# Phenom FX in the Works, AMD to take Another shot at...Kentsfield



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2008)

The transition of the K10 architecture by AMD to the 45nm silicon fabrication process is stirring up interesting revelations these days. First, it was about surprisingly low power consumption of the quad-core Phenom parts, and then about the overclocking headroom those 45nm parts provided, at least the engineering samples did so far. And now, news coming in that AMD could be resurrecting the "FX" series of extreme performance products. Over the past three or so years, the performance trail AMD products had over Intel's made it close to impossible for AMD to sell parts that provide performance tuning advantages such as unlocked FSB multiplier settings for a premium, like it did back when K8 reigned the performance segment. "Black Edition" chips made up for that deficit by providing consumers overclocking advantages while not charging a significant premium and at the same time, safeguarding the "FX" title, not letting it dilute. 

Come AMD Deneb core and lot seems to be on offer. To begin with, unlike the Windsor core that had a maximum FSB multiplier of 16.0x, initial reports suggest the Deneb to sport a maximum 25.0x multiplier, 200 MHz x 25 = 5.00 GHz, with the FSB left to play with. Considering at 2.30 GHz the Deneb draws in 57.3 W (according to findings), it should still leave enough room for AMD to sell premium products clocked at high frequencies.





From Reviewage's findings, there seem to be two Phenom FX processors in the making. The numbering seems to take off where it last left at the Athlon64 FX 74. The two chips, Phenom FX 80 and Phenom FX 82 could be clocked at 4.00 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively (stock speeds). An interesting statement is that at 4.00 GHz, the Phenom FX 80 should outperform an Intel Kentsfield core clocked at 5.00 GHz, implies it has to be faster than the Kentsfield on a clock-to-clock basis. This opens up an interesting debate on how these parts compare to the succeeding Yorkfield chips. This should also open gates for several models to enter the market at various clock speeds.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## trt740 (Aug 27, 2008)

well thats better


----------



## BvB123 (Aug 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> The two chips, Phenom FX 80 and Phenom FX 82 could be clocked at 4.00 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively (stock speeds).



and i am jesus


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> and i am jesus



Follow the link to the source.
Follow that link in the first paragraph. Try to reason it out.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Aug 27, 2008)

Awesome news, hopefully this will actually happen.


----------



## Apocolypse007 (Aug 27, 2008)

4.4Ghz is a bold claim for stock speeds. If AMD can deliver, this chip will be well worthy of the FX name. Its about time AMD


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 27, 2008)

Thats what i like to hear(read). This is awesome news. A 5ghz Phenom would be awesome!


----------



## AddSub (Aug 27, 2008)

Looks like leftovers of the original Phenom marketing campaign.


----------



## son_of_liberty (Aug 27, 2008)

phenom fx is true

look here on the top of the page!!!

http://www.foxconnchannel.com/Product/Motherboard/Digitallife08/index_A79A-S.htm


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 27, 2008)

son_of_liberty said:


> phenom fx is true
> 
> look here on the top of the page!!!
> 
> http://www.foxconnchannel.com/Product/Motherboard/Digitallife08/index_A79A-S.htm



Ive seen other mobo's say the same thing. hmmmm.


----------



## Darkrealms (Aug 27, 2008)

This is good news for AMD if they can pull it off.  I'd like to see them bring rivalry to Intel again.


----------



## BvB123 (Aug 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Follow the link to the source.
> Follow that link in the first paragraph. Try to reason it out.



from 2,6Ghz with 140W TDP in 65nm to 4,4Ghz in 45nm..  that is just impossible..


----------



## son_of_liberty (Aug 27, 2008)

i thinks thats total crazy....

if the clock speeds are true... that would be a massive bash on intel...


----------



## Evo85 (Aug 27, 2008)

If these ring true in the end, I just found my next CPU!


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> from 2,6Ghz with 140W TDP in 65nm to 4,4Ghz in 45nm..  that is just impossible..



That isn't 140W anymore. 9950 got a new rating of 125W. Besides some tests show 2.30 GHz Deneb operating at 58W. Why does 4.40 GHz look impossible...mathematically?


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 27, 2008)

Wtf, 5GHz stock clock(or 4.4). Thats awesome. I may have to sell my system to build a new AMD Deneb system. Hopefully there not that expensive. This is good news for us non OCers to.


----------



## blueskynis (Aug 27, 2008)

This is too good to be true...


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 27, 2008)

Well wouldn't ya know....AMD has something up there sleeve!!! woot!!


----------



## BvB123 (Aug 27, 2008)

the step of 65nm to 45nm should bring 2ghz? thats to much..

and these slides of the Phenom FX are very old.

i would love to believe that, that is true


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 27, 2008)

But since this is Socket AM2+ can't you just buy a AM2+ board now and it will support this?


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> the step of 65nm to 45nm should bring 2ghz? thats to much..
> 
> and these slides of the Phenom FX are very old.



Well that step reduced power consumption by around 45%...which means room to take the clocks higher.  

Why, didn't the shrink from 90nm to 65nm allow the Cedarmill to sell at insane 3.80 GHz frequencies (and clock-speed records)? Compared to 2.80 Prescotts that were already hot? Ofcourse Cedarmill didn't lop down TDP as expected.


Those slides are of no relevance to this article they're just PR do's / don't s.


----------



## laszlo (Aug 27, 2008)

i have made already plans for my new rig with intel but seems is worth waiting even a half year till this new chips come out  

Amd  is like the Phoenix ...


----------



## BvB123 (Aug 27, 2008)

let us bet 

maximum 3Ghz.. 

Deneb has more Cache and a better IPC. At 4,4Ghz it would blow all availables cpus out of hell


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> let us bet
> 
> maximum 3Ghz..
> 
> Deneb has more Cache and a better IPC. At 4,4Ghz it would blow all availables cpus out of hell



I'm not AMD, we're not betting. 

It's claimed 4:00 GHz Deneb = >5.00 GHz Kentsfield. Shouldn't that take it close to the Yorkfield?


----------



## JC316 (Aug 27, 2008)

If true, then holy crap! If not than BOO!!! I would really like to see AMD back in the performance game, I have been waiting on this since the dang Phenom came out.


----------



## suraswami (Aug 27, 2008)

my bank account is dedictated to this chip now.  Whatever it takes I am getting one.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> I'm not AMD, we're not betting.
> 
> It's claimed 4:00 GHz Deneb = >5.00 GHz Kentsfield. Shouldn't that take it close to the Yorkfield?



That should make it better than a yorkfield, by a decent margin. I'll believe it when I see it, that's a pretty huge architecture improvement. Maybe in some very specific test and circumstance, but overall, that seems unlikely. Still, it would be nice if it were true, drop some prices and make things nice and competitive like the vc market. It would have to be soon though, as far as multi-tasking goes it's quite unlikely these things will stand up to nehalem, so it would be nice if they get out first...........


----------



## erocker (Aug 27, 2008)

I really, REALLY hope this is true.  I would love to start making money on my AMD stock!  If a 4ghz Deneb = a 5ghz Kentsfield, I believe Deneb and Yorkfield should be close to neck and neck.  We will see, I heard enough bs about Phenom before it was released.


----------



## FR@NK (Aug 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> That isn't 140W anymore. 9950 got a new rating of 125W. Besides some tests show 2.30 GHz Deneb operating at 58W. Why does 4.40 GHz look impossible...mathematically?



Mathematically heat output doesnt scale in a linear fashion. See the power draw of a QX9650:


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2008)

Doesn't have to be linear, just telling it doesn't look impossible looking at Deneb's 2.30 GHz wattage results.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 27, 2008)

FR@NK said:


> Mathematically heat output doesnt scale in a linear fashion. See the power draw of a QX9650:



Yep, that pretty much obeys the Law of Diminishing Returns.  

After you reach a certain point, it takes more and more power to get less and less of a speed increase.  It's the same way with cars.

Either way, even if this chip sucks a hell of a lot of power, it'd still be cool to see it perform. (Even Intel chips at 4+ GHz pull a hell of a lot of watts.)


----------



## wolf2009 (Aug 27, 2008)

4.0 Ghz for a Stock CPU is Unheard of , and will be awesome . I nelieve in AMD to come up with something . They have been down too long now, and when things get desperate, desperate companies take desperate measures and rise from the ashes to fly high .

Looking at that core voltage 1.168V ( Holy Crap ! ) . This has to be perfectly possible . Can an Intel cpu do 4ghz at that voltage ?

If this is true, bye bye nehalem , Spider Platform , here i come .


----------



## Dark_Webster (Aug 27, 2008)

If this is true, AMD has done a great catch-up on Intel. But 4.0Ghz?? If that's out of box, they must pack a good cooler with them, not like that Prescott like cooler that idles at 65c.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 27, 2008)

i want one saving for it now


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 27, 2008)

erocker said:


> I really, REALLY hope this is true.  I would love to start making money on my AMD stock!  If a 4ghz Deneb = a 5ghz Kentsfield, I believe Deneb and Yorkfield should be close to neck and neck.  We will see, I heard enough bs about Phenom before it was released.



You and me both! My Dream would come true. because i too have stock in AMD.


----------



## holy_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Would consider to buy my first Quad Core if it's true =)


----------



## hugz (Aug 27, 2008)

Why do you all compare this with kentsfield cores? nehalem will bash this rubbish


----------



## Apocolypse007 (Aug 27, 2008)

hugz said:


> Why do you all compare this with kentsfield cores? nehalem will bash this rubbish



I'm not quite so sure. To me nehalem seems to be much like a hyperthreaded kentsfield, allowing more threads but not adding much horsepower.

A Phenom clocked at 4ghz stock however, is indeed a force to be reckoned with, if it does so exist.

I was saving to convert my system to nehalem, but by the looks of it, I might reconsider going back to AMD.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Aug 27, 2008)

Bad choice AMD.  Skip this generation, and go for better than Nahalem.


----------



## hugz (Aug 27, 2008)

I saw somewhere trusted benchmark of QX9770 running at 4.6 Ghz +- getting bashed by 265$ 2.6 Ghz nehalem.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2008)

Nehalem also means $260 + < insert LGA 1366 / 1160 motherboard price here > + DDR3 (if you don't have)

Phenom FX gives you the option of
1. Using a AM2+ / possible "AM3" board single
2. Comes in Socket 1207 flavours
3. Use two chips on a dual socket 1207 board over DSDC. Different from server boards, design approach takes off from where NVIDIA nForce 680a left.

So effectively that $260 processor is $260 + X58 board price. 

There's no such thing as "trusted benchmark", often we brand reviews/benchmarks that sync with our thoughts / choice / opinions as "trusted" while those that don't sync we brand as "this is the worst bench / review I've seen".

BTW, that SANDRA plot of QX9770 vs. Bloomfield 2.66 GHz had the QX9770 running at stock.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 27, 2008)

*shangai and Deneb vs nehalem*

deneb cpu is not made to go head to head with yorkfield but is for the cut down version of desktop nehalem as the shanghai server 2P/4P/8P? cpu is for the high end nehalem. 

