% of the people posting here are only here to throw dirt as opposed to make legit comments useful to anyone.

K


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

theonetruewill said:


> *Poeple may be able to get similar performance from Intel once you overclock the shit out of it- but not everyone sees the point in taking a gamble with overclocking whether it be with frying your kit or you simply got a bad chip. Overclocking is for enthusiasts not the common market. For god's sake I don't get this idea that tech enthusiasts are always promoting to everyone and their grandmother, 'just overclock it.' What a fucking stupid thing to say. Yeah void the warranty, and potentially break the hardware for a performance gain that WILL reduce the life of the chip no matter what you do. A 4800 is more than enough for most people- 90% won't be able to notice the difference between an AMD 4800+ X2 and an E8500 in realword applications unless they actually time how fast things take. We notice because we really care about it and want the best out of our machines. Using arrogant tech enthusiasts' logic is similar to Max power magazine's readers telling everyone they know to pimp out their cars to get max performance and huge exhausts from a car they use to take their kids to school. Think about whats a stupid argument before you apply your bigoted comments.*



I think this is officially the best post in the entire thread and my point exactly...thank you for this. Sadly it'll prolly fall on deaf ears and someone will be throwing mud at you as soon as they're uber fast (wish I had money for the best) machine will load the page up which is exactly .0000413429 seconds faster than an equivalent AMD processor.

K


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 12, 2008)

Kei said:


> I think this is officially the best post in the entire thread and my point exactly...thank you for this. Sadly it'll prolly fall on deaf ears and someone will be throwing mud at you as soon as they're uber fast (wish I had money for the best) machine will load the page up which is exactly .0000413429 seconds faster than an equivalent AMD processor.
> 
> K



x2 man.


Hey Marcos (AMDGUY), can you chime in here an explain to them what you told me about the intels and their cache etc etc.  I forgot exactly what it was that you told me.  Then we can see what other people think about that.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 12, 2008)

your welcome Kei.

My buddy told me something interesting about intel, which helps them get such great scores on Super Pi.  Of course not bashing intel, their cpu's are fast regardless, but maybe can prove a point that nobody sees!!!  However he can still be wrong hehe.


----------



## Scrizz (Jul 12, 2008)

my cheap($50) 945g chipset mobo can run Wolfdales aswell...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

Kei said:


> Ummm...you must be following on a handful (if that) of the Phenoms that are out now because my 3.1Ghz Phenom is faster than your 3.3Ghz 6000+ in nearly every single test you can make up even if I'm running on only two cores. And yes I've done the testing using only two of my four cores, read my thread you'll see the difference. Even people with 3.5-3.6Ghz 6400+ systems realize that if the current Phenom was clocked at 3.2Ghz regularly it would beat the 6400+ in every single test very significantly. If your 6000+ and my Phenom were at the exact same clock (regardless of the clock) I'd leave you for dead.
> 
> No offense, but you definately didn't do your research when you made the claim "shitty current quads". And what do you consider low speeds for the Northbridge, yes 1.8Ghz isn't the fastest of all the Phenoms (which makes this even better for the results) but that doesn't make it slow. Also remember on a Phenom we can just turn our speeds up because we have control of all the cpu parameters unlike the Athlon lineup (and yes I've owned those too).
> 
> ...




WTF are you talking about the K8s for? I'm specifically talking about the K10 suffering from low NB and L3 clocks. I was saying that if they crank those up on Deneb, those quads will be pretty damn fast, especially compared to the current ones (that are shitty).

And no shit that a new architecture beats the previous gen. K8 is from like '03. I hope the new ones are faster than my chip.

