# Intel to Retaliate to AMD Phenom II Overclocking Feat, Plans Demonstration at CES '09



## btarunr (Nov 27, 2008)

Intel plans its own public demonstration of the overclocking capabilities of the Core i7 processors. This, in response to rival AMD achieving an overclock of well beyond 5.00 GHz, and booting at speeds above 6.00 GHz. The engineers at Intel reportedly carried out a large-scale binning of Core i7 processors, to cherry-pick the best performing part. The scale of binning could well be best of 100,000 units.

A chief engineer at Intel, Francoise Piednoel expressed his reservations regarding the 6.00 GHz overclocking feat AMD carried out with its upcoming Phenom II X4 processor last week, saying that the overclocking capabilities of the Phenom II X4 demonstrated do not reflect those of release-grade products, and cannot be replicated in a real-world setting. AMD may have disabled several sensors on the cherry-picked chip used in its demonstration, which facilitated that overclock. In response to this, Intel would be disabling the same sensors, in its special demonstration chip. The demo could be held at CES 2009. The professional overclocker chosen to achieve this feat would be none other than FUGGER from XtremeSystems. FUGGER could be set the task of taking the most desirable, binned Core i7 965 Extreme Edition chip all the way up to a stellar 7.00 GHz, if all goes well.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Wile E (Nov 27, 2008)

Man, I wish I was in his shoes.


----------



## Duxx (Nov 27, 2008)

7.00GHz.... that would be a beast.

Let the war begin


----------



## ShadowFold (Nov 27, 2008)

I love package. Just screams "Godly Chip".


----------



## _jM (Nov 27, 2008)

I cant wait to see that happen, maybe by then they will be able to reach speeds well past the 7ghz mark..maybe.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 27, 2008)

the giant awakes from a small nap


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 27, 2008)

LOL, this will be LN2 only. 

Unless they like to catch the bench tables on fire haha


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 27, 2008)

> Intel to Retaliate to AMD Phenom II Overclocing


 fix clock


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 27, 2008)

I'm just gonna say it now . . .

but, if the new Intel chip fails to meet their hoped-for mark . . . I think I'll end up soaking myself laughing.

notice - I'm not saying it isn't possible or won't happen . . . but if the irony strikes . . .


----------



## a111087 (Nov 27, 2008)

how in the world would he know for sure what AMD did to their chips behind the scenes, if they did anything at all.
we already have core i7 in stores and well know how it clocks, so that 7 ghz will not mean much


----------



## erocker (Nov 27, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I love package. Just screams "Godly Chip".



That got me to thinking.  With these uber-binned chips, Intel should put a polished IHS on them.  People would instantly know what they are and it would increase it's value even more.  Plus, it would be darn cool.


----------



## ShadowFold (Nov 27, 2008)

erocker said:


> That got me to thinking.  With these uber-binned chips, Intel should put a polished IHS on them.  People would instantly know what they are and it would increase it's value even more.  Plus, it would be darn cool.



Something like this?


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 27, 2008)

So, there we have the best ever i7 and Intel will publicly destroy it and even pay for it (doubt he'll have to do it for free). Give it to me, I'll read it bed time stories and tug it in every night


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 27, 2008)

heres the thread where they have been talking about it...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206571

you may have to read a few pages though... i think the talk of this starts about half way through.


----------



## philbrown23 (Nov 27, 2008)

I bet he'll even get to keep the chip I know I would want to, He'll probably do his famous break 6 records in 2 minutes act again.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 27, 2008)

as long as the runaway amp problem doesnt plague him i think 6ghz is possible with a 965ee if not more.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 27, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Something like this?



Something that's already lapped. Mirror-finish.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Nov 27, 2008)

what happened there they forget the original clocks and challenge about overclock , the stock clock must be first option , not everyone have liquid nitrogen in his kitchen


----------



## ShinyG (Nov 27, 2008)

AMD managed to poke the sleeping Intel monster with a sharp stick )
Good, we could see "action" again next year. We desperately need this competition to keep prices down!


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Nov 27, 2008)

I hope it goes very well for them or the i7 prices will remain stagnant......


----------



## HTC (Nov 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> A chief engineer at Intel, Francoise Piednoel expressed his reservations regarding the 6.00 GHz overclocking feat AMD carried out with its upcoming Phenom II X4 processor last week,* saying that the overclocking capabilities of the Phenom II X4 demonstrated do not reflect those of release-grade products, and cannot be replicated in a real-world setting.* AMD may have disabled several sensors on the cherry-picked chip used in its demonstration, which facilitated that overclock. In response to this, Intel would be disabling the same sensors, in its special demonstration chip. The demo could be held at CES 2009. The professional overclocker chosen to achieve this feat would be none other than FUGGER from XtremeSystems. FUGGER could be set the task of taking the most desirable, *binned Core i7 965 Extreme Edition chip all the way up to a stellar 7.00 GHz*, if all goes well.



The only thing i find wrong with this is when they say they have reservations regarding PII's achievable OC with real-world settings but talk about a very special binned chip for their own record-breaking OC tests.

How do they know if the PII tests had *anything* different then a "regular" engineering sample, much like those of i7 that were posted before the chip came out?