AMD has already said deneb will beat yorkfield but has not said anything about it beating nehalem. Intel is in big trouble if nehalem does not do better then already shown.

am already selling my Intel set-up as its not going to be worth anything at todays value at the end of this year lol.


----------



## pentastar111 (Aug 27, 2008)

Interesting indeed...As I won't have the funds saved for the new build until Dec of this year or jan or feb of the new year, I'll have plenty of time to watch and see how these new "toys" pan out...Exciting stuff


----------



## X1REME (Aug 27, 2008)

you need 3 ddr3 sticks, x58 motherboard, nehalem cpu etc = 1000+

i just hope AMD don't make the same mistake last time (high prices)

deneb works with both ddr2 and ddr3


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 27, 2008)

Since i dont OC its going to be hard to pick.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 27, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> Since i dont OC its going to be hard to pick.



That should make it easier, one less factor to vary in to a decision, plus all benchies are always done at stock. It will be an interesting fall......


----------



## pentastar111 (Aug 27, 2008)

One thing that does make this so exciting...AMD's vid cards...they just kick ass...AMD said they would and they delivered..Stands to reason that the "NEW" cpu's would follow suit...good times


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Aug 27, 2008)

That`s the pic a seen a few weeks back ,Wonder if these will be in the mid $350 range?


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 27, 2008)

please let it be so, i am so ready for this. go amd


----------



## wolf2009 (Aug 27, 2008)

H82LUZ73 said:


> That`s the pic a seen a few weeks back ,Wonder if these will be in the mid $350 range?



Less , AMD has to win back the enthusiasts to there side. The only way they can do this is by lowering the price like they did with HD 48xx  series and won over all of you . Now you guys think 2 times before going Nvidia .


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 27, 2008)

It is great for the market period IF this is true, AMD fan or Intel fan!


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 27, 2008)

IF these truly are at stock then i am buying one or sure. I guess there isn't any word on a release date yet?

And also the heat generated must need a good cooler. I REALLY hope this isn't all smoke and mirrors.


----------



## springs113 (Aug 27, 2008)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Bad choice AMD.  Skip this generation, and go for better than Nahalem.




could it be possible that amd is pulling a fast one...atleast i can hope thats the way they're going...after all remember the 4800s being compared to the g92s...when in actuality they were much better...another aim low but actually high....kind of deceptive but i can respect that...

and for all you nehalem fanboi's nehalem is really a multithreaded beast i want it, but i am tired of changing intel boards....i only have one/two amd leftover board and that is the k7n2 delta series from msi, and the k8neo plat for 939...with intel however i have 4 socket 775 boards....it just sucks that a same socket board cant support a cpu with the same structure layout.

back to topic, the 4850 especially did a killing and now its just a matter of time before the 4850 x2 does the same, so my question to those who dont think it can be done.....

why cant it? last i check the p4s were high clocked resource hogs(power) with diminishing returns....


----------



## Polarman (Aug 27, 2008)

This will be part of my next build for sure.  FX


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 27, 2008)

I do actually have to say - this is the first time i am actually looking forward to something. Sure i've wanted to see to how things perform but this time - I actually WANT to see how it performs!

I want this chip!

Man i feel so sad.


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 27, 2008)

Lets hope AMD can deliver, not just for our sake but for theirs.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> could it be possible that amd is pulling a fast one...atleast i can hope thats the way they're going...after all remember the 4800s being compared to the g92s...when in actuality they were much better...another aim low but actually high....kind of deceptive but i can respect that...
> 
> and for all you nehalem fanboi's nehalem is really a multithreaded beast i want it, but i am tired of changing intel boards....i only have one/two amd leftover board and that is the k7n2 delta series from msi, and the k8neo plat for 939...with intel however i have 4 socket 775 boards....it just sucks that a same socket board cant support a cpu with the same structure layout.
> 
> ...



thats kinda an odd argument


2000-2000 Socket A 100mhz
2000-2002 Socket A 133mhz
2002-2003 Socket A 166-200mhz
2004-2005 Socket 754
2004-2006 Socket 939
2006-2007 Socket AM
2007-2008 Socket AM2+


2000-2001 Socket 423
2001 Socket 478 100mhz
2001-2002 Socket 478 133mhz
2002-2004 Socket 478 200mhz
2004-2008 Socket 775
2006-2008 Socket 775 Core2 support


AMD and Intel have the same record.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Aug 28, 2008)

I Dont think they need to for theirs Jbunch. I am playing a wait and see, but the PR looks very nice. As an AMD fan Ill admit I like what they are saying but I dont know if its that viable. I do like watching Intel fans squirm and cry foul on it. Lets remember that is took Intel years to finally adopts AMDs ground breaking architecture startings with the 64 series. Ondie mem controllers and Hyper transport (getting rid of the FSB pretty much) has been standard. Now AMD rolls out, supposedly, with something alot better and lower watts. I cant wait and see. Then all the AMD leavers who went Intel will stuff it. (End fanboy rant  ).

All jokes aside, it looks to be a promising chip for AMD.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 28, 2008)

Nice,4ghz with 1.1vcore


----------



## Valdez (Aug 28, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> thats kinda an odd argument
> 
> 
> 2000-2000 Socket A 100mhz
> ...




You dont need to change board, if you do the right choice, especially on amd side. S939 was available at the same time as s754, and it's support X2. AM2 is compatible with AM2+ cpu-s (i hope 45nm parts too).


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 28, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> All jokes aside, it looks to be a promising chip for AMD.




Yea I agree. I love my FX-64 to bits. I just want this to be true so much. Although I bet that if it is true the pricing will be high.


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 28, 2008)

any word on when we will start seeing these?


----------



## swaaye (Aug 28, 2008)

Yorkfield/Wolfdale are still way faster per clock and clock above 4 GHz already. Actually, I believe I've read that Deneb is still behind Conroe/Kentsfield on the per-clock performance. So, uh, big whoop. The frugal power use is welcome, considering how ridiculous 65nm Phenom is on that. But 45nm Core 2 is stunningly frugal....perhaps unbeatably so. It idles at like 6W or so. Intel doesn't have AMD's cool IGPs though so they don't have a sweet low-power platform.

I don't see what's so exciting here. Or why people have ever been excited by Phenom. Bring me a $100 45nm Phenom for my low power 780G rig and I'll buy one to replace the $50 A64X2 in it. But I'm not buying one for something I want pure speed from, nor am I paying any significant amount for one.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 28, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> any word on when we will start seeing these?



Nothing on the offical AMD news pages. which is the sucks.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 28, 2008)

Valdez said:


> You dont need to change board, if you do the right choice, especially on amd side. S939 was available at the same time as s754, and it's support X2. AM2 is compatible with AM2+ cpu-s (i hope 45nm parts too).



well when i went A64 939 wasn't out yet, i jumped on 754 when the A64 3200 Clawhammer launced.


----------



## flashstar (Aug 28, 2008)

This is exactly how AMD beat Intel the first time. They came out of the blue with the A64 and completely destroyed intel. 

Phenom scales better as it reaches higher clocks. I'm sure that AMD realized that they just needed to hold on long enough to get 45nm chips taped so that they could unleash the true potential of Phenom.


----------



## IcrushitI (Aug 28, 2008)

I hope this is for real. I've been a fan since the T bird. I was shafted enough times by Intel to stay with AMD high or low water. I've been gritting my teeth every once in awhile and making my 939 tread water hoping it wouldn't sink before Amd came out with a decent replacement.


----------



## suraswami (Aug 28, 2008)

flashstar said:


> This is exactly how AMD beat Intel the first time. They came out of the blue with the A64 and completely destroyed intel.
> 
> Phenom scales better as it reaches higher clocks. I'm sure that AMD realized that they just needed to hold on long enough to get 45nm chips taped so that they could unleash the true potential of Phenom.



Hope it doesn't get to Nutburst Ghz war with zero performance increase.


----------



## springs113 (Aug 28, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> thats kinda an odd argument
> 
> 
> 2000-2000 Socket A 100mhz
> ...



maybe i should rephrase a little... what i really meant was that with intel there is too much of a risk in having to overhaul your entire core of a build...amd gives us users a lil more adaptive chance. im not debating im just speaking from my past experience...normally with every other intel new process/chipset you have to change your mobo...amd is less likely.


----------



## springs113 (Aug 28, 2008)

this is not another netburst hoopla... the phenom is no weak chip as it outperforms the x2s clock for clock...and the x2s aint no push over...
with that being said, i have both a c2d setup and x2 setup the current phenoms use too much power for this day and age so i am waiting for the denebs


----------



## Siman0 (Aug 28, 2008)

O my bold clams i predicted this would happen based on rumors and they are all coming true and i jest looked if they use socket G34 which they originally saved for servers this new processor will FLY.

rumors heard:
DDR4 (highly skeptical DDR3 support though)
Larger pin-size (G34 plosible)
Higher clocks (if true confirmed)
New HT since over due (3.1 will do confirmed)
more stuff on the CPU die (hay talk of a PCI-E controller)
skipping NM tech (nothing so far but 32nm used by ATI in next gen cards speculation)


----------



## Polarman (Aug 28, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> Yea I agree. I love my FX-64 to bits. I just want this to be true so much. Although I bet that if it is true the pricing will be high.



I will never beat the FX-62's 1000+ $$ price tag at launch.

I love my FX too! 

It may not be the fastest out there but it run's all my games so darn well.


----------



## blueskynis (Aug 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> this is not another netburst hoopla... the phenom is no weak chip as it outperforms the x2s clock for clock...and the x2s aint no push over...
> with that being said, i have both a c2d setup and x2 setup the current phenoms use too much power for this day and age so i am waiting for the denebs



One part of the problem in Phenom power consumption lies within current motherboards not using its power savings abilities. Also, there were numerous reports of motherboards overvolting the CPU...who is to blame for this I don't know...


----------



## cdawall (Aug 28, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> thats kinda an odd argument
> 
> 
> 2000-2000 Socket A 100mhz
> ...



except for one thing AMD lets you use even the oldest mobo on the newest chip with the same socket try that with early C2D/Q boards and new C2D/Q


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 28, 2008)

Man, I'm loving AMD right now, I would shit a brick to see them take control of both gfx and processing.

I kinda felt like AMD was a lurking beast the shadows waiting for it's chance to take control. Looks like that time is coming.

THOSE PESKY GERMANS!


----------



## blueskynis (Aug 28, 2008)

Add to that socket list another Socket 775, because new boards with new VRD11.1 power supply specs do not support older CPUs, look: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherboard/CPUSupport_Model.aspx?ProductID=2839


----------



## turtile (Aug 28, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> thats kinda an odd argument
> 
> 
> 2000-2000 Socket A 100mhz
> ...



You're a little off.

Lets take the Core 2 LGA 775.

1. x9xx series for support up to 1066 FSB CPUs
2. x3x seres for 1333 FSB CPUs
3. x48 and later series for 1600 FSB CPUs

Since AMD boards don't have a separate chip for the memory on the board, a simple BIOS update will allow for an upgrade.