And my post was relevant, even if ranting. The Pi time would be lower with decent clocks. I'm an AMD fanboy ripping AMD. Is that not allowed now or something?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

Kei said:


> Ummm...you must be following on a handful (if that) of the Phenoms that are out now because my 3.1Ghz Phenom is faster than your 3.3Ghz 6000+ in nearly every single test you can make up even if I'm running on only two cores. And yes I've done the testing using only two of my four cores, read my thread you'll see the difference. Even people with 3.5-3.6Ghz 6400+ systems realize that if the current Phenom was clocked at 3.2Ghz regularly it would beat the 6400+ in every single test very significantly. If your 6000+ and my Phenom were at the exact same clock (regardless of the clock) I'd leave you for dead.
> 
> No offense, but you definately didn't do your research when you made the claim "shitty current quads". And what do you consider low speeds for the Northbridge, yes 1.8Ghz isn't the fastest of all the Phenoms (which makes this even better for the results) but that doesn't make it slow. Also remember on a Phenom we can just turn our speeds up because we have control of all the cpu parameters unlike the Athlon lineup (and yes I've owned those too).
> 
> ...



just to point it again my 9500 phenom at 2.8ghz beats my 5000BE @3.4ghz in every test except single threaded CB10

you all can bitch that phenom is terrible all you want and this release is bad but it shows more increase clock for clock than nahalem is


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

cdawall said:


> just to point it again my 9500 phenom at 2.8ghz beats my 5000BE @3.4ghz in every test except single threaded CB10
> 
> you all can bitch that phenom is terrible all you want and this release is bad but it shows more increase clock for clock than nahalem is



I guess I'll rephrase. K10 sucks ass compared to what it's capable of.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 12, 2008)

I guess I'll rephrase too since everyone seems so offended, dollar for dollar intel is faster. That's w/o oc (although this is an enthusist forum so I don't know how that argument came up), w/ oc they are faster still. Average user, doesn't make a lick of difference. Anything recent that suits their needs for the best price is the best choice. Enthusist user, intel currently offers more bang for your buck and 9 times out of 10 is the best choice. What I don't understand is why people seem to have such a personal attachment to amd, like it's their best friends company or they're a sales rep or something. They're just another company trying to earn your money.

And this is indeed a nice step up from the last phenoms, I still see no compelling reason to get it though as you get more for your money across the way.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> I guess I'll rephrase too since everyone seems so offended, dollar for dollar intel is faster. That's w/o oc (although this is an enthusist forum so I don't know how that argument came up), w/ oc they are faster still. Average user, doesn't make a lick of difference. Anything recent that suits their needs for the best price is the best choice. Enthusist user, intel currently offers more bang for your buck and 9 times out of 10 is the best choice. What I don't understand is why people seem to have such a personal attachment to amd, like it's their best friends company or they're a sales rep or something. They're just another company trying to earn your money.



It's their personality, so to speak (among many other things ). The way they do business is like the difference between best lie and newegg.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> It's their personality, so to speak (among many other things ). The way they do business is like the difference between best lie and newegg.



Is it? Isn't that just b/c they are currently the underdog? Don't you think they would conduct business differently if they owned the majority of the market share? I see no difference b/t the two other than their current economic situation and the measures taken to keep/change it.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

Haha, I like the AMD ripping AMD comment Guru that made me laugh. Haha

Seriously though I'm not beating you over the head I'm saying that you said the current quads are shit, yet they're WAY faster than the previous AMD processors per given clock even when you run the quad on two cores only. That does not in any way qualify as shitty.

I'm just saying put it into perspective versus the rest of AMD's lineup. There is really not point in comparing Intel cpu's versus anything but Intel cpu's and AMD versus AMD until it comes time to buy one then and only then does it make sense (let that soak in for a second, no it's not directed at you I mean everyone).

If AMD made Intel's processors that'd make sense to compare it to older/newer Intel processor, and if Intel made AMD's processors it'd make perfect sense to compare it to older/new AMD processors. But each company is trying to better their own work and in the process try to make the product that will make them the most money not just looking for the best at achieving a certain benchmark performance (though that's nice to have and helps you sell...in both ways not always good).

It's the same with nVidia and ATi right now, for a rather long time nVidia was easily sitting at the fastest end of things so they could charge whatever they wanted because their wasn't anything else that would give a similar or better ratio. Then the 3xxx series came from ATi and they came close to the performance with a much lower price, so people bought it like hotcakes while nVidia still stayed at the fastest level. This next round the 4xxx series is doing the same thing only this time it's just as fast if not faster than the equivalent from nVidia and with a significantly lower cost so ATi was sitting very pretty. This caused nVidia to lower the prices on their things significantly to avoid too much loss of profits.