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Nov 27, 2008)

AMD *may* have disabled several sensors on the cherry-picked chip used in its demonstration, which facilitated that overclock. In response to this, Intel *would be* disabling the same sensors, in its special demonstration chip.

LOL

AMD *MAY* have disabled the sensors so we *ARE* going to.


----------



## HTC (Nov 27, 2008)

DrunkenMafia said:


> AMD *may* have disabled several sensors on the cherry-picked chip used in its demonstration, which facilitated that overclock. In response to this, Intel *would be* disabling the same sensors, in its special demonstration chip.
> 
> LOL
> 
> AMD *MAY* have disabled the sensors so we *ARE* going to.



My point exactly.


----------



## Mad-Matt (Nov 27, 2008)

Did I just read that Intel are openly gonna cheat with a special demo cpu because they believe amd MAY have used a special demo cpu ?


----------



## soldier242 (Nov 27, 2008)

oh well we'll see what happens .... but i'm not sure about the whole special picked/altered chips, either ... sounds kinda fishy to me


----------



## robmuld (Nov 27, 2008)

*Intel is desperate*

HHAHHAHAAH! I love it that the monopoly-abusing jerks are running scared because their overpriced new platform can't go beyond 5GHz without cheating. 

It would be fun if a hardware review site replicates the 6GHz number with a retail Phenom 2 from Newegg! Now that would *humiliate* Intel wouldn't it?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 27, 2008)

Hopefully, they go poof. Now, that would be embarrassing


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 27, 2008)

If you didn't read through the xtremesystes thread, that pictured chip does 4,8HGz on air. Sounds pretty :-o, but it was running 120C with temp chip disabled  I don't doubt that AMD might have disabled temp sensor as well, point isn't to run the processor safe, but to OC it as high as possible and those quads push a lot of heat out.

Also there was talk to going to FUGGER's house to do it, and 5 other cherry babies were going to Las Vegas. So that first trip is how to do it and in CES '09 they'll just repeat the steps with a new chip.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 27, 2008)

Why does anyone need over 5ghz anyway? I dont give two hoots if either corps chips will go that high.Its only for epeen and rich boys who are sponsored and have access to ln2 etc.

As long as amd have something to compete is all that matters,not who has the biggest trouser roll.


----------



## Octavean (Nov 27, 2008)

I look at it this way,.....

Both AMD and Intel use unlocked chips for these types of OC. Nevermind the typical price, how much does an *unlocked* Black Edition AMD chip cost ($) and how much does an *unlocked* Intel Extreme Edition chip cost ($$$$$). I'll put it another way, I can afford an AMD Black Edition chip because the price difference isnt too far off of typical retail prices but there is no way in hell I'm paying ~$1500 for an Intel Extreme Edition Core i7 or Core 2 based chip.

6GHz, 7GHz OCor higher, I dont really care how high an i7 965 Extreme Edition chip will go because I know I will never buy one. I also know most people here and most OCers wont buy an i7 965 at those prices either. If intel wants to compete with AMD they need to sell an unlocked chip at the same price as AMD does,....period!

I think the AMD Phenom II platform AM2 / AM3 will be cheap enough that I can buy and build one without much care for the fact that I already have an i7 chip.


----------



## KBD (Nov 27, 2008)

yea, tigger and octavean make pretty good points. A 6Ghz overclock is nothing but marketing and bragging rights for the companies. Most people cant afford to buy an 965 EE nor they have access to LN2, i think the majority of folks are interested in whether they run a chip 24/7 on a certain high frequency on either air or water. thats what most people have access to. If a chip can do 6,7,8 gig on LN2 good but for the majority of us it doesnt make any differnce really.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Nov 27, 2008)

Looks like Phenom 2 wont be a disappointment after all. This is going to be interesting.

Hell, who remembers the last time when Intel had to match something AMD is doing...anyone?


----------



## KBD (Nov 27, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> Looks like Phenom 2 wont be a disappointment after all. This is going to be interesting.
> 
> Hell, who remembers the last time when Intel had to match something AMD is doing...anyone?



thats another thing, intel got sooooo nervous about the Phenom 2's amazing overclock. In fact, they get nervous every time something good happens in camp AMD. Remember that story about the UAE investor putting cash into AMD? Well, that time they got scared also, and started putting out statements like its not fair, they cant do it and so on. Because they know that once AMD gains solid financial footing they will release something awesome. I think Intel got so used being the top dog they are afraid of real competition.


----------



## Noggrin (Nov 27, 2008)

robmuld said:


> HHAHHAHAAH! I love it that the monopoly-abusing jerks are running scared because their overpriced new platform can't go beyond 5GHz without cheating.
> 
> It would be fun if a hardware review site replicates the 6GHz number with a retail Phenom 2 from Newegg! Now that would *humiliate* Intel wouldn't it?



AMD fan boys never ceases to amaze me. 







This is ES chip on LN2, the thread is on the xtremesystems forum. 