Intel should be the same as AMD from Nahalem on.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 28, 2008)

*AMD Phenom FX - Yorkfield/? Beater*

this was the first post on the cpu below (awesome check it - dated from 21st aug 2008)
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17910794&page=1

the motherboards that support it it that i found in one search
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-016-FC

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...770 (Socket AM2) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard


the phenom 65nm has reached 4+ghz by a German over clocker (currently amd record for quad core) so wont be a problem for 45nm deneb


----------



## ascstinger (Aug 28, 2008)

maybe amd learned their lesson from the first rushed phenom launch and is taking their time to publish any big figures until they can back them up, as well as make sure they are bug free


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 28, 2008)

i think they planed the whole thing.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Aug 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> could it be possible that amd is pulling a fast one...atleast i can hope thats the way they're going...after all remember the 4800s being compared to the g92s...when in actuality they were much better...another aim low but actually high....kind of deceptive but i can respect that...
> 
> and for all you nehalem fanboi's nehalem is really a multithreaded beast i want it, but i am tired of changing intel boards....i only have one/two amd leftover board and that is the k7n2 delta series from msi, and the k8neo plat for 939...with intel however i have 4 socket 775 boards....it just sucks that a same socket board cant support a cpu with the same structure layout.
> 
> ...



I was thinking that too!  I thought they would aim super low, so if they failed, oh well, but if it is good, OMG AMD is king.  We will see.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 28, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> i think they planed the whole thing.



And laying off half of their workforce was part of the plan?
I'm an AMD Fanboi, but I don't think they had this ace up their sleeve the whole time.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 28, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> i think they planed the whole thing.



you are 100% right on coz they are doing the same as they did with their video cards but with the cpu they are making sure the backbone is there first (the motherboards) simple


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 28, 2008)

Guys i was actually kidding, being sarcastic. I don't really think they planned the whole thing...but i do think they are going to try and keep this as confidential as they can until its released.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 28, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> Guys i was actually kidding, being sarcastic. I don't really think they planned the whole thing...but i do think they are going to try and keep this as confidential as they can until its released.



wow u r right again lol coz they have learned not to underestimate mighty Intel ever again (as most sites were saying amd does not know what is coming e.g. i7), which is a good thing


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 28, 2008)

whats the launch price, where are they, wher eis a true review


----------



## X1REME (Aug 28, 2008)

i suppose the point is, does intel have an ace. which might be the reason amd is keeping it hush hush

Also, we should not forget that AMD constantly lives with the dilemma that it is out-resourced and out-spent in comparison with Intel. If it reveals too much about its future strategy and Intel likes that strategy there is at least the theoretical chance that Intel could take this idea and deliver a product even before AMD. This was probably a key reason for the company to switch its entire communications strategy and remain completely quiet about a new product until it exactly knows its specs and capabilities – and is convinced that Nvidia or Intel can’t beat it to market anymore.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 28, 2008)

X1REME said:


> i suppose the point is, does intel have an ace. which might be the reason amd is keeping it hush hush
> 
> Also, we should not forget that AMD constantly lives with the dilemma that it is out-resourced and out-spent in comparison with Intel. If it reveals too much about its future strategy and Intel likes that strategy there is at least the theoretical chance that Intel could take this idea and deliver a product even before AMD. This was probably a key reason for the company to switch its entire communications strategy and remain completely quiet about a new product until it exactly knows its specs and capabilities – and is convinced that Nvidia or Intel can’t beat it to market anymore.



You make it sound like they're actually at WAR with eachother, why doesn't an AMD rep just go infiltrate and suicide bomb an intel tech center?


----------



## btarunr (Aug 28, 2008)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> THOSE PESKY GERMANS!



What does this have to do with Germans?  

You have AMD's fab in Dresden, but technology centers all over, HQ in California, US.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Aug 28, 2008)

Interesting arguements but the fact is, we dont know enough about these chips to make any concrete points. Its all speculation. It sure seems to me that AMD might have something coming, though who's to say how awesome it will be. It has to be something else to differentiate between us (AMD) and them (inTel) since Intel is now a steroid A64


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 28, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> thats kinda an odd argument
> 
> AMD and Intel have the same record.



You did have to buy new chipsets to support newer intel CPUs along the way, though 
edit: nvm, that was redundant haha


I'm going to say with almost certainty that this 4 ghz (stock) deneb is 100% bull. It's not really possible considering the materials used haven't changed. Bulldozer could be another story.


----------



## flclisgreat (Aug 28, 2008)

i love AMD, but do you guys really believe any AMD chip will come stock @ 4ghz? that's just ridiculous to believe in. i mean the world record for highest OC on any AMD chip, ever is 4.2ghz, and you expect 4ghz stock on 4 cores?


----------



## btarunr (Aug 28, 2008)

How many 45nm AMD chips did you see reach that 4.20 GHz mark before?


----------



## X1REME (Aug 28, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> You did have to buy new chipsets to support newer intel CPUs along the way, though
> edit: nvm, that was redundant haha
> 
> 
> I'm going to say with almost certainty that this 4 ghz (stock) deneb is 100% bull. It's not really possible considering the materials used haven't changed. Bulldozer could be another story.



i think your forgetting this is not k10 but k10.5 (hah). amd had more than enough time to come up with a totally new? say K11 or whatever but for some reason they stayed with the k10.5, why? because its 45nm with steroids and a combination of leading edge technologies, such as immersion lithography and AMD’s 4th generation of strained-silicon, plus high-k metal gate transistors could have or will be used very shortly co developed with IBM. we have learned one think and that is amd says its for the low end but recently even there low end beats the crap out of high end (well in gpu anyway)


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 28, 2008)

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow, sound's go to amd now , like we see new intel cpu not support high overclock , now amd give as high overclock cpu , score to amd , that's is what we waiting for , we wait too long amd but thanx to give us something we deserve


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 28, 2008)

I could see 45nm stock 4ghz chips, its not hard to actully belive, what i want to know is this, what ace does intel have to counter this?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 28, 2008)

I don't believe this for a second. In fact, I don't believe either of the claims.

I'm willing to bet they will not launch at 4+GHz, and I'm especially willing to bet they don't beat a 5GHz Intel quad at those speeds.

K10 is slower than Core2 clock for clock, a die shrink and a few tweaks isn't gonna suddenly make them faster than the Intels. Maybe they can come closer, perhaps even match kentsfield, but they aren't gonna beat Intel in overall performance.

Then you have to factor in i7.

I say this is FUD.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 28, 2008)

this better true, i hope amd starts owning again!


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 28, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I don't believe this for a second. In fact, I don't believe either of the claims.
> 
> I'm willing to bet they will not launch at 4+GHz, and I'm especially willing to bet they don't beat a 5GHz Intel quad at those speeds.
> 
> ...



no telling what all they did to deneb though ya know


----------



## vojc (Aug 28, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> from 2,6Ghz with 140W TDP in 65nm to 4,4Ghz in 45nm..  that is just impossible..


SOI baby SOI  2,3GHz at 57W tdp, maby 125W tdp at 4/4,4Ghz


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 28, 2008)

I want to beleive this..........I hope it's true.......I fear it isnt............... When Intel reduced their fabrication process to 45nm from 65nm on their quads, the TDP went from 95W .......to ........... 95W!!  

Then again, what do I know?  I just wont hold me breath.....cause I dont like turning purple!


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 28, 2008)

intel sucks at shrinking the TDP didnt change from the northwood to the cedar mill


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 28, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> intel sucks at shrinking the TDP didnt change from the northwood to the cedar mill



Well that was a while ago, and it's just like saying AMD/ATi were the first to go 55nm on their GPU's, dont mean a lot if they give out more heat than the 65nm opposition


----------



## cdawall (Aug 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I want to beleive this..........I hope it's true.......I fear it isnt............... When Intel reduced their fabrication process to 45nm from 65nm on their quads, the TDP went from 95W .......to ........... 95W!!
> 
> Then again, what do I know?  I just wont hold me breath.....cause I dont like turning purple!



intel has also publicly said AMD has a better process so much so that intel never could have done something as complex as phenom on 65nm. 

also look at AMD's die shrinks now 130nm 2ghz=90w 90nm 2.8ghz=90w 65nm 2.8ghz DC=65w 2.5ghz QC=125w

so it is possible for a huge TDP drop to happen


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 28, 2008)

cdawall said:


> intel has also publicly said AMD has a better process so much so that intel never could have done something as complex as phenom on 65nm.
> 
> also look at AMD's die shrinks now 130nm 2ghz=90w 90nm 2.8ghz=90w 65nm 2.8ghz DC=65w 2.5ghz QC=125w
> 
> so it is possible for a huge TDP drop to happen



I agree, my point is tho, recent history would suggest that with that TDP drop doesent come the lower thermal benefits which kind of defeats the object, if they can really produce a 45nm chip that stocks at 4.4gig on air then I am buying one!  but TBH.....I have my reservations......we will see.


----------



## garagetinkerer (Aug 28, 2008)

*yehaaa*



Tatty_One said:


> I agree, my point is tho, recent history would suggest that with that TDP drop doesent come the lower thermal benefits which kind of defeats the object, if they can really produce a 45nm chip that stocks at 4.4gig on air then I am buying one!  but TBH.....I have my reservations......we will see.



TDP of Intel may have something to do with the huge quantities of L2 chache that we see nowadays. AMD has about HALF the size of cache on its processors(Deneb 8MB in total or so with the largest size of cache) when comparing to a Yorkfield quad with about 14 MB of cache.

check the link i found... preview for a deneb early engineering samples(could be fake... don't stone me to death yet)

http://nl.babelfish.yahoo.com/trans...doc/hard/79405.htm&lp=zt_en&btnTrUrl=Vertalen

i think it will be better if someone can translate all the jibberish in english from the native page on the hardspell.com


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 28, 2008)

garagetinkerer said:


> TDP of Intel may have something to do with the huge quantities of L2 chache that we see nowadays. AMD has about HALF the size of cache on its processors(Deneb 8MB in total or so with the largest size of cache) when comparing to a Yorkfield quad with about 14 MB of cache.
> 
> check the link i found... preview for a deneb early engineering samples(could be fake... don't stone me to death yet)
> 
> ...



Denebs 8MB to Yorkfields 12MB, but as the title of this thread says "Another shot at Kensfield" (hopefully not as they are a generation old) Kentsfield was 8MB L2 cache.......TDP rating is fairly closely linked with stock speeds and Vid which is why you would expect a HUGE TDP for a stock of 4.4gig so if AMD really have pulled this off it truly is amazing!.............. all credit to them.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 28, 2008)

I did glean this from that link-

Our test already proved that 45nm Phenom may save near 40W under the full-load conditions compared to 65nm Phenom the power loss, scope close half, this result is very satisfying.

Sorry if the english is bad,its from the translated link,last page.


----------



## bigtye (Aug 28, 2008)

Some of the results Kei (and others) are posting here at TPU in the underclocking/volting 9850 thread indicates that phenom is capable of some wierd stuff.

His overclocked results with undervolted cpu suggest the phenom is capable of more than mainstream setups have been getting out of it. Granted his top cpu speed isn't extraordinary, but the voltage he achieves these results at is far far better than stock.