I think AMD is doing exactly what they need to do to make themselves money which in the end is all their worried about. There aren't enough people in this forum (nor any other enthusiast forum) that will break them or really even dent their pockets much so they focus on making the high, mid and low level processors instead. They don't need an extreme version (the FX's) yet because it won't do a lick of good for them right now except make you guys jump fence again and you don't have enough money for them to care. Else...they'd have done it a long time ago........

It's a smart move indeed, these are significantly faster than what we have now which was significantly faster that what came before so they'll just keep doing it until they don't make money and then move on again. Intel is doing the samething, they could make something faster than what they're making but they don't need to....else they'll make it harder to make money later on. 

Why make the 600hp version of your car first and sell 1200 for $500k when you can make the 300hp version and sell 200,000 for $40k, both companies know exactly what they're doing and how to plan out their portfolios.

K


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

Kei said:


> Have you ever got mad because you had to sit and wait for 3 seconds longer for a program to load or lost 7-10 fps in a game when running at 75fps ...prolly not



I get pissed all the time like that 

I need new hardware


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> It's their personality, so to speak (among many other things ). The way they do business is like the difference between best lie and newegg.



That's a good point it's one of the reasons why I like AMD so much. I've owned Intel machines (still have some) but there is just something about them that never quite got me. Then you go into the business part of it all and it's more of the same.

It's just like when you go to a certain store for something knowing that another business has the samething is closer to you and will get it to you faster...you just prefer the other company more. Everybody has that samething they just don't relate it to what they do, but if you think you'll notice it too. 

I do not in ANY way deny the speed of Intel's current offerings but it's excess speed that I'm not gonna use or notice at a price that's higher than I'd need to spend anyway so that's just another reason to buy AMD. If I was to buy an Intel product though tomorrow I'd buy both a QX6700 and E8400 because they're both phenominal products from them! Easily my two favorite products they have out right now, I could careless about the uber processors they make even though I can buy them, I don't really care for the lower end processors either but those two I mentioned are fantastic pieces of engineering and very worthy of my dollars.

K

Btw, good to see people are beginning to play along nicely and talk more seriously now too


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Is it? Isn't that just b/c they are currently the underdog? Don't you think they would conduct business differently if they owned the majority of the market share? I see no difference b/t the two other than their current economic situation and the measures taken to keep/change it.



I can't say for sure, obviously, but google hasn't been evil much, yet (for example). There are a select few (people/businesses) that I trust, no matter their positional dominance. For some reason, I believe they'll always take the high road. I hate almost everyone, so I figure my selective choices can't be that bad haha.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> I get pissed all the time like that
> 
> I need new hardware





That's not being mad...that's being an addict haha  You just like a shiny box of "new" doesn't matter how old the old is. haha

K


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> I can't say for sure, obviously, but google hasn't been evil much, yet (for example). There are a select few (people/businesses) that I trust, no matter their positional dominance. For some reason, I believe they'll always take the high road. I hate almost everyone, so I figure my selective choices can't be that bad haha.



Hey, everyone does that most just don't recognize/state that they do it. Otherwise everyone would shop at Walmart and Best Buy and nowhere else.

K

*Edit:*and for that matter they'd all buy Creative sound products too


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2008)

*Personal Attachments- User Experiences.*

Intel is the same way, just trying to make money and it seems there are many that have a personal attachment to them, so it goes both ways. I don't care if one is faster than the other, its my personal preference, i mean i will recommend something for someone and something different for myself, because i usually tend to have a better understanding of the stuff i work with. I don't try to get people to switch over to one part or the other, sans PSUs, i will try to help them find a solution to a problem. I finally got to see a 4850e cpu in action at work, it was quick, vs the machine an acquaintance put together during the hayday of A64 (939-4600) (2005/2006) as his didn't seem to be any quicker than my current machine. (3200+)



farlex85 said:


> I guess I'll rephrase too since everyone seems so offended, dollar for dollar intel is faster. That's w/o oc (although this is an enthusist forum so I don't know how that argument came up), w/ oc they are faster still. Average user, doesn't make a lick of difference. Anything recent that suits their needs for the best price is the best choice. Enthusist user, intel currently offers more bang for your buck and 9 times out of 10 is the best choice. What I don't understand is why people seem to have such a personal attachment to amd, like it's their best friends company or they're a sales rep or something. They're just another company trying to earn your money.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