It would be fun if a hardware review site show an easy OC @ 6Ghz of a retail PII chip but it wont happend. Pplz over xtremesystems may do it but I dont think in any way that this is going to be ''humiliating'' to Intel. Thats something only AMD fan boy can come up with.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 27, 2008)

Noggrin said:


> AMD fan boys never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and 5.4 on LN2 is.... supposed to impress me? Those ES chips are probably higher quality than production chips, too.


----------



## rizla1 (Nov 27, 2008)

Noggrin said:


> AMD fan boys never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 INTEL fanboys never ceases to amaze me  .lol

screw ln2 
which goes highest on air's wat i want to know,
and +  if amds top chip which will cost a few hundres , can oc on par with a £1000 chip theres no competition .  look at the intel qx9770 now its outperformed by something that costs  a few hundred intel 920.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 27, 2008)

Please cut with throwing the "fanboy" phrase around.


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 27, 2008)

KBD said:


> thats another thing, intel got sooooo nervous about the Phenom 2's amazing overclock. In fact, they get nervous every time something good happens in camp AMD. Remember that story about the UAE investor putting cash into AMD? Well, that time they got scared also, and started putting out statements like its not fair, they cant do it and so on. Because they know that once AMD gains solid financial footing they will release something awesome. I think Intel got so used being the top dog they are afraid of real competition.



reason Intel get's so nervous is becuase if AMD actually puts something out that  them like last time around . . . Intel _have_ to go back to the drawing board and cough up something *new*  *innovative*  to keep their market . . .

which means all those sandbagged CPUs they've been producing cost them money, cuase no one will wnat to buy them - and Intel's name is tarnished for a while.


I really think at this point, some judge needs to step in and dissolve the royalty agreement Intel has with AMD . . . hell, it's AMD's technology and development anyways, but they're still paying for it because they worked with and produced for Intel years and years ago.  AMD would be much better off, and so would the market, if they didn't have to cough up those royalty fees.




Anyhow - kinda funny Intel has admitted to cheating before they've even gotten started, simply because they think AMD has cheated . . .

It'd be even funnier, IMO, if it turns out AMD just used a stand, middle of the line production CPU, disabled the temp diode, and went with that . . . which means (if they did), we might see AMD retaliate in the same manner Intel is now - if Intel manages to pull off what they are hoping for.


----------



## Noggrin (Nov 27, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> and 5.4 on LN2 is.... supposed to impress me?



Looks like you saw some AMD/Intel quads clocked @ 6.xx-7.xx on AIR. Can you linked me to those results? Cant w8 to see them.



TheGuruStud said:


> Those ES chips are probably higher quality than production chips, too.



LoL @ that.



rizla1 said:


> INTEL fanboys never ceases to amaze me  .lol



Very creative. Replacing one world.

And not even close to the truth.



TheGuruStud said:


> screw ln2
> which goes highest on air's wat i want to know,
> and +  if amds top chip which will cost a few hundres , can oc on par with a £1000 chip theres no competition .  look at the intel qx9770 now its outperformed by something that costs  a few hundred intel 920.



Sure, me too. Want some OC on air. And I too want PII to kick ass, but what you think? Those 6.xx Ghz clock are done on AIR? Come on. Those BS are pure marketing and Intel falls for the same BS. "We can show you that i7 can overclock to 7.xx on temps close to the absolute zero... who the f*ck cares? Its not like I can achive those temps with air or water witch are the most used cooling solutions.


----------



## rizla1 (Nov 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Please cut with throwing the "fanboy" phrase around.



hope your not referin ta me i dont do that ,i was jokin .  
but i choose amd  not because  there better  but  becuase im 17 and dont have  the money to buy parts to build a £400-£500 intel system . there is no one here who can really sa that amd's better ..... yet.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 27, 2008)

rizla1 said:


> hope your not referin ta me i dont do that ,i was jokin .
> but i choose amd  not because  there better  but  becuase im 17 and dont have  the money to buy parts to build a £400-£500 intel system . there is no one here who can really sa that amd's better ..... yet.



No, to everyone. The "fanboy" debate ends here. Make arguments (if you have any) without pointless accusations.

Secondly, being 17 and that budget isn't really a convincing excuse. Intel has a processor to offer for any and every price range.


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> No, to everyone. The "fanboy" debate ends here. Make arguments (if you have any) without pointless accusations.
> 
> Secondly, being 17 and that budget isn't really a convincing excuse. *Intel has a processor offer* for any and every price range.



not raggin on ya - but that statement gave me this funny mental image of a mob-family, like the sopranos or something, sitting around a table with a look of "so, whassit gonna be?"


----------



## btarunr (Nov 27, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> not raggin on ya - but that statement gave me this funny mental image of a mob-family, like the sopranos or something, sitting around a table with a look of "so, whassit gonna be?"



"When the chips are down, these civilized people will eat each other"


----------



## Octavean (Nov 27, 2008)

Its not uncommon for the newest generation to surpass its predecessor.  Intel may seem to be in competition with itself with respect to the i7 920 surpassing the QX9770 at a much lower price especialy since I don't think AMD has surpassed the QX9700 with a retail part of their own. I hope the Phenom II can compete at default speeds though because I don't want to buy something that needs to OCed before it yields acceptable numbers.