Tye


----------



## blueskynis (Aug 28, 2008)

> Advanced Micro Devices plans to announce its first desktop microprocessors produced using 45nm process technology on the 8th of January, 2009, the first day of Consumer Electronics Show. The code-named Deneb chips will not get truly high clock-speed boost, but will be able to offer substantially higher performance thanks to larger cache and architectural improvements.
> 
> The first desktop processors from AMD made using 45nm process technology will be AMD Phenom X4 chips clocked at 2.80GHz and 3.00GHz, sources familiar with AMD’s plans said. The new processors will support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory, but since the initial chips will be available in socket AM2+ form-factor, the chips will have to rely on dual-channel DDR2 PC2-8500 (1066MHz DDR2) memory.



Link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Set_to_Arrive_on_the_8th_of_January_2009.html

no 4 and 4.4GHz


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Aug 28, 2008)

X1REME said:


> this was the first post on the cpu below (awesome check it - dated from 21st aug 2008)
> http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17910794&page=1
> 
> the motherboards that support it it that i found in one search
> ...



Actually this board is the only one for 45nm http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-254-AS&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=808&name=Asus%20M3A32-MVP%20Deluxe%20AMD%20790FX%20(Socket%20AM2)%20PCI-Express%20DDR2%20Motherboard has to do with the 8+2 power phase ...

Also add the M3A78-T and the Sept-Oct release of the M3A79-T (above board with SB750)


----------



## springs113 (Aug 28, 2008)

you guys are forgetting that this is not about the regular denebs....its the fx...presumably the top of the line... ie..qx6700 is not q6700...please read the title again phenom(deneb) fx...not phenom(deneb) x4


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Aug 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> you guys are forgetting that this is not about the regular denebs....its the fx...presumably the top of the line... ie..qx6700 is not q6700...please read the title again phenom(deneb) fx...not phenom(deneb) x4



So what was the difference between the X64 and FX ??? other then a high price and oh wait unlocked Multiply... was the same as the Black Editions......at a lower price and those are what we are talking about.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 28, 2008)

Nothing, they're just Denebs with unlocked multipliers, possibly binned.


----------



## springs113 (Aug 28, 2008)

i never really said there were architectural differences, im just saying they are different...not saying that you cant get a deneb that can act as a fx...meaning remember the days  of the a64 venice cores...i had a 3000+ clocked that bastard to 2.8 easily on the intel side the e6300... basically like the specially binned 4870s ....so are the fx's


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 28, 2008)

My E6300 was special  see sig.

I guess we will have to wait and see if there will be an fx phenom.


----------



## BvB123 (Aug 28, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> Link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Planned_for_September_Launch_Say_Sources.html
> 
> no 4 and 4.4GHz



3Ghz and a TDP of 125W.

btarunr i win


----------



## jbunch07 (Aug 28, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> My E6300 was special  see sig.
> 
> I guess we will have to wait and see if there will be an fx phenom.



Im sure there will be one, im not waiting so much on that, im waiting to see if they can deliver the claimed clocks and performance.


----------



## intel igent (Aug 28, 2008)

it's about time AMd get the ball rolling again!

we've been waiting for this for a while now.....


----------



## OCQuadNick (Aug 28, 2008)

All i have to say is, GO AMD W0000T

(Wonder if it will work on my Kna2plat)


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 28, 2008)

soy is bad for you


----------



## btarunr (Aug 28, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> 3Ghz and a TDP of 125W.
> 
> btarunr i win



Where does it say "Phenom FX" ? Where did I say Phenom FX comes out in September?


----------



## zithe (Aug 28, 2008)

Looks like I'll finally go AMD next year.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 28, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> 3Ghz and a TDP of 125W.
> 
> btarunr i win



Phenom 9950 + Foxconn's A79-S motheboard and powered by OCZ's 1000W PSU. = 4,050MHz 

these are the OEM that will be 3.2 ghz but the mighty FX will be at least 1ghz higher, no doubt about it (4ghz)

the only doubt is the power it needs (1.168v or 1.475v) or maybe in between these figures.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17850&stc=1&d=1219952415

if you look at the revision, its old news and at least 5/6 months old, the recent is b1/c1/?


----------



## X1REME (Aug 28, 2008)

the oem are supposed to come November (same as Intel i7) but the FX will be Jan/2009 unless AMD decide to do it the other way round (they will do same as the GPU, Deffo). There is no doubt gonna be a war this time round as amd lost the last ones and loosing this one could spell disaster for them and they would need to succeed 100% next time (2009/2010) or we will be stuck with Intel only and maybe a cut down version of amd to please the critics of a monopoly.


----------



## BvB123 (Aug 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Where does it say "Phenom FX" ? Where did I say Phenom FX comes out in September?



??

AMD’s First 45nm Desktop Microprocessors Set to Arrive on the 8th of January, 2009.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Set_to_Arrive_on_the_8th_of_January_2009.html


> Advanced Micro Devices plans to announce its first desktop microprocessors produced using 45nm process technology on the 8th of January, 2009, the first day of Consumer Electronics Show. The code-named Deneb chips will not get truly high clock-speed boost, but will be able to offer substantially higher performance thanks to larger cache and architectural improvements.
> 
> The first desktop processors from AMD made using 45nm process technology will be AMD Phenom X4 chips clocked at 2.80GHz and 3.00GHz, sources familiar with AMD’s plans said. The new processors will support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory, but since the initial chips will be available in socket AM2+ form-factor, the chips will have to rely on dual-channel DDR2 PC2-8500 (1066MHz DDR2) memory.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 28, 2008)

Server parts should come out just before years end, but desktop parts will have to wait. Hasn't that been the consensus for a while now?


----------



## springs113 (Aug 29, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Server parts should come out just before years end, but desktop parts will have to wait. Hasn't that been the consensus for a while now?



weren't the phenoms (agena) slated to come out the january of 2008...but in actuality they came out in late nov early dec of last year...what makes us think that amd wont pull the same thing...the 4800s were suppose to come out later than they actually did...didn't they?

don't you guys think that this is exactly what amd wants...the animosity/intensity in the way we are all talking about its products that we really haven't no clue about....

ALL THIS JUST MEANS 1 THING....THE BUZZ ABOUT AMD IS BACK....HOPEFULLY FOR GOOD THIS TIME...


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 29, 2008)

no 4.4 then?


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 29, 2008)

nah 4.4 is to low, i heard 16.6ghz 2nm phenom


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 29, 2008)

springs113 said:


> weren't the phenoms (agena) slated to come out the january of 2008...but in actuality they came out in late nov early dec of last year...what makes us think that amd wont pull the same thing...the 4800s were suppose to come out later than they actually did...didn't they?
> 
> don't you guys think that this is exactly what amd wants...the animosity/intensity in the way we are all talking about its products that we really haven't no clue about....
> 
> ALL THIS JUST MEANS 1 THING....THE BUZZ ABOUT AMD IS BACK....HOPEFULLY FOR GOOD THIS TIME...



This is a little different. It's mostly just a shrink and they've had ES for a while now. It's getting closer and closer and AMD keeps saying it's on tack as per the time line I said. Plus, AMD literally and figuratively can't afford deneb to be any later than it already is (and of course they know this, you can bet they're working really long days).


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

Well lets see. If a QX9770 can run at over 3GHz stock and overclock to over 5GHz, then why isn't it possible for a processor to meet somewhere in the middle, around 4GHz, say.? I mean, come on, an E8500 can run at 4.5GHz with a damn Zalman 9700, and Intels tend to run hotter than AMD anyways, so why is it impossible to have a 45nm AMD run at 4.0, when the current ones can run at 3.6 and on a 65nm die?????????


EDIT: Also, if AMD can release a 3.2GHz 90nm processor, an extra 800MHz, and a die shrink of 50% is definately possible seeing how TDP will be cut in half.


----------



## springs113 (Aug 29, 2008)

Guru...thats my point....i really do believe that these will come out b4 its time


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 29, 2008)

springs113 said:


> Guru...thats my point....i really do believe that these will come out b4 its time



Oh, I thought you meant that they'll get delayed (which is the norm)


----------



## From_Nowhere (Aug 29, 2008)

A 4.0-4.4GHz Phenom FX? I want to say "Bull****" but I will wait till the Phenom FX is released.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 29, 2008)

the notorious paper trail....I hope the hell this is true. 

If not I will be buying Intel for the remainder of my cursed life...lol


----------



## btarunr (Aug 29, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> ??
> 
> AMD’s First 45nm Desktop Microprocessors Set to Arrive on the 8th of January, 2009.
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Set_to_Arrive_on_the_8th_of_January_2009.html



It still doesn't tell anything about FX ? It's merely about AMD's 45nm lineup that arrives, not the entire lineup.  I hope you do understand what binning is.


----------



## ASharp (Aug 29, 2008)

That seems like a rather huge jump for AMD. Once again like a lot of these articles, I'll believe it when I see it. I hope it's true for AMD's sake since [deity] knows I love 'em. Gonna have to pick myself up a Deneb when they come out for sure!


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> Well lets see. If a QX9770 can run at over 3GHz stock and overclock to over 5GHz, then why isn't it possible for a processor to meet somewhere in the middle, around 4GHz, say.? I mean, come on, an E8500 can run at 4.5GHz with a damn Zalman 9700, and Intels tend to run hotter than AMD anyways, so why is it impossible to have a 45nm AMD run at 4.0, when the current ones can run at 3.6 and on a 65nm die?????????
> 
> 
> EDIT: Also, if AMD can release a 3.2GHz 90nm processor, an extra 800MHz, and a die shrink of 50% is definately possible seeing how TDP will be cut in half.



Considering the 3Ghz 45nm Phenom is slated to consume 125W according the xbit link posted by bvb123 above, there is no way Deneb is gonna stock at 4GHz, unless they want it to draw 200+W.

And sorry, but the current phenoms are hotter running than the Intel Quads.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

it's all a marketing scheme.... ya watch.... AMd brings out a 4-4.5 quad and intel will bump there cpu also.... at least the amd is a true 4 pipe cpu.... i seen on a few web sites amd @ 4ghz clock for clock beats intel.... sh!t cant wait!!!... i run 3ghz against an intel 3gz settup using the same setup and gpu, it takes the intel 3.6 to take the led in any bench... and it's not by that much!!....


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> it's all a marketing scheme.... ya watch.... AMd brings out a 4-4.5 quad and intel will bump there cpu also.... at least the amd is a true 4 pipe cpu.... i seen on a few web sites amd @ 4ghz clock for clock beats intel.... sh!t cant wait!!!... i run 3ghz against an intel 3gz settup using the same setup and gpu, it takes the intel 3.6 to take the led in any bench... and it's not by that much!!....



Bullshit. I am officially calling you out. Your cpu at 3Ghz is not as fast as mine at the majority of everything.