Kei said:


> *Edit:*and for that matter they'd all buy Creative sound products too



Are you a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




That one made me smile big. Creative needs a good


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 12, 2008)

Well I guess whatever works then. I personally don't trust any corporation outside of what kind of product they can provide for me. Too much shady dealings for money (especially w/ so much on the line), and I tend to think the halo effect (seeing someone or something as good b/c of personal, somewhat irrelevant reasons) plays more of a part in company loyalty than anything. But hey like I said, whatever works.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Are you a
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Haha, nah but I got jokes. I figured that was _the easiest_ way people would understand the point I was trying to make. And it seems like it worked 

Every single person on the world does it on something including the fence jumpers but either way isn't bad it's just a personal preference. If someone likes a certain company do what makes you happy, if someone just likes to hop around to have the 'best' of the 'best' (another very relative term as it depends on your view of the word 'best') then keep on hoppin!

Everyone has their own view of good, better, and best so there is really no point in arguing that as we all see differently and always will, even among AMD/AMD and Intel/Intel camps. Another good example is the ATi/AMD 4850 gpu, it's not _the_ fastest video card in the world but it's damn close and costs very little for what it gives. Even buying two of them costs very little and can slaughter any game that's currently out and is more than enough for those to come I'd imagine. I could've bought a 4870, or GT 280, or 4870x2 but the 4850 gives me the performance I need and if I want to add significantly more later on I can just pick up another one. It's a win win, play now, play even better later for cheaper. It just depends on what you want to do...

The 4850, 4870, GT 260, GT 280, 4870x2, and 4850x2 will all play Call of Duty 4 at over 60fps+ on max without breaking a sweat...but only one of them will do it for under $200 and take up little room with no noise. I don't see the extra 20fps as must haves in a game where you can only see 60fps max anyway so I buy the best option to me.

K


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2008)

to add onto what Kei said, is we shouldn't try to force a bias upon one another as it will not work and cause the opposite to be even more stern on their personal views.


----------



## breakfromyou (Jul 12, 2008)

Kei said:


> You've seen a single test and fail to put that into perspective...the Phenoms now are significantly slower than the new models shown here. Those same current Phenoms are competition for Intel today perhaps not the exact speed of some of the Intels but far far far from slow.
> 
> Homework assignment for you: Define the word "competition"...then define the word "we"
> 
> ...



back to the Q6600 vs. 9850BE...so they're even, but look at power consumption, and how one is brand new, while the other has been out for over a year...and has already been replaced by a better model--Yorkfield.

Even if Deneb is more energy efficient, overclocks better, and is 10% quicker per clock cycle over the current Phenom, Intel would probably still have a small advantage with Yorkfield, sure. But Nehalem? I don't think 45nm will be a huge breakthrough for AMD, not yet at least. But we always know how bad AMD's first revisions on a new process turn out. Decent, but the second is always a bit better. Hopefully this happens before Nehalem launches.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2008)

well how sequencing has been 90nm was AMDs, 65 Intels, i believe 45 to be both companies payday.


----------



## Amdguy (Jul 12, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> your welcome Kei.
> 
> My buddy told me something interesting about intel, which helps them get such great scores on Super Pi.  Of course not bashing intel, their cpu's are fast regardless, but maybe can prove a point that nobody sees!!!  However he can still be wrong hehe.



Well going back to this, from my understanding, Intel's core2's have access to a much larger cache than amd's. If i am not mistaken if an amd dual core has 1024kb of cache only 512 is available to each core, Intel on the other hand can access the complete cache for just one core, I believe that if the application that is being ran is highly optimized for multiple cores the performance gap will be a hole lot narrower. 

And well since super PI is not multi threaded this may very well help to some extent even though it is number crunching.


This is not an intel vs amd thing, this is just an observation.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 12, 2008)

Amdguy said:


> Well going back to this, from my understanding, Intel's core2's have access to a much larger cache than amd's. If i am not mistaken if an amd dual core has 1024kb of cache only 512 is available to each core, Intel on the other hand can access the complete cache for just one core, I believe that if the application that is being ran is highly optimized for multiple cores the performance gap will be a hole lot narrower.
> 
> And well since super PI is not multi threaded this may very well help to some extent even though it is number crunching.
> 
> ...