The Phenom II will have a lower "instructions per clock cycle" then the i7 and Core 2 so it already has to clock higher.


----------



## SoF (Nov 27, 2008)

that sounds very interesting. I am looking forward to see that...currently both, AMD and Intel, are making some marketing bs I do not really like. We see that i7 can hardly do the 5gig so far and I say AMD won't do it that easy as announced either. I will be waiting for charles after I did Phenom II testing beginning next year


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Nov 27, 2008)

Me want benchmarks after!


----------



## Melvis (Nov 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Secondly, being 17 and that budget isn't really a convincing excuse. Intel has a processor to offer for any and every price range.



Maybe in the states but not here in australia, the lowest dual core from intel over here is about the same amount as AMD's highest end dual core, and then there is the price of mobo's there even more to, i say to people i build comps for, how much you willing to spend? and its always on a budget around $1000 and ill say ok that be a AMD system, since i can get a AMD system to out perform a intel system for the same price. (Gaming Machines) But if it was over $2000 then yea i would go intel, but 99% of the time, people dont want to spend that much, so its a no brainer realy.

Just remember computer parts here are alot more expensive then over there, eg the new i7 lowest quad is $600, the high end, over $2500.

O and to this thread LMAO, i think its so funny, as soon as AMD does something great intel go nuts, they just cant stand been beatin by a company they used to own and a company thats is a 8th of there size lol. Poor intel, they stuffed up in the first place. And they have to wait till 2009 to do this? lol what a load of BS, a company that big can do it tomorrow if they wanted to, doesn't add up to me.


----------



## rizla1 (Nov 27, 2008)

well if i was buyin  local  [i live in  n.ireland] back wen i got my pc i would have got  a crappy dell  pentium 4 512mb ddr 1 and a 20 gig hdd .  but  it wouldnt matter which i picked for my price range cause the  cpus perform the same ecept for  the amd  ram quicker timing. any way this is a bit off topic.   [back on topic] i thick its  really funny to watch this its like wactchin simcity or something watchin everything playin out , also a bit like amd  hammerin nvidia , then nvidia  making stupid claims and comments like a bitch. lol  gota love it!!


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 27, 2008)

I always get confused about why people make such big deals about these extreme overclocking speeds that the chips hit.

1.) No consumer is going to ever hit those speeds, so I really don't give a rat's ass about them.  I care about real world results.  Overclocks on standard boards, with air cooling, maybe water.

2.) This is turning into a clock speed race again, just like in the P4 days.  We have stopped talking about actual performance, and that is what matters.  I have yet to see anyone talk about Phenom II's actual performance, all the hype has been about it's clock speeds.  If the actual performance per clock is still lower than the Core 2's, there is still a bigger problem to solve.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 27, 2008)

Maybe if amd can run their chips at twice the speed of intels,it may make up for the performance per clock deficit.

These benches and speeds mean squat to normal people.


----------



## Noggrin (Nov 27, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I have yet to see anyone talk about Phenom II's actual performance, all the hype has been about it's clock speeds.



no1 can talk about actual performance cos PII is still under NDA. NDA is lifted i think on january 2 or 4 2009 so until then all we can do is speculate about what the performance on those cpu's is..


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 27, 2008)

If they can talk about overclocking potential, they can talk about performance potential.  Of course, maybe AMD wants to get people's attention away from actual performance by focussing on clock speed numbers...it seemed to work for Intel in the P4 days.


----------



## spearman914 (Nov 27, 2008)

So if Intel does get 7 GHz then AMD will start mad and rise the Phenom 2 to 8 GHz.


----------



## KBD (Nov 27, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> So if Intel does get 7 GHz then AMD will start mad and rise the Phenom 2 to 8 GHz.



i seriously doubt it. I think Phenom 2 hits a wall around 6GHz. Perhaps in later revisions they can up that somewhat but i dont think it will be a considerable increase.


----------



## Disruptor4 (Nov 28, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Maybe in the states but not here in australia, the lowest dual core from intel over here is about the same amount as AMD's highest end dual core, and then there is the price of mobo's there even more to, i say to people i build comps for, how much you willing to spend? and its always on a budget around $1000 and ill say ok that be a AMD system, since i can get a AMD system to out perform a intel system for the same price. (Gaming Machines) But if it was over $2000 then yea i would go intel, but 99% of the time, people dont want to spend that much, so its a no brainer realy.
> 
> Just remember computer parts here are alot more expensive then over there, eg the new i7 lowest quad is $600, the high end, over $2500.



Actually, lowest is $464. Average around $500 just to be safe.
Highest is $1850. Average around $2000 just to be safe. 
Still expensive, but not what you were saying. 

on topic
Kinda funny how Intel is admitting they are going to cheat because they THINK AMD cheated.


----------



## rizla1 (Nov 28, 2008)

there like a big child ,, naa stupid amd cheating so im goin cheat to  ,its not fair!!

my prediction is  phenom 2 will out perform core 2 due cpus hopfully qx9970 but thats as good as the could hope  plus if it outperformed i7 singletreaded  that would be a big boost for there busness.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 28, 2008)

Disruptor4 said:


> Actually, lowest is $464. Average around $500 just to be safe.
> Highest is $1850. Average around $2000 just to be safe.
> Still expensive, but not what you were saying.
> 
> ...