You have a better gpu, so graphical benches are out. But feel free to pick cpu benches.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Considering the 3Ghz 45nm Phenom is slated to consume 125W according the xbit link posted by bvb123 above, there is no way Deneb is gonna stock at 4GHz, unless they want it to draw 200+W.
> 
> And sorry, but the current phenoms are hotter running than the Intel Quads.


well depends on the site you check out.... i see it runs @ less than 1.20v.... so if ppl cant afford the hydro bill every month.... than i say........ well..... oh well! im running my Phenom 9850 @ 3.5GHz @ 1.40v.... temp is 37c.... load hit's mid 40's....


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well depends on the site you check out.... i see it runs @ less than 1.20v.... so if ppl cant afford the hydro bill every month.... than i say........ well..... oh well! im running my Phenom 9850 @ 3.5GHz @ 1.40v.... temp is 37c.... load hit's mid 40's....


ok this is 3.000000Ghz on the core..... gpu @ 835 and memory @ 955..... so here take a look....
im just showing what i get.... no Bullshit..


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> ok this is 3.000000Ghz on the core..... gpu @ 835 and memory @ 955..... so here take a look....
> im just showing what i get.... no Bullshit..



That's a graphics bench, and you have a faster video card than me, so we can't compare 3DMark, unless it's only the cpu tests.

But anyway, what was your cpu score on that bench?


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That's a graphics bench, and you have a faster video card than me, so we can't compare 3DMark, unless it's only the cpu tests.
> 
> But anyway, what was your cpu score on that bench?


not as high as yours wile.... i cant remember the figures man.... all i know is mark 06 is more cpu bound than gpu.... im dl'ing vantage right now and will post my results when done.... i'll be @ 3.01 ghz cpu and gpu @ 835-955memory.... sound interesting? no bs man just the fact's...


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That's a graphics bench, and you have a faster video card than me, so we can't compare 3DMark, unless it's only the cpu tests.
> 
> But anyway, what was your cpu score on that bench?


do i need to install any patch's for Vantage Wile?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> do i need to install any patch's for Vantage Wile?



Vantage should be at 1.01. So either download the 1.01 version, or if you already have 1.0 started, grab the 1.01 hotfix/update to go with it.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Vantage should be at 1.01. So either download the 1.01 version, or if you already have 1.0 started, grab the 1.01 hotfix/update to go with it.


na got the 1.01 and you want me to run 3.01 @1146 memory MHz or 892mhz? your call.... i just wana show ya what it's doing.... 1146 @ 5.5.6.15.24 or 892 @ 4.4.4.12.20.... it's up to you man.... whatever you wanna see ill bench just to give ya an idea...


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> na got the 1.01 and you want me to run 3.01 @1146 memory MHz or 892mhz? your call.... i just wana show ya what it's doing.... 1146 @ 5.5.6.15.24 or 892 @ 4.4.4.12.20.... it's up to you man.... whatever you wanna see ill bench just to give ya an idea...


well im using 1146mhz on the mem @ a NB freq of 2365mhz with a HT link of 2150 and the memory *will be unganged* may be a tad slower in mark06 but not sure how she responds in Vantage..... let's see what happens...


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

I can't unlink my mem, so I'll match as close as I can. If I have to err, I'll err lower than you in mem.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

QX9650 @ 3GHz, mem at 1113 5-5-6-15

Vantage CPU score = 12174


----------



## hat (Aug 29, 2008)

physx
'nuff said


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I can't unlink my mem, so I'll match as close as I can. If I have to err, I'll err lower than you in mem.


well this is what i got.... hope this help's man


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

hat said:


> physx
> 'nuff said



Physx disabled, 'nuff said.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well this is what i got.... hope this help's man



I can't read the cpu score.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)




----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I can't read the cpu score.


p8658 sorry will re post pix


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)




----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

You got 9905 cpu, mine gets 12174 cpu. Unfortunately, the Phenom is much slower than an Intel quad clock for clock. I wish that wasn't the case, as it would drive stiffer competition in the market, but it is the case.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

so what ya think Wile? am i blowing smoke out my azz or not?..... like i said im just telling what i see and no more....


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Mmmmm i like this war goin on between these two^ hehe i like to see the end results , but i have to admit that the Wile E machine should have a advantage because of the amount of Cache the CPU has, 3 times as much right? 

Thats the only reason intels are going so well, the amount of Cache they have on there chips, and its very expensive to do this process, but for intel its not, AMD it is.

Bit unfair?


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

well that may be the case so let me run 3.01 @ 892mhz on the memory 4.4.4.12.20
thats if i can after my trial run.... and where ya see the cpu mark?.... please point it out so i know.... thanx


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Mmmmm i like this war goin on between these two^ hehe i like to see the end results , but i have to admit that the Wile E machine should have a advantage because of the amount of Cache the CPU has, 3 times as much right?
> 
> Thats the only reason intels are going so well, the amount of Cache they have on there chips, and its very expensive to do this process, but for intel its not, AMD it is.
> 
> Bit unfair?


na i just like to show what im running even though it may be a tad slower...... just posting to give all a heads up.... no comp here just showing... thats all my friend


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well that may be the case so let me run 3.01 @ 892mhz on the memory 4.4.4.12.20
> thats if i can after my trial run.... and where ya see the cpu mark?.... please point it out so i know.... thanx


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

Now let me add that, in gaming, there is no difference between a Phenom and an Intel Quad, all else being equal. Phenom is not a bad chip or anything. But there is a big difference in most cpu bound apps, and in Ocing between Phenom and Intel.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> na i just like to show what im running even though it may be a tad slower...... just posting to give all a heads up.... no comp here just showing... thats all my friend



Yea fair enough, your machine does do very well, if you had the same amount of Cache as the intel did, you would win easy id say. For a CPU that is a bit deprived of the Cache sizes compared to a Intel they still do very well, and not a Huge amount of difference realy, just shows you how well a AMD realy does? get a intel with that much takin out of the CPU and then see how it runs? bet it looses? All you have to do is look back at the P4 days, end of story. Even tho the bench tests that 3dmark use i find them not very good testers, more so just a guide line. I like to see a CPU running wen its in a game or something, and its % then? thats more like a real test, or how long it takes to convert a AVi file to VOB or something? thats a real test. Try and do a Memory test see who wins then? or even bandwidth? , i think the AMD will win there easy 

Have fun you to


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Now let me add that, in gaming, there is no difference between a Phenom and an Intel Quad, all else being equal. Phenom is not a bad chip or anything. But there is a big difference in most cpu bound apps, and in Ocing between Phenom and Intel.



yea to true there, i agree with that statement. both have there areas they are good and bad at.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Yea fair enough, your machine does do very well, if you had the same amount of Cache as the intel did, you would win easy id say. For a CPU that is a bit deprived of the Cache sizes compared to a Intel they still do very well, and not a Huge amount of difference realy, just shows you how well a AMD realy does? get a intel with that much takin out of the CPU and then see how it runs? bet it looses? All you have to do is look back at the P4 days, end of story. Even tho the bench tests that 3dmark use i find them not very good testers, more so just a guide line. I like to see a CPU running wen its in a game or something, and its % then? thats more like a real test, or how long it takes to convert a AVi file to VOB or something? thats a real test. Try and do a Memory test see who wins then? or even bandwidth? , i think the AMD will win there easy
> 
> Have fun you to


But synthetic memory and bandwidth test do not translate into real world performance.

And given the vast architectural differences, it's gonna take a lot more than cache for Phenom to catch up.

Phenom does 3 instruction per cycle, whereas the intel does 4, amongst many other things like different branch prediction routines, different ways of handling cache misses, etc.. If AMD would update to a 4 per cycle design, I have a feeling they would be ahead of Intel again, even with all else being equal.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Now let me add that, in gaming, there is no difference between a Phenom and an Intel Quad, all else being equal. Phenom is not a bad chip or anything. But there is a big difference in most cpu bound apps, and in Ocing between Phenom and Intel.


i totally agree Wile


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

well i ran another vantage... but i cant post a result as i only had one shot.... the trial expired.... i however can up the l2 cashe to better my science mark or everest score.... i find playing with the memory timings yield better scores and also lowers the latencies mark...i however convert a full dvd unganged memory (Day's of Thunder) in just under 30min thou... i have no idea if thats good or bad as i have no reference by others to go by.... hope this shows what im running Wile?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well i ran another vantage... but i cant post a result as i only had one shot.... the trial expired.... i however can up the l2 cashe to better my science mark or everest score.... i find playing with the memory timings yield better scores and also lowers the latencies mark...i however convert a full dvd unganged memory (Day's of Thunder) in just under 30min thou... i have no idea if thats good or bad as i have no reference by others to go by.... hope this shows what im running Wile?



I never doubted that the Phenom was capable, you just made the claim it takes a 3.6Ghz intel to keep up. That was incorrect, if anything, it would take a 3.2 or 3.3 Ghz Phenom to keep up with a 3GHz intel.

And I can't help you with the encode time thing, I don't own Days of Thunder to test. lol.

You can try the bench in this thread tho. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=39376&highlight=Encoding+benchmark

That's one that the Phenom may have an edge in.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> But synthetic memory and bandwidth test do not translate into real world performance.
> 
> And given the vast architectural differences, it's gonna take a lot more than cache for Phenom to catch up.
> 
> Phenom does 3 instruction per cycle, whereas the intel does 4, amongst many other things like different branch prediction routines, different ways of handling cache misses, etc.. If AMD would update to a 4 per cycle design, I have a feeling they would be ahead of Intel again, even with all else being equal.



Depends on what you are doing realy? Some apps might need alot of bandwith or memory etc, some dont, all depends.

Idk about that, AMD architecture has always been infront of intels, even intel its self admitted this, why you think they are goin the same architecture to AMD's? I think once the Cache sizes are equal to a intel at this time, not including the new 32nm CPU's that intel will bring out, that you will see that the performance will be as good if not better, and yea maybe 4 cycles included, not sure tho.

All we both can say is, it might or might not, in the end we will just have to wait, all im goin on is past tests and how it used to be.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well i ran another vantage... but i cant post a result as i only had one shot.... the trial expired.... i however can up the l2 cashe to better my science mark or everest score.... i find playing with the memory timings yield better scores and also lowers the latencies mark...i however convert a full dvd unganged memory (Day's of Thunder) in just under 30min thou... i have no idea if thats good or bad as i have no reference by others to go by.... hope this shows what im running Wile?