Thank you sir.  Anybody wishes to chime in on this statement, let us know what you think.  Please keep in mind, it is an observation only, not favoring anybody in particular.


----------



## vojc (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> It doesn't help that the NB and L3 is running at low speeds, just like the shitty, current quads.
> 
> If the NB would be jacked up and the L3 ran like cache is supposed to be (full core speed), then superpi time would be fast. Idk wtf their problem is. It's a simple solution and it's not like it can't be done easily.



i think that deneb without L3 cache will bi faster in super PI and cheaperbecouse L3 is slower than CPU clk


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 12, 2008)

vojc said:


> i think that deneb without L3 cache will bi faster in super PI and cheaperbecouse L3 is slower than CPU clk



Without a cache it would be bottlenecked by memory speed, which would be much slower.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 12, 2008)

Paintface said:


> Ill be finally upgrading to quadcore when these 45nm phenoms come out.
> 
> The performance is more than good
> 
> ...


The 9850 Phenom is $205, the Q6600 is $209, both on Newegg. Sorry, but AMD loses the price/performance battle in the area of quads. And that IS relevant to anyone looking to purchase a quad in this price range. Now, if AMD lowers prices, Phenom becomes a much more attractive alternative.

Moving on - As far as the socket longevity argument between AMD and Intel, they are both just as guilty. The practices of the past have nothing to do with what will happen in the future. And for an example of AMD screwing people on a socket change, look no further than 939. Recap/summary = both have screwed customers with socket changes AND that does nothing to prove what will happen in the future.

Going back a few pages - My 45nm Quad does 4Ghz on 1.4v 24/7. Just giving an idea of the voltage differences between the 2 companies on the same process. I know mine doesn't represent any kind of real price/performance value.

Now, before anybody labels me a fanboy, know that I do still have my 6400+ running in my second rig, and that I still build AMD machines for clients when it represents the better value (for the non-OC'ers). It's just that 90% of the time, the Phenom doesn't represent the better value. The exceptions being when there's a special deal going on a Phenom, or the client uses heavily multi-threaded software on a regular basis, but doesn't want to spend the money on a higher end Phenom/Intel quad (Then the lower end Phenoms will do), or they already have a good AM2 board that supports Phenom (Hell, if my AM2 board supported Phenom, I would pick one up as a quick upgrade). All clients interested in OCing automatically get Intel systems tho.

When and if AMD ever takes the performance lead again, I will jump ship right back to them, until then, it's Intel for me.


----------



## vojc (Jul 12, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Without a cache it would be bottlenecked by memory speed, which would be much slower.



depend on the application i guess, it would be better if AMD increase L2 cahcje size and share it to all 4 cores


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 12, 2008)

Thats a good point there Wile E. Q6600 goes for $180 OEM.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 12, 2008)

Oliverda said:


> OK, let's try to put a C2D CPU into a Socket 775 board which made between 2004 and 2006. It won't work thanks to Intel's "customer friendly" marketing strategy.



What like trying to put a Phenom or an Orleans in a S939 board?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> What like trying to put a Phenom or an Orleans in a S939 board?



i ithink the point was that AMD has generally offered a more stable set of sockets at least as far as upgrades go.

i have to say even 1st gen AM2 boards  "support" 45nm phenom but manufacturers wont update the BIOS on them they want you to spend YOUR money on THEIR new boards



vojc said:


> i think that deneb without L3 cache will bi faster in super PI and cheaperbecouse L3 is slower than CPU clk



thing about that is its still faster than going to the ram 1.8ghz vs 1066mhz hmmm which do you think is faster


----------



## vojc (Jul 12, 2008)

well i tkink that L3 just slow down super PI calculation, i think so..........is it true? well i don t know


----------



## btarunr (Jul 12, 2008)

Nehalem relies heavily on its L3 cache, with the cores having tiny L2 caches, yet Bloomfield chips scored immensely well.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

vojc said:


> well i tkink that L3 just slow down super PI calculation, i think so..........is it true? well i don t know



well something has to speed them up because @2.8ghz my phenom scores better than my 5000BE @3.35ghz same ram same timings hell the ram on the 5000BE was running 100-150mhz faster at the same timings and yet the phenom still beat it


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 12, 2008)

As far as sockets go AMD made a huge mistake with AM2+. They said, "Sure, you can just put it in any AM2 board and it will work". Then people went out and bought them and viola, it didn't work and there were no real bios updates available(with Phenom support) for most boards. Pissed a ton of people off. 