Well i guess that might be true if i typed it straight into staticice or shopbot those prices might be true, but not were i get all my computer parts from, and i was been nice.
And those prices are online and we all know its cheaper to buy online, so if you went to your local computer shop it would be even more 
So trust me, when i say there at that price^ i mean thats at a cheap price compared to your local computer or electronic store


----------



## niko084 (Nov 28, 2008)

Sounds pretty cool, but this is exactly why you shouldn't give a rats a** about what some magazine or one show can do with a processor, they are handpicking the EE binned chips for a single demonstration to show off... That really shows what the average chip can do...


----------



## CDdude55 (Nov 28, 2008)

Still going to stick with my Core 2.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 28, 2008)

OnBoard said:


> If you didn't read through the xtremesystes thread, that pictured chip does 4,8HGz on air. Sounds pretty :-o, but it was running 120C with temp chip disabled  I don't doubt that AMD might have disabled temp sensor as well, point isn't to run the processor safe, but to OC it as high as possible and those quads push a lot of heat out.
> 
> Also there was talk to going to FUGGER's house to do it, and 5 other cherry babies were going to Las Vegas. So that first trip is how to do it and in CES '09 they'll just repeat the steps with a new chip.



the AMD chip was on LN2 i doubt it had the temp chip disabled it would make no difference it was sub-zero during all testing



TheGuruStud said:


> and 5.4 on LN2 is.... supposed to impress me? Those ES chips are probably higher quality than production chips, too.



ES chips are in no way shape or form "better" than production chips my E7200ES clocked no better than any other E7200ES they are more of a butchered together chip if anything else



tigger said:


> Maybe if amd can run their chips at twice the speed of intels,it may make up for the performance per clock deficit.
> 
> These benches and speeds mean squat to normal people.



AMD does 3 IPC and intel does 4 IPC so it would only need to be running 25% faster  oh adn lets remember AMD chips scale very well with speeds while intel's do not


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 28, 2008)

cdawall said:


> ES chips are in no way shape or form "better" than production chips my E7200ES clocked no better than any other E7200ES they are more of a butchered together chip if anything else



I meant as in they're 100% cherry picked. They're obviously not going to send a out a half-ass pre-production chip and it always seems that the quality doesn't change from then until production. And unless intel is magically having high yields, I would expect those ES cherries doing better than a lot of the production ones.

Isn't the rumor that intel has bad yields on new stuff? I know no one ever talks about it.


----------



## Disruptor4 (Nov 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Well i guess that might be true if i typed it straight into staticice or shopbot those prices might be true, but not were i get all my computer parts from, and i was been nice.
> And those prices are online and we all know its cheaper to buy online, so if you went to your local computer shop it would be even more
> So trust me, when i say there at that price^ i mean thats at a cheap price compared to your local computer or electronic store



No, really, that's how much I get my parts for. (roughly a little bit more) So trust me. What store are you going to? As in, what state? Because they are ripping off hardcore.
If I was to be stupid and buy i7, these are the prices I'd pay:
920: $519.00
940: $1,054.00
965EE: $2,109.00


----------



## Melvis (Nov 29, 2008)

Disruptor4 said:


> No, really, that's how much I get my parts for. (roughly a little bit more) So trust me. What store are you going to? As in, what state? Because they are ripping off hardcore.
> If I was to be stupid and buy i7, these are the prices I'd pay:
> 920: $519.00
> 940: $1,054.00
> 965EE: $2,109.00



NSW lol i think thats enough said there, been the most expensive state in Australia.
The store i go to is the one i showed you^ they have good service and most of the time competitive prices, and i cant fault them, and i know if  i went to a computer shop like, leading edge computers it would cost a F load since there a good 30% more expensive then the place i get my parts from online. So going from what prices there showing that would be ALOT  you know.
As i thought i typed the CPU into staticice and found the 920 for as low as $459.00 at PC Maniacs. So im guessing were i get my Parts from there just a bit expensive, or there supplier is charging alot for the CPU's
I agree you have to be stupid to buy this CPU now, and or have deep pockets and don't care.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 29, 2008)

cdawall said:


> the AMD chip was on LN2 i doubt it had the temp chip disabled it would make no difference it was sub-zero during all testing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AMDs don't scale any better than Intels at higher speeds.

Going by your 25% performance difference, it would only take 4.5GHz out of a Core2Quad to match the 6Ghz Deneb. That doesn't even take into account i7. But at any rate, there is much more to it than how IPCs each chip can do. There's branch prediction, pipeline dumps, cache misses, and many other factors to take into account, so we still know nothing of these chips, to be honest. We have no idea how a 6GHz Deneb truely compares to the Intels. If it only matches a 5Ghz c2q, for example, it's all for naught anyway.

I am not concerned with the clock speed of these chips in the slightest. All that matters is performance. My guess is still that AMD is going to be behind in that category. Only time will tell.