30mins?  dam thats very good, takes me a average 90min movie, from a AVI file to a VOB file around 1.5hrs, and burnt it as well, 30mins is good


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I never doubted that the Phenom was capable, you just made the claim it takes a 3.6Ghz intel to keep up. That was incorrect, if anything, it would take a 3.2 or 3.3 Ghz Phenom to keep up with a 3GHz intel.
> 
> And I can't help you with the encode time thing, I don't own Days of Thunder to test. lol.
> 
> ...


na like i was saying whil running msn in video and audio a friend running 3.6 to my 3.01 was so close with the both of us running the same program at the same time.... he even said( you @ 3ghz to my 3.6 gives the intel a good run for it's money)..... im off to bed guy's.... i'll come back on with weird mem timings and fsb to up the points a bit.... lol.... it's all good.... but Wile...... I do have a 750sb mobo on the way..... the bottle neck is now looser.... lets play when it comes... ok.... lets just see what becomes of the Phenom then.... may not be as good but i bet ya it's real tight!  night guys


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> 30mins?  dam thats very good, takes me a average 90min movie, from a AVI file to a VOB file around 1.5hrs, and burnt it as well, 30mins is good


well only time after the movie is done burning.... after that i ungang the memory and she smokes rite along utilizing all four cores converting.... so all  in all around the time i pop the dvd in to burn till the end to watch on the xbox 360 through the media extender it's 45min


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Depends on what you are doing realy? Some apps might need alot of bandwith or memory etc, some dont, all depends.
> 
> Idk about that, AMD architecture has always been infront of intels, even intel its self admitted this, why you think they are goin the same architecture to AMD's? I think once the Cache sizes are equal to a intel at this time, not including the new 32nm CPU's that intel will bring out, that you will see that the performance will be as good if not better, and yea maybe 4 cycles included, not sure tho.
> 
> All we both can say is, it might or might not, in the end we will just have to wait, all im goin on is past tests and how it used to be.


Thanks Melvis.... i appreciate  that man... AMD all the way.... sorry i just hate to see them loose in the cpu department.... god only knows they pulled there sh^t together with there new GPU's against Nvidia


----------



## blueskynis (Aug 29, 2008)

You guys filled my mail!


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Mmmmm i like this war goin on between these two^ hehe i like to see the end results , but i have to admit that the Wile E machine should have a advantage because of the amount of Cache the CPU has, 3 times as much right?
> 
> Thats the only reason intels are going so well, the amount of Cache they have on there chips, and its very expensive to do this process, but for intel its not, AMD it is.
> 
> Bit unfair?



No thats not the entire story by any means, if you put that much L2 cache on an AMD it would make little or no difference, they are completely different architectures that require completely different parameters, AMD's architecture does not need the extra L2 where as Intels is enhanced by it, I suppose my point is, the extra L2 in itself does not make the gains clock for clock between the 2 architectures, it;s the efficiency within those architectures that determine the speed, for example, AMD is/always has been very strong on floating point calculations and memory intensive processes (AKA on Die mem controller), Intel is much stronger on arithmatic blah blah.......SceinceMark 2 sees the two of them more closely matched clock for clock as that bench tests memory and various CPU calculations.

Sorry long winded answer to a very small point!  

One last point, you say, AMD's architecture is more advanced, that could be true, however, it means nothing if it cant compete, and sadly, across the board it cant compete.....now before you think it (if you havent already!)  I was brought up on AMD, I love AMD and I will always go back to them.....when they become more competative.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> na like i was saying whil running msn in video and audio a friend running 3.6 to my 3.01 was so close with the both of us running the same program at the same time.... he even said( you @ 3ghz to my 3.6 gives the intel a good run for it's money)..... im off to bed guy's.... i'll come back on with weird mem timings and fsb to up the points a bit.... lol.... it's all good.... but Wile...... I do have a 750sb mobo on the way..... the bottle neck is now looser.... lets play when it comes... ok.... lets just see what becomes of the Phenom then.... may not be as good but i bet ya it's real tight!  night guys



Yeah, no problem. I love running benchmarks. it's fun to see how different setups compare.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well only time after the movie is done burning.... after that i ungang the memory and she smokes rite along utilizing all four cores converting.... so all  in all around the time i pop the dvd in to burn till the end to watch on the xbox 360 through the media extender it's 45min



Thats still half the time of what mine can do, and its good to know it uses all 4 cores, not like half the games out still that only use one still =/ (Supreme Commander) Silly design in that game.

good stuff man


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

ganging the memory while concerting a dvd file takes around(dont hald me to this) but around 12min's longer compared to unganing it... that's the one thing i love abought this 9850 @ 3.15GHz 24/7.... as now the new bios came out..... heck 3.05 was hard to keep stable on the 0801 bios.... Asus made a huge improvement on there new bios to let me clock that for a 24/7 system.... i however am still testing at higher multi with lower fsb's and 1066mhz setting mode for memory.... tests are showing better performance day by day...


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> You guys filled my mail!



Go into your User CP for this site, go to Edit Options, scroll down to Default Thread Subscription mode, and change it to not email you when somebody posts in one of your subscribed threads.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Thats still half the time of what mine can do, and its good to know it uses all 4 cores, not like half the games out still that only use one still =/ (Supreme Commander) Silly design in that game.
> 
> good stuff man


yeah i hear ya man.... i down core in GOW to 2 cores just to save the power that im otherwise wasting while playing..... i had a 6400 clocked out to 3.5GHz and she didn't even come close to converting movies like this Phenom does....ahh let there be light at the end of the tunnel for the 45nm fx processors.....


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> Thanks Melvis.... i appreciate  that man... AMD all the way.... sorry i just hate to see them loose in the cpu department.... god only knows they pulled there sh^t together with there new GPU's against Nvidia



Know Problem dude, ill go AMD for a long time, but lets say in 5yrs time they still havent got ontop of things, i might go intel =/

But time will tell, they have done it b4


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Go into your User CP for this site, go to Edit Options, scroll down to Default Thread Subscription mode, and change it to not email you when somebody posts in one of your subscribed threads.


Wile your pix is like a bloody eye magnet every time i see it!!!! it's like staring at me every time i  see a post from ya lol....


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Know Problem dude, ill go AMD for a long time, but lets say in 5yrs time they still havent got ontop of things, i might go intel =/
> 
> But time will tell, they have done it b4


umm 5yrs? i doubt it.... give it mabey 8 months lol.... but who know's.... im AMD all the way... cheers mate.... off to bed...-out-


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> yeah i hear ya man.... i down core in GOW to 2 cores just to save the power that im otherwise wasting while playing..... i had a 6400 clocked out to 3.5GHz and she didn't even come close to converting movies like this Phenom does....ahh let there be light at the end of the tunnel for the 45nm fx processors.....



I really hope AMD does pull a rabbit out of their hat with Deneb. But overall, I think we may have to wait for K11 (or whatever the next architecture is called) for there to be a significant shift in performance.

Let it be known, I am not an Intel fanboy. I will switch back to AMD the instant they take the OCed performance lead. (Actually, I still have an AMD rig with a 6400+ in it. I just wish the damn board supported Phenom.  )


----------



## blueskynis (Aug 29, 2008)

Fudzilla said Deneb will be K11, I think?


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> No thats not the entire story by any means, if you put that much L2 cache on an AMD it would make little or no difference, they are completely different architectures that require completely different parameters, AMD's architecture does not need the extra L2 where as Intels is enhanced by it, I suppose my point is, the extra L2 in itself does not make the gains clock for clock between the 2 architectures, it;s the efficiency within those architectures that determine the speed, for example, AMD is/always has been very strong on floating point calculations and memory intensive processes (AKA on Die mem controller), Intel is much stronger on arithmatic blah blah.......SceinceMark 2 sees the two of them more closely matched clock for clock as that bench tests memory and various CPU calculations.
> 
> Sorry long winded answer to a very small point!
> 
> One last point, you say, AMD's architecture is more advanced, that could be true, however, it means nothing if it cant compete, and sadly, across the board it cant compete.....now before you think it (if you havent already!)  I was brought up on AMD, I love AMD and I will always go back to them.....when they become more competative.



Yea thats all true to, but i think having a bigger amount of Cache is a advantage, no matter what, like the old days, were 1MB of L2 cache was huge on a CPU, like mine < it gave a good boost in games mainly, but also a few other things. Im not worried about higher clock speeds, i just want to see a AMD vs a intel with the same amount of Cache and see what happens?at the same clock speeds, because at this time there is no comparison?
But agreed that AMD is a bit slow in a few other areas, AM2 was not a big leap from the old 939 at all =/ shame tho, just like to see the new 45nm ones with the CPU's of intel today, i think it might be interesting to see


----------



## hat (Aug 29, 2008)

yeah AM2 was just 939 with DDR2 support


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> Fudzilla said Deneb will be K11, I think?



I meant the next major arch change, not just a "tweak and shrink"™.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

My argument against this comparison is the 12MB cache vs 2MB, which does make quite a large difference. Also, the current intel quads are 45nm, and AMD are 65nm, so forgive me in my lack of updating my brain as to the new 45nm vs 65nm previous gen. and nothing I've seen so far has come straight from AMD, so I went to AMD myself and checked out the press releases. the 45nm quad cores are set to start at 2.8, 3.0, 3.2 and so on. with a TDP rating UP TO 125 watts @ 3.2GHz.

Edit: also, according to AMD's site, the die shrink will in fact reduce power consumption and allow for better power management and usuage. This contradicts Xbit labs "prediction" as they have said themselves, merely a prediction, no supporting evidence.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> umm 5yrs? i doubt it.... give it mabey 8 months lol.... but who know's.... im AMD all the way... cheers mate.... off to bed...-out-



LOL yea ok yea, i hope these 45nm ones will do well, i think they will match it with what intel has now, just not sure for how long after that. Righto dude, catcha


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I really hope AMD does pull a rabbit out of their hat with Deneb. But overall, I think we may have to wait for K11 (or whatever the next architecture is called) for there to be a significant shift in performance.
> 
> Let it be known, I am not an Intel fanboy. I will switch back to AMD the instant they take the OCed performance lead. (Actually, I still have an AMD rig with a 6400+ in it. I just wish the damn board supported Phenom.  )



yea it be nice to see AMD to match it with intel again, just for us, you know, bring the dam price down a bit , hello, those high end quads of intel are OMG expensive 

What mobo you using with the 6400? O ris it only the AM2+ that take Quads?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

Melvis said:


> yea it be nice to see AMD to match it with intel again, just for us, you know, bring the dam price down a bit , hello, those high end quads of intel are OMG expensive
> 
> What mobo you using with the 6400? O ris it only the AM2+ that take Quads?



Some AM2 boards can take Quads, it depends on the size of the BIOS chip the manufacturer put on the board, and whether or not they choose to support it.

As for my board, it's a DFI NF UltraII M2. They aren't supporting Phenom on it. Don't know if it's a bios limitation, or their choice tho.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> My argument against this comparison is the 12MB cache vs 2MB, which does make quite a large difference. Also, the current intel quads are 45nm, and AMD are 65nm, so forgive me in my lack of updating my brain as to the new 45nm vs 65nm previous gen. and nothing I've seen so far has come straight from AMD, so I went to AMD myself and checked out the press releases. the 45nm quad cores are set to start at 2.8, 3.0, 3.2 and so on. with a TDP rating UP TO 125 watts @ 3.2GHz.
> 
> Edit: also, according to AMD's site, the die shrink will in fact reduce power consumption and allow for better power management and usuage. This contradicts Xbit labs "prediction" as they have said themselves, merely a prediction, no supporting evidence.