Intel never said that C2Ds, or Core 2 Quads will work in any LGA775 board. They always said that only certain boards support it so look at the manufacturer's documentation. Thats a better way to do business.

So socket support in recent years, was not so good with AMD.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 12, 2008)

That's not AMD's fault, BIOS releases are sole responsibility of the board manufacturers. MSI still didn't release a Phenom supportive BIOS for its NForce 590 SLI board, though the chipset very much does support Phenom. Same applies to MSI's AMD 580X boards.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> As far as sockets go AMD made a huge mistake with AM2+. They said, "Sure, you can just put it in any AM2 board and it will work". Then people went out and bought them and viola, it didn't work and there were no real bios updates available(with Phenom support) for most boards. Pissed a ton of people off.
> 
> Intel never said that C2Ds, or Core 2 Quads will work in any LGA775 board. They always said that only certain boards support it so look at the manufacturer's documentation. Thats a better way to do business.
> 
> So socket support in recent years, was not so good with AMD.



As someone already said, it's not that they won't work, it's just the the MB manuf. are assholes. But AMD should stick a foot up their ass so they add support.

And some of it's common sense. Don't buy a shitty board *cough* ECS (as someone mentioned) *cough*


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 12, 2008)

btarunr said:


> That's not AMD's fault, BIOS releases are sole responsibility of the board manufacturers. MSI still didn't release a Phenom supportive BIOS for its NForce 590 SLI board, though the chipset very much does support Phenom. Same applies to MSI's AMD 580X boards.



 Even motherboard manufacturers don't wanna go out of there way to support AMD. Thats insane.

I have nothing against AMD. I would buy their processors if they were priced more appropriately.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 12, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Even motherboard manufacturers don't wanna go out of there way to support AMD. Thats insane.



Just don't hold AMD responsible for that.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Even motherboard manufacturers don't wanna go out of there way to support AMD. Thats insane.
> 
> I have nothing against AMD. I would buy their processors if they were priced more appropriately.



its not that which do you think makes more money paying for the BIOS to be updated on an older board or selling the new board becuase the old one doesn't support the nww chips

it intels chipset strategy


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

As far as prices go, I'd take a 9600 BE and O/C to about 3 GHz for 135 bucks. I may do that if these 45s don't come out fast enough.

I also may juice the crap out of it to make the NB clock like I want to lol.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> As far as prices go, I'd take a 9600 BE and O/C to about 3 GHz for 135 bucks. I may do that if these 45s don't come out fast enough.
> 
> I also may juice the crap out of it to make the NB clock like I want to lol.



What kinda clock are you looking for on the Northbridge? You may not need as much juice as you think.

K


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2008)

Kei said:


> What kinda clock are you looking for on the Northbridge? You may not need as much juice as you think.
> 
> K



As high as it goes before I fry it! 

Like I was bitching earlier, it's the main perf. limitation of these chips.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

*Phenom power consumption*



breakfromyou said:


> back to the Q6600 vs. 9850BE...so they're even, but look at power consumption, and how one is brand new, while the other has been out for over a year...and has already been replaced by a better model--Yorkfield.



Good point on the power consumption of the two chips. I have indeed noticed that AMD has pumped loads of extra voltage into their Phenom lineup (perhaps on purpose?) versus what Intel _seems_ to be doing with theirs.

I don't own one of the Intel quads (though like I said earilier I do like the QX6700 model) but they seem to pump less volts into their processors than AMD is doing at the time of course I imagine this is to play on the energy savings kick that everyone is on about these days.

I've been doing the energy savings things since I can remember so I do lots of testing with Phenoms and find that not a single one actually needs the voltage that they come with from the factory in order to run at stock speed...and sometimes even higher.