----------



## newconroer (Nov 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> AMDs don't scale any better than Intels at higher speeds.
> 
> Going by your 25% performance difference, it would only take 4.5GHz out of a Core2Quad to match the 6Ghz Deneb. That doesn't even take into account i7. But at any rate, there is much more to it than how IPCs each chip can do. There's branch prediction, pipeline dumps, cache misses, and many other factors to take into account, so we still know nothing of these chips, to be honest. We have no idea how a 6GHz Deneb truely compares to the Intels. If it only matches a 5Ghz c2q, for example, it's all for naught anyway.
> 
> I am not concerned with the clock speed of these chips in the slightest. All that matters is performance. My guess is still that AMD is going to be behind in that category. Only time will tell.



I think I'll get a hold of this guy I know that does custom bumper stickers, and have him make me one that reads "You could learn a lot from a Wile."


Seriousy, Wile has been running AMD from time to time, admittedly, and with conviction, yet he still honors the truth. Intel's whirlwind stomp-ass blitzkrieg has totally obliterated AMD for the last several years, and none of this inane nerd gossip about 6 or 7ghz is going to change that.

Besides, Intel just jacked the one technology advantage AMD had, which was Hyper Transport.

So...yes, you all could learn a lot from a Wile.

*Disclaimer, Wile E is entitled to royalties, of which amounts are not yet disclosed. A lawyer will approach Mr. E, at the appropriate time.


----------



## KBD (Nov 29, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Besides, Intel just jacked the one technology advantage AMD had, which was Hyper Transport.




Actually Intel doesnt use Hyper Transport, what they do use is an onboard memory controller inCore i7 CPUs, and as you said, that was one of the few advantages AMD had over intel. I just wish AMD would get the f**k off their ass and implement triple, or better yet, quad channel memory controller on their CPUs.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 29, 2008)

KBD said:


> Actually Intel doesnt use Hyper Transport, .....



Err, what he meant was "FSB replacement".


----------



## KBD (Nov 29, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Err, what he meant was "FSB replacement".



yea, i think he meant Quick Path Interconnect but its not Hyper Transport just similar


----------



## btarunr (Nov 29, 2008)

KBD said:


> yea, i think he meant Quick Path Interconnect but its not Hyper Transport just similar



Well obviously he wasn't trying to say Intel uses HyperTransport, what he meant was AMD no longer holds the technology lead as far as an FSB replacement goes.


----------



## newconroer (Nov 29, 2008)

It was supposed to be mocking. But thanks for the defense BT.

AMD, while not matching in performance, offered that one bit of advanced technology for quite a long time, and for me at least, was what made me prefer their type of design.

And with Quick Path, they've lost that edge.

Sometimes, I'd start to think that HT was what caused them to fall behind, even if theory would suggest otherwise. If QuickPath only increases Intel's performance, then under that premise, I really don't know what in the heck AMD has to do to catch up.

I'd really like to see them go aggressive toward some sort of Unix/Linux platform, working alongside Sun to create desktops (or laptops) as well as server machines(for which they already have a strong foothold), and churn out something similiar to a MAC, but with obviously different instruction sets. With that kind of support behind it, and the freedom of open source, Windows might start to fade, as developers got hooked on a more friendly Unix platform.
If it was succesful, then it could also be streamlined into the "home entertainment" industry, as we see lots of large format displays using embedded operating systems. I have this notion that in the future(and we see it in the evolution of home appliances in the last twenty years)dang near everything in your home will be operated via a central box of some sorts, that has all kinds of networking, wireless and other functions, which can be programmed, timed, manipulated etc, but with a very user friendly approach, much like adjusting the settings on your Plasma television. 

I'm off on a rant here, but with AMD's touts of a 'platform' approach with things like the Spyder(or is it Spider?), it just seems like the thing to do, and a way for them to get out of the rat race with Intel.

And heck, for all you anti-Intel and MS folks, if such a system worked, it would be killing two birds with one stone!


----------



## cdawall (Nov 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> AMDs don't scale any better than Intels at higher speeds.
> 
> Going by your 25% performance difference, it would only take 4.5GHz out of a Core2Quad to match the 6Ghz Deneb. That doesn't even take into account i7. But at any rate, there is much more to it than how IPCs each chip can do. There's branch prediction, pipeline dumps, cache misses, and many other factors to take into account, so we still know nothing of these chips, to be honest. We have no idea how a 6GHz Deneb truely compares to the Intels. If it only matches a 5Ghz c2q, for example, it's all for naught anyway.
> 
> I am not concerned with the clock speed of these chips in the slightest. All that matters is performance. My guess is still that AMD is going to be behind in that category. Only time will tell.



i noticed better scaling amongst the AMD's i clocked vs the intel's i've clocked i could go pull benchmarks if you would like. AMD's scale very well over 3ghz while intel's don't start to push till around 4ghz and top ~5ghz before it takes huge clock to get a performance difference. this is what i have seen if you have seen different i would love to see


----------



## KBD (Nov 29, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Sometimes, I'd start to think that HT was what caused them to fall behind, even if theory would suggest otherwise. If QuickPath only increases Intel's performance, then under that premise, I really don't know what in the heck AMD has to do to catch up.




i dont HT is the reason they are behind, its more of combination factors. They got complacent when they were on top, made almost no architectural improvements. Bad timing for buying ATI and so forth. The only thing that can save them now is a totally new architecture, similar to what Intel did when they developed C2D.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 30, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i noticed better scaling amongst the AMD's i clocked vs the intel's i've clocked i could go pull benchmarks if you would like. AMD's scale very well over 3ghz while intel's don't start to push till around 4ghz and top ~5ghz before it takes huge clock to get a performance difference. this is what i have seen if you have seen different i would love to see



You have it backwards my friend. The problem is not that AMD scales better above 3Ghz, it is that AMDs scale TERRIBLY below 3GHz. Once you get above 3Ghz, scaling is linear. I've tested that up to 3.7ish Ghz.