AMD has 2MB of L2 and 2MB of L3, for a total of 4MB. I still don't see cache being the deciding factor here.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> My argument against this comparison is the 12MB cache vs 2MB, which does make quite a large difference. Also, the current intel quads are 45nm, and AMD are 65nm, so forgive me in my lack of updating my brain as to the new 45nm vs 65nm previous gen. and nothing I've seen so far has come straight from AMD, so I went to AMD myself and checked out the press releases. the 45nm quad cores are set to start at 2.8, 3.0, 3.2 and so on. with a TDP rating UP TO 125 watts @ 3.2GHz.
> 
> Edit: also, according to AMD's site, the die shrink will in fact reduce power consumption and allow for better power management and usuage. This contradicts Xbit labs "prediction" as they have said themselves, merely a prediction, no supporting evidence.



YAY i have someone on my side LOL


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

its not shared L2, its dedicated native to each core hence 4x512k, unlike Intel. just the like the 9800gx2 is 2x512mb 2x256bit.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 29, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> My argument against this comparison is the 12MB cache vs 2MB, which does make quite a large difference. Also, the current intel quads are 45nm, and AMD are 65nm, so forgive me in my lack of updating my brain as to the new 45nm vs 65nm previous gen. and nothing I've seen so far has come straight from AMD, so I went to AMD myself and checked out the press releases. the 45nm quad cores are set to start at 2.8, 3.0, 3.2 and so on. with a TDP rating UP TO 125 watts @ 3.2GHz.
> 
> Edit: also, according to AMD's site, the die shrink will in fact reduce power consumption and allow for better power management and usuage. This contradicts Xbit labs "prediction" as they have said themselves, merely a prediction, no supporting evidence.



Do you not think that AMD would bolt on extra L2 memory if it would bolster their performance to any degree?.....of course they would, it would pay for itself in a month because so many more people would buy AMD if they were competative....no, as I said, the architecture, unlike Intels would benefit little, AMD can swop out the L2 so much quicker than Intel so it dont need the huge amount's Intel does.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> its not shared L2, its dedicated native to each core hence 4x512k just the like the 9800gx2 is 2x512mb 2x256bit.


Well, Kentsfield doesn't have a fully shared L2 either, but it beats the Phenom in most test, and Phenom has the shared L3 to it's advantage vs those cpus.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Some AM2 boards can take Quads, it depends on the size of the BIOS chip the manufacturer put on the board, and whether or not they choose to support it.
> 
> As for my board, it's a DFI NF UltraII M2. They aren't supporting Phenom on it. Don't know if it's a bios limitation, or their choice tho.



Hmm ok fair enough, gotta suck tho =/ Iam hearing alot of people having problems with that brand, like the 4870x2 not running properly in them =/


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

the Kentsfield is also higher clocked, and overclocks almost 100%.. :\


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 29, 2008)

Here, have a read of this, it will explain it better than I can...............

http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4102


----------



## Wile E (Aug 29, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> the Kentsfield is also higher clocked, and overclocks almost 100%.. :\



I meant at the same clock speeds.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

I can honestly see an amd quad core 45nm at 2.8 to 3.0 ghz stock running in the 30 to 40 degree mark on idle. and at 3.5? 50C tops with decent cooling. isnt amd updating the coolers as well, for the new chips? they are going to be more effective and not just a hunk of aluminum,?


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

yea. Intel has been shown to beat AMD at stock speeds as well.. about 200 to 400mhz wise in actual speed difference.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 29, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Do you not think that AMD would bolt on extra L2 memory if it would bolster their performance to any degree?.....of course they would, it would pay for itself in a month because so many more people would buy AMD if they were competative....no, as I said, the architecture, unlike Intels would benefit little, AMD can swop out the L2 so much quicker than Intel so it dont need the huge amount's Intel does.



Well im sure they would, and funny enough they are goin to put a increase of cache on the CPU's, but why haven't they done this earlier? because its not that easy to do, and its very expensive to manufacture. Intel can do this and not even sneeze at it, big woop if it doesn't work as good, not like its going to hit there pockets hard, but if it does to AMD its not good at all, thats alot of money to them to waste if it doesn't do the job.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Here, have a read of this, it will explain it better than I can...............
> 
> http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4102



I understand what you are trying to say.. L2 cache has much better latency than L3 cache, and L1 cache has even lower latency than L2.. lower latency= higher performance. Much like RAM, 4-4-4-12 cas has lower latency and response time than 5-5-5-15.. and althought I understand your point, that post is way outdated and multiple cores with multiple caches were not taken into consideration, I would like to see an updated version of that thesis though, it's interesting.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 29, 2008)

What Tatty is trying to say is that without a huge L2 cache that intel chips can't perform well whereas with AMD that much cache isn't needed because AMD had worked out a better bus than intel.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 29, 2008)

that is also true. no actual FSB, just a reference clock, and onboard memory controller.


----------



## largon (Aug 29, 2008)

The original subject of this thread is by far the most ridiculous pile of BS I've seen on tech forums...


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

*K10.5 v K10*
*more transistors*
*more pins*
*65nm v 45nm**
*PCIe 3.0 v 2.0*
*HyperTransport 3.1 v HyperTransport 1/2*
uses less power to run
outputs less heat 
better performance
*ddr3 v ddr2*
much much better platform (motherboards, chipsets & *SB800* coming 1/2009)
*6mb L3 cache* v 0mb L3 cache
2.3GHz Deneb consumes only 57.3W v 2.3ghz phenom 120/157W (4ghz = 120w approx)
Immersion lithography
4th generation of strained-silicon
new leading edge technologies??????
*used low or High-K metal gate technology*

This is not the DENEB FX Series they are talking about but the 3+GHz Denebs for OEM and average users.                                                          
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-039-s-45-Nanometer-Deneb-Core-Beats-3-2-GHz-83973.shtml

AMD's 2007 analyst day. what a change (to counter) and hopefully better to come
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13792/1


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 30, 2008)

No high k, nothing fancy used, get used to it that phenom is spent as far as clock rate goes.


----------



## BvB123 (Aug 30, 2008)

X1REME said:


> *K10.5 v K10*
> 
> *6mb L3 cache* v 0mb L3 cache
> 2.3GHz Deneb consumes only 57.3W v 2.3ghz phenom 120/157W (4ghz = 120w approx)



Bullshit 

K10 = 2MB L3 Cache

2,4Ghz Phenom 9750 = TDP 95W
Deneb 2,3Ghz TDP ? no one know it.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> No high k, nothing fancy used, get used to it that phenom is spent as far as clock rate goes.



nothing fancy used. well i think 45nm is fancy enough for amd not mentioning plenty of tweaks as already said

actually nobody really knows if high k is used or not which is why i said low/high k


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> Bullshit
> 
> K10 = 2MB L3 Cache
> 
> ...



my mistake, yes 2mb l3 cache and as for your second, actually a few sites mention this including Chinese sites who have demoed it, and if you can be bothered to look its still there and if it was fake am sure as you know amd would have pulled it from the ears.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 30, 2008)

X1REME said:


> nothing fancy used. well i think 45nm is fancy enough for amd not mentioning plenty of tweaks as already said



*sighs* 45 nm is not a clock increasing god. We're limited by the physical properties of the materials used and the exact architecture itself (K8 hello, you can make K8 smaller all you want, but it won't clock hardly any higher).


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> *sighs* 45 nm is not a clock increasing god. We're limited by the physical properties of the materials used and the exact architecture itself (K8 hello, you can make K8 smaller all you want, but it won't clock hardly any higher).



actually what you will get is more transistors which makes all the difference e.g power - higher clock (R6 vs R7 anybody)


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 30, 2008)

X1REME said:


> actually what you will get is more transistors which makes all the difference e.g power - higher clock (R6 vs R7 anybody)



Which is not what deneb is unless you're specifically talking cache, but we're not. It's about clock rate and phenom doesn't have it. End of story.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

the acc+ will work even better in sb800 chipsets, since amd is working towards a spider (own platform) all these little tweaks will have a massive performance boost (ht 3.1-pcie3-ddr3-sb8xx-etc)


----------



## blueskynis (Aug 30, 2008)

Hold your horses! Please, wait until actual launch of Denebs takes place. We will wait and see what happens then...


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Which is not what deneb is unless you're specifically talking cache, but we're not. It's about clock rate and phenom doesn't have it. End of story.



""It's about clock rate"" by reducing to 45nm, you will get much more transistors (needs less power), more pins, more cache, better heat rate etc = higher clocks


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Aug 30, 2008)

and again.... back to my earlier post about the gap from 3.0GHz to 5GHz...


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

*K10.5 rev. D architecture*

rev. D architecture (definitely will come earlier if they are to compete with the mighty i7) 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Unleashes-Hydra-8-Core-Competition-for-Nehalems-84982.shtml

what if these are the deneb fx (keep dreaming)


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

my point: there is a few sites i checked which state the k10 is very adaptable including amd`s site and by the looks of it, they will stick to it through 2009.

AMD said they are even thinking of changing the name to k11 (which is k10/k10.5/K10.5 rev. D)


----------



## Wile E (Aug 30, 2008)

X1REME said:


> the acc+ will work even better in sb800 chipsets, since amd is working towards a spider (own platform) all these little tweaks will have a massive performance boost (ht 3.1-pcie3-ddr3-sb8xx-etc)



HT3.1 isn't going to do squat for performance. The current HT isn't even close to maxed out, neither is PCIe2. Red Herrings to take away from the fact that nothing significant has changed in the architecture besides the die shrink.

And even if 45nm do OC to 4GHz and beyond, Phenom is still slower clock for clock vs current Intel Quads. Tweaks and Die shrinks aren't going to change that fact. They need a whole new architecture to pull that off. To add to all of this, by the time Deneb releases, i7 will be out, and be even faster still.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> HT3.1 isn't going to do squat for performance. The current HT isn't even close to maxed out, neither is PCIe2. Red Herrings to take away from the fact that nothing significant has changed in the architecture besides the die shrink.
> 
> And even if 45nm do OC to 4GHz and beyond, Phenom is still slower clock for clock vs current Intel Quads. Tweaks and Die shrinks aren't going to change that fact. They need a whole new architecture to pull that off. To add to all of this, by the time Deneb releases, i7 will be out, and be even faster still.



i7 is only 12% faster in some apps and about 15/20 approx in others compared to current, but is a squat faster in games lol and all for $999 = 3ghz (you will need to spend more on 3x ddr3 sticks-x58 mobo-psu etc)

Without doubt, HyperTransport 3.1 will be used as a communication interface between CPU and GPU and a bandwidth of 51.6 GB/s may open a whole new world of possibilities and an opportunity to be more competitive with Intel in terms of overall performance.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Hypertransport-AMD-Fusion,6179.html


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

BvB123 said:


> Bullshit
> 
> K10 = 2MB L3 Cache
> 
> ...



AMD cache structure if they have stuck to their K8 implementation is pretty good though.  They are able to optimize the accesses and the level used to store code/data. AMD in the K8 days used to be able allocate some code/data in one level and other code/data at another and the CPU could access either level directly.  It's like having a big cache that has various amounts of latency.  I'm sure K10 will have this as well since it's beneficial for a lot of applications out there including virtualization technology.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 30, 2008)

X1REME said:


> i7 is only 12% faster in some apps and about 15/20 approx in others compared to current, but is a squat faster in games lol and all for $999 = 3ghz (you will need to spend more on 3x ddr3 sticks-x58 mobo-psu etc)
> 
> Without doubt, HyperTransport 3.1 will be used as a communication interface between CPU and GPU and a bandwidth of 51.6 GB/s may open a whole new world of possibilities and an opportunity to be more competitive with Intel in terms of overall performance.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Hypertransport-AMD-Fusion,6179.html



I'm not talking games. It doesn't take a quad core for gaming. I'm talking cpu performance in general.