I'm running my Phenom 9850BE as we speak at 2.6Ghz (9950BE level) on 1.152v worth of juice 100% stable (I run roughly 10-12hrs worth of stress to test things) and it'll actually boot up at far far less than that voltage.

Doing this drops my power consumption by a HUGE degree down to the same levels that the Intel quads enjoy. My total system power consumption as I type this out, listen to music, have a few monitoring programs open, and all the other various programs associated with normal use is a whopping 151W.

I just ran POV Beta 3.7 to keep things fair and the max consumption rose to 213W at this setting. That's far lower than what the 9950BE is using at it's stock level and of course I could take it back to normal 9850BE speed but I was going after a certain point.

I'm sure that the Intel chips could go lower (not sure how much as they seem to be running low already ) to lower their consumption as well but I just wanted to show that the Phenoms aren't really as power hungry as they appear. AMD just for some reason pumps huge amounts of voltage through them anyway. Also note that my normal usage was at the same wattage levels that the 9950BE will get when Cool N Quiet is enabled (same with the Intels) and those were done at 1 hr idle time.

Crazy what a processor can do if you take the time to find out...

K

*Credit* goes to Legit Reviews for the power consumption figures of the other processors. For my readings I used the same parameters and tests that they did to achieve load numbers. I didn't bother taking an idle test however because you see my normal usage is what they get at idle already.


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

Oh yea the processor temps were at 46C under the 100% load of POV Beta 3.7 with air cooling only. The cooler is in silent with the fan spinning at less than 40cfm on 616rpm out of 2000+. Pretty good I think 

K


----------



## Kei (Jul 12, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> As high as it goes before I fry it!
> 
> Like I was bitching earlier, it's the main perf. limitation of these chips.



Hahahaha, that's a pretty good speed. The max I've taken mine is a bit over 2.5Ghz (aka over what the stock processor speed is actually rated for haha). Very true that the Northbridge is CRUCIAL to the performance of the Phenom, Once that things goes up speed changes ridiculously! I used 1.45v to get that speed but it may run on just a little less and still be 100% stable (I was doing stability testing for that speed and it passed).

K


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 12, 2008)

cdawall said:


> its not that which do you think makes more money paying for the BIOS to be updated on an older board or selling the new board becuase the old one doesn't support the nww chips
> 
> it intels chipset strategy



Old chipsets support quads and yorkfields. As long as you don't buy super old boards.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Old chipsets support quads and yorkfields. As long as you don't buy super old boards.



915 isn't super old nor is 945 yet on certain 945s can run them because the amnuf DIDNT UPDATE THE BIOS


----------



## D3aDl0cK (Jul 12, 2008)

Title is wrong...
It´s not "DENREB" 

it´s "DENEB"


----------



## Scrizz (Jul 12, 2008)

cdawall said:


> 915 isn't super old nor is 945 yet on certain 945s can run them because the amnuf DIDNT UPDATE THE BIOS



my friend has a 865G board that supports quads and AGP


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2008)

Scrizz said:


> my friend has a 865G board that supports quads and AGP



i have one to its sitting in my dads PC


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 13, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i have one to its sitting in my dads PC



I love the 865 chipset, I have sold several 865 - 775 based PCs at that time.
In my case I have AGP and Phenom, but Nvidia's Gart driver is compatible with single and dual cores only, when 3 or 4 cores are present, my AGP card turns to PCI mode and I loose half the performance. Don't think it happens on the 865


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 13, 2008)

865 P/PE in my Dell Inspiron XPS/9100, with a P4 EE 3.4 Gallatin and a M18 Graphics card, 2 gigs ram, 100 GB HD.


----------



## Kei (Jul 13, 2008)

Haha, this is turning into "The Classics" thread haha.

K


----------



## Wile E (Jul 13, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i ithink the point was that AMD has generally offered a more stable set of sockets at least as far as upgrades go.
> 
> i have to say even 1st gen AM2 boards  "support" 45nm phenom but manufacturers wont update the BIOS on them they want you to spend YOUR money on THEIR new boards
> 
> ...