All of the Core2 chips I have used have pretty much scaled linearly across the whole range I've tested, from 1.8Ghz all the way to 4.6Ghz. The only time scaling differs is when the FSB is a bottleneck. Once that bottleneck is gone, scaling is linear. You can check that for yourself by setting a high fsb, and using the multi only to clock. And someday I'll finally get the DICE pot up and running to check scaling above 5Ghz.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 30, 2008)

tigger said:


> Maybe if amd can run their chips at twice the speed of intels,it may make up for the performance per clock deficit.
> 
> These benches and speeds mean squat to normal people.



if you need to OC it twice the speed of intels and on LN@ than  i would love to meet the indavidual who bought AMD to OC to that level to reach intels performance.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 30, 2008)

KBD said:


> i seriously doubt it. I think Phenom 2 hits a wall around 6GHz. Perhaps in later revisions they can up that somewhat but i dont think it will be a considerable increase.



unless of course this ends up being a huge letdown for AMD fans because they pulled a P4 and increased the lenth of the pipelines to reach the clock....which means they would need to double clock cycles and that wouldnt still ONLY let them break minimum and keep up with the loss of the pipes.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Nov 30, 2008)

Octavean said:


> The Phenom II will have a lower "instructions per clock cycle" then the i7 and Core 2 so it already has to clock higher.



Actually, on average (across a large suite of applications), current Phenoms are at an 8-9% disadvantage when compared with Core 2 at the same clock.

AMD has stated, at 3.0 GHz, a Phenom II will be 30-40% faster than the current fastest Phenom at 2.6 GHz.  Let’s take the conservative approach.  If Phenom II is only 30% faster than current Phenoms, and you eliminate the frequency advantage of Phenom II, at the very same clock Phenom II will be approximately 12.6% faster than Phenom.

In other words, as already stated by analysts and hinted by AMD, Phenom II is likely to be even with or slightly faster than Yorkfield processors, clock-for-clock.

This is also supported by very conservative documented estimates of an average 5% increase in same-clock IPC resulting from enlarging of cache and 3% from core improvements – a combined 8.1% IPC improvement.

I caution that this is only a very conservative prospect.  If you consider the scenarios in which an application (or game) will benefit from 3 times the cache, the IPC improvements will be far greater than described above.  (Keep in mind, K10’s average improvement was approximately 15% over K8.  Yet in many single-threaded applications and games, it is not uncommon to see 24-40% gains at the same clock).

Also, even if Yorkfield and Deneb find themselves dead-even in most scenarios, Deneb will shine in memory instensive situations, with lower latencies and higher throughputs.

This tells us one thing.  Intel didn’t rush to Core i7 as a luxury; it was forced to in order to maintain its leadership.  In the coming months, we’ll see sub-$300 Phenom 940/945 processors that rival and beat 1000-dollar QX9650s, and with just as much overclocking headroom.

Owners of current AM2+ platforms will have the last laugh – and here’s why:

Statistics show the vast majority of Intel Quad owners are sporting Q6600s (limited to 3.6-3.8 GHz, at best, on average while expending far more energy and outputting significantly more heat than next month’s PII 940).
Intel owners of Yorkfield 45nm Quads either have to spend $1000+ for an unlocked processor or, otherwise, face the fact the less expensive Quads are multiplier-limited.
AM2+ platform owners will require a mere BIOS update and CPU swap to enjoy unlocked performance (potentially to 4GHz and beyond), while spending fewer than $300.
Intel Core 2 platform owners wishing to undo being outdone by PII 940/945 PCs will have to spend – at a minimum – $500 for a platform and CPU change and closer to $1000 if seeking a premium MB and having to purchase quality DDR3 – only to outperform PII 940/945s by an even smaller margin than Yorkfields.

The good news is that the above will cause significant downward shifts in pricing, making previously unattainable (or undesirable) purchase prospects possible for many.


----------



## KBD (Nov 30, 2008)

Rash-Un-Al said:


> This tells us one thing.  Intel didn’t rush to Core i7 as a luxury; it was forced to in order to maintain its leadership.  In the coming months, we’ll see sub-$300 Phenom 940/945 processors that rival and beat 1000-dollar QX9650s, and with just as much overclocking headroom.