That's just not the case on many boards. Some of them can never support Phenom, because their bios memory is not large enough. AMD never hinted to Phenom requiring more BIOS memory. It's a screw up on both the manufacturer's and AMD's end.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 13, 2008)

about socket longivity lets look at something folks cmon lets look

1994 Socket 5 comes out
1995 Socket 7 Replaces Socket 5 Both AMD and Intel Adopt
1997 Slot 1 comes out for Pentium II because of L2 Issues AMD stays Socket7
1998 Socket 370 Arrives for Celeron Later adopted for P3 in 1999 move by intel to cut costs
1999 SlotA arrives for AMD allows L2 Caches on CPU at reasonable cost
2000 Socket A arrives because of advancements to allow onboard L2 Saves Costs
2000 Socket 423 Arrives to support P4 because of new Bus design
2001 Socket 478 arrives becuase of data restrictions on 423
2003 Socket 754 and 940 arrive bring 64bit Support
2003 Socket 775 Arrives brings about high data width and dual cores
2004 Socket 939 Arrives to bring a 128bit mem controller
2006 Socket AM2 Arrives to bring DDR2 support for AM2

Now honestly granted SocketA was in use for a long time, can your SDR KT133 board run an Athlon XP3200? No it can not, you had to upgrade because of chipset limitations, same with K6-2 400 and up, you need a new Super7 board to run them at clock speed force upgrade but for a good reason. Later we get 754 and 940, 940 is for workstations 754 is for Desktops, but no dual channel, so a year later they update it for dual channel and 2 years later update it again for DDR2, which i know we want to bitch but honestly how many issues would there have been if we had gone 939 DDR2 and users bought DDR2 Ram instead of DDR and amd would have gotten alot of flack for it, smart move by them. In 2007 it got an update to AM2+ to better support quads with HT3.0 makes sense to me.

Now to Intel ok. Slot1 was release because at the time onboard L2 was not economical but motherboard L2 @ 66mhz was showing its age this was a move to give us preformace, the move to 370 was because L2 could now go ondie and it saved us money. 423 was so we could have quad pumped bus, and 478 was a fix for a defective design that didnt offer enough pins for the P4's bandwith. 775 was planned again at first to replace 478 and force us, but i belive intel though about it and new they would make a PentiumD.

You do not buy a motherboard in hopes its good next year you buy it to use what you want today. Sockets will always go obsolete as tech advances and even the long standing sockets are not uber as we think look what i said about Socket7 or socket A for that proof


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 13, 2008)

3.4 , it's good we can compare it with q6600 now


----------



## iLLz (Jul 13, 2008)

Judas said:


> Lol your's is a dual core this is a quad, mind you it does seem quite power hungry



My Q6700 is at 3.2Ghz at only 1.3 Vcore in BIOS.  G0 Stepping of course but hey that just shows the greatness of the Core 2 design.  Those SuperPi scores don't look that great though clock for clock.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> about socket longivity lets look at something folks cmon lets look
> 
> 1994 Socket 5 comes out
> 1995 Socket 7 Replaces Socket 5 Both AMD and Intel Adopt
> ...



you forgot to add when AMD stopped selling s754 parts because those actually out lasted s939


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 13, 2008)

Its also sorta ironic, AMD said they would keep supporting 939 as long as there was demand.. shortly after AM2 arrives AMD drop 939 like a stone.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Jul 15, 2008)

Assimilator said:


> Socket 775 (aka Socket T) was released in 2004.
> Socket AM2 was released in 2006.
> 
> So Darknova, please stop your whining about Intel's "constant socket changes", it just shows how much of an AMD fanboy you really are.
> ...



darn should read more posts....


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 16, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Its also sorta ironic, AMD said they would keep supporting 939 as long as there was demand.. shortly after AM2 arrives AMD drop 939 like a stone.



Well, to be fair, there was no demand as soon as DDRII became the same price, then cheaper than DDR.

If you're talking about faster speed grades, AMD can't allocate resources to obsolete tech with only one fab running.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 16, 2008)

well i can say this, i did notice a significant performance increase with DDR 2 for A64 than DDR1 for A64.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Jul 16, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> well i can say this, i did notice a significant performance increase with DDR 2 for A64 than DDR1 for A64.



Yes so did I .Went form a X64 DDR A8V to a X64x2 DDR2 M2r32 in am2 socket.Noticed a huge speed increase in memory performance.


----------