I agree with many things you say and your conservative estimates make sense to me. But this paragraph jumped at me. It seems that Corei7 could've waited another 10 months or so, as we recently learned Intel estimates that Corei7 share by Q3(?) of 09 will only be 2%, it will not be as widely adopted as 775 C2D CPUs were when they were released. Hence, your conclusion is correct, the release of i7 on Nov 17 was done purely to further solidify intel's dominance. They suspected that Deneb and AM3 will either overtake C2Q or be on equal footing with it or at least be competitive with C2Q so they had to release i7 early. Another thing intel done wrong in my opinion was create 2 CPU sockets for i7, i think that was a bad idea and anyone who will own an 1166 socket board will not be able to upgrade to Nehalem CPUs and will be forced to buy another board. After the longevity and upgradability of 775 this seems like a bad move.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 1, 2008)

Rash-Un-Al said:


> Actually, on average (across a large suite of applications), current Phenoms are at an 8-9% disadvantage when compared with Core 2 at the same clock.
> 
> AMD has stated, at 3.0 GHz, a Phenom II will be 30-40% faster than the current fastest Phenom at 2.6 GHz.  Let’s take the conservative approach.  If Phenom II is only 30% faster than current Phenoms, and you eliminate the frequency advantage of Phenom II, at the very same clock Phenom II will be approximately 12.6% faster than Phenom.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I just don't believe PII will be a match for Yorkfield clock for clock, regardless of AMD's claims of performance on it. They have exaggerated the performance of their future chips before.

And even if it does manage to match York, it still falls behind i7. Intel could just make a big push towards i7, and leave AMD behind again.

All in all, AMD desperately needs to release a new architecture, and quit rehashing K8 over and over again, in order to truly catch up to, or pass, Intel. I personally long for that day, and hope to God they survive to pull it off.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 1, 2008)

The new architecture (Bulldozer/SandTiger), according to Nigel Dessau (from the Analyst Day event) is slated for 2011, based on the 32nm process. 2011 sounds way too late for both a new architecture and a newer fab process considering Intel already has 32nm prototypes.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Dec 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> They have exaggerated the performance of their future chips before.



AMD’s performance projections concerning Phenom were fairly spot-on.  The issue rested in the fact many consumers had a hard time converting AMD’s quad-core projections to per-core, same-clock advantages over the K8 architecture and that launch speeds were far below what was expected.  And, to worsen matters, AMD displayed Phenoms operating @ 3.0 GHz, and none came to fruition.   However, concerning performance projections claimed by AMD, they were consistent with actual performance.



Wile E said:


> Unfortunately, I just don't believe PII will be a match for Yorkfield clock for clock, regardless of AMD's claims of performance on it.



Unbeknownst to many, there are already a few benchmarks which dispel this notion, illustrating an average 9% IPC increase, at the same clock (enough to be competitive with and even comparable to Yorkfield at the same clock).

Feel free to take a look...



Wile E said:


> And even if it does manage to match York, it still falls behind i7. Intel could just make a big push towards i7, and leave AMD behind again.



Tough proposition.  Changing platforms (purchasing a new CPU, Motherboard, and Memory) isn't at the top of even enthusiast's to-do list.  That push would require dramatic price reductions.  I don't think investors would be too happy with that.



Wile E said:


> All in all, AMD desperately needs to release a new architecture, and quit rehashing K8 over and over again, in order to truly catch up to, or pass, Intel. I personally long for that day, and hope to God they survive to pull it off.



Indeed -- we all benefit from stronger competition.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 1, 2008)

Botttom line is, this dont mean sh*t if these chips arent readily available to the consumer, bit like saying a formula 1 Grand prix car is the fastest in the world........"well knock me down with a whore's wet wipe"  none of us have one so it's a bit immaterial, now if we could get our hands on them, that would be different


----------



## KBD (Dec 1, 2008)

btarunr said:


> The new architecture (Bulldozer/SandTiger), according to Nigel Dessau (from the Analyst Day event) is slated for 2011, based on the 32nm process. 2011 sounds way too late for both a new architecture and a newer fab process considering Intel already has 32nm prototypes.



yea, i heard about this also. this is wayyyyy too late. I dont know what the hell is taking them so long, Intel will prolly have their 32nm on the market by 2010, i hope they make good use of that money they got and bring this tech out earlier. K8 has been around since 2003 for god's sake, it takes them 8 years to come up with a totally new arch, thats just crazy.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Dec 1, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> none of us have one so it's a bit immaterial, now if we could get our hands on them, that would be different



Agreed.

January 8, 2009 is when the channel is expected to have stock.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 1, 2008)

Rash-Un-Al said:


> AMD’s performance projections concerning Phenom were fairly spot-on.  The issue rested in the fact many consumers had a hard time converting AMD’s quad-core projections to per-core, same-clock advantages over the K8 architecture and that launch speeds were far below what was expected.  And, to worsen matters, AMD displayed Phenoms operating @ 3.0 GHz, and none came to fruition.   However, concerning performance projections claimed by AMD, they were consistent with actual performance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


3 tests from a random forum, 2 of which are already known Phenom strong suits, doesn't draw any conclusions at all.

And it is still easier for Intel to lower prices and flood the market with i7 (and it's soon to be mainstream derivatives), than it would be for AMD to make a real dent in the market. If Intel wants to overshadow/overtake AMD, they will. They have the financial ability to do so.


----------