And HT3.1 isn't going to help performance at all at this stage. HT is not a bottleneck as it is. HT 3.1 can only help in multi-socketed server setups. The desktop market has no need for the bandwidth.

And besides, when did we bring the roadmap into this? We are talking Deneb vs Kentsfield/ Yorkfield/i7.

The fact remains, AMD is slower clock for clock. And I'm willing to bet that is still gonna be the case after the 45nm chips release, especially after i7 hits the market. I have a feeling that those that think or hope otherwise are just working themselves into another letdown.

I will never get my hopes up over an AMD cpu again after the Phenom letdown. I'll wait for benchmarks.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> They need a whole new architecture to pull that off. To add to all of this, by the time Deneb releases, i7 will be out, and be even faster still.



LOL thats funny, the new i7 is going to be very similar to the AMD architecture anyway, and by the looks of things isnt going to be faster (maybe around the same). So a whole new architecture? i don't think so.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 30, 2008)

Melvis said:


> LOL thats funny, the new i7 is going to be very similar to the AMD architecture anyway, and by the looks of things isnt going to be faster (maybe around the same). So a whole new architecture? i don't think so.


Well, considering their current arch can't keep up clock for clock, I'd say yes. At best, the shrink will be an incremental upgrade, which might get it to Kentsfield, just as the title of this thread suggests. That means they are still behind Yorkfield, and since i7 is faster than Yorkfield, AMD is still behind even that.

They are getting nowhere fast on k10, which is still based on K8. They need to make a bigger change than a shrink to 45nm to keep up with Intel right now. I'll say it again, a die shrink, and a couple of small architecture tweaks will not provide the performance difference necessary to catch Intel clock for clock. It will take major tweaks to pull that off. You only have to look at the history of die shrinks and minor revisions of ANY cpu to figure that out.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Well, considering their current arch can't keep up clock for clock, I'd say yes. At best, the shrink will be an incremental upgrade, which might get it to Kentsfield, just as the title of this thread suggests. That means they are still behind Yorkfield, and since i7 is faster than Yorkfield, AMD is still behind even that.
> 
> They are getting nowhere fast on k10, which is still based on K8. They need to make a bigger change than a shrink to 45nm to keep up with Intel right now. I'll say it again, a die shrink, and a couple of small architecture tweaks will not provide the performance difference necessary to catch Intel clock for clock. It will take major tweaks to pull that off. You only have to look at the history of die shrinks and minor revisions of ANY cpu to figure that out.



Yea but have you noticed the difference between the two at clock to clock? and do you see why? there is a difference in performance clock to clock? its the Cache sizes, it allways has been, all you have to do is look back to the old P4 days and see that the CPU's that had more L2 cache was quicker, and of course also the OBMC. Clock to clock means stuff all, i think you should realize that from the past, but now since they are getting very close to been the same, then it is a factor more so now, but not back then. Once again, wait for the increase of the Cache sizes then test, that will be the benchmark that will tell all. 

Get two CPU's that have very similar configuration then see, at the moment, you just cant. end of story.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 30, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Yea but have you noticed the difference between the two at clock to clock? and do you see why? there is a difference in performance clock to clock? its the Cache sizes, it allways has been, all you have to do is look back to the old P4 days and see that the CPU's that had more L2 cache was quicker, and of course also the OBMC. Clock to clock means stuff all, i think you should realize that from the past, but now since they are getting very close to been the same, then it is a factor more so now, but not back then. Once again, wait for the increase of the Cache sizes then test, that will be the benchmark that will tell all.
> 
> Get two CPU's that have very similar configuration then see, at the moment, you just cant. end of story.



What does it matter? AMD doesn't put more cache on their chip, so that's a pointless argument, and doesn't change the fact that Intel is faster clock for clock.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> What does it matter? AMD doesn't put more cache on their chip, so that's a pointless argument, and doesn't change the fact that Intel is faster clock for clock.



It makes all the difference, why do you think the C2D is so fast? can you tell me the main reason why? from its old P4 days? if you look its got a F load more Cache?and FSB and you know why they also dont put more cache on there AM2 CPU's?, because it god dam expensive to do. Its not pointless, because its the main and most obvious reason why, look back, and see, its all there, anyone can see it. Now since AMD is going to up there Cache sizes, and i wonder why , like derr, we might now see some real close results. 

Its just so obvious its in everyone's faces, and everyone thinks its not, like hello, its the biggest change of all for any intel CPU, apart from the next gen, with a OBMC, thats even bigger. its all there, just look back and you will see the facts.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 30, 2008)

Melvis said:


> It makes all the difference, why do you think the C2D is so fast? can you tell me the main reason why? from its old P4 days? if you look its got a F load more Cache?and FSB and you know why they also dont put more cache on there AM2 CPU's?, because it god dam expensive to do. Its not pointless, because its the main and most obvious reason why, look back, and see, its all there, anyone can see it. Now since AMD is going to up there Cache sizes, and i wonder why , like derr, we might now see some real close results.
> 
> Its just so obvious its in everyone's faces, and everyone thinks its not, like hello, its the biggest change of all for any intel CPU, apart from the next gen, with a OBMC, thats even bigger. its all there, just look back and you will see the facts.



Cache is only part of the reason core 2 succeeds, and amount isn't everything. They improved the efficiency of it, added instruction sets, more efficient execution codes, ect. The entire architecture is just far more efficient. Even a lowly allendale w/ 1mb or 2mb of cache mops the floor w/ a p4, and at much lower clock speeds. It's just more efficient. Cache is part of it, amount of cache is part of it, but not by a long shot all of it. It's just the easiest thing to point out, there's much more going on under the hood so to speak.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> What does it matter? AMD doesn't put more cache on their chip, so that's a pointless argument, and doesn't change the fact that Intel is faster clock for clock.


at the moment it is..


----------



## Melvis (Aug 30, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Cache is only part of the reason core 2 succeeds, and amount isn't everything. They improved the efficiency of it, added instruction sets, more efficient execution codes, ect. The entire architecture is just far more efficient. Even a lowly allendale w/ 1mb or 2mb of cache mops the floor w/ a p4, and at much lower clock speeds. It's just more efficient. Cache is part of it, amount of cache is part of it, but not by a long shot all of it. It's just the easiest thing to point out, there's much more going on under the hood so to speak.



well yea thats true to, i can understand that, i didn't say it was all of it but a major and most stand out one of them all. AMD is using a old architecture in some area's,  the K8 has been around for ages, and the AM2 from 939 wasn't anything different at all, apart from the DDR2, but for something that is getting out dated now, its done a dam good job of giving intel a good run for there money, and thats were it all come's down to, your wallet.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 30, 2008)

thing is current AMD chips can hit 4ghz it just takes work my 5000BE would post @4ghz under water (and at ungodly high volts) which is old school K8 there is no reason with some work AMD cant make that a 24/7 clock if they drop the volts on the chips and make them more efficient which is what K10.5 will do with 45nm. the 6mb cache which IS more efficient than intel's cache structure WILL improve the performance of K8(10.5) significantly look at a phenom vs a AX2 ~20% better performance clock for clock my phenom @2.84ghz BEAT my AX2 @3.35ghz this is same mobo same VGA same ram etc. now think if the triple the cache and double the clock speed what that will do to performance esp. when you consider that a phenom scales with clock very very well.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I'm not talking games. It doesn't take a quad core for gaming. I'm talking cpu performance in general.
> 
> And HT3.1 isn't going to help performance at all at this stage. HT is not a bottleneck as it is. HT 3.1 can only help in multi-socketed server setups. The desktop market has no need for the bandwidth.
> 
> ...



actually games matter very much as it stimulates the small enthusiast crowd, which in return effects normal users choice in buying. (that's a FACT)

well its funny how Intel can use there (qpi etc) to communicate between there chipsets (server and desktop) so why is it not possible for amd who actually invented it.

i never thought it was between you and me and the road map was for info, to say they are not sticking with it.

certainly it has not been the case in the past e.g. AMD Athlon, opteron etc

you make it sound as if Intel has always been on top form. Intel has amd to thank for their i7 design or should i say Opteron. amd has always been the best designers and they did mess up on k10 ..hardware bug—known as an erratum—affected the clock speeds of AMD's quad-core processors, but that's not to say that's how it will stay


----------



## X1REME (Aug 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> What does it matter? AMD doesn't put more cache on their chip, so that's a pointless argument, and doesn't change the fact that Intel is faster clock for clock.



L2 cache is very good for games (games demand it lol) as it show the most potential.

the funny thing is! amd will build on K8/K9/K10/K10.5/K10.5 Rev-D e.g. deneb, shanghai, bulldozer, fusion etc.
so why would amd do that if k10 wasn't any good  

AMD is the best in design wins to this very day


----------



## trt740 (Aug 30, 2008)

man where , where you guys when I needed you back in the AMD days eh WilE remember the beat down I took. The AMD chips are really a fantastic design to be able to stand the test of time and do aswell as they currently do. The 6000+/6400+ still to this day have plenty to offer while gaming and if their dies were shrunk they could easily do the extra  400+ mghz over their true current air overclocking 3.6 ghz, to hit 4.0ghz. Amd  should have revisted  that idea along time ago. However it appears they are trying.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 30, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Yea but have you noticed the difference between the two at clock to clock? and do you see why? there is a difference in performance clock to clock? its the Cache sizes, it allways has been, all you have to do is look back to the old P4 days and see that the CPU's that had more L2 cache was quicker, and of course also the OBMC. Clock to clock means stuff all, i think you should realize that from the past, but now since they are getting very close to been the same, then it is a factor more so now, but not back then. Once again, wait for the increase of the Cache sizes then test, that will be the benchmark that will tell all.
> 
> Get two CPU's that have very similar configuration then see, at the moment, you just cant. end of story.



Lol, it's not the cache size, it's the basic architecture, Intels is just more efficient....simple as that, did you not read the link I posted?, Bang on anothe 4MB of L2 on a K10 and it will make little or no performance difference and whilst the article was a little old, quads for instance have seperate dedicated L2 tied to each core so that makes little difference.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 30, 2008)

> there is a difference in performance clock to clock? its the Cache sizes, it allways has been, all you have to do is look back to the old P4 days and see that the CPU's that had more L2 cache was quicker, and of course also the OBMC.


Wrong. Comparing those day P4s together, i have a 3.0ghz Northwood 512k L2 that stomps its 1mb Prescott compettitor. With that being said, my 3000+ @ 2.4ghz stomped even the 3.0ghz Northwood. When i clocked my 3000+ up to 2.8 (its a Venice core) it was even worse of a stomping. Back in those days cache didnt mean squat. AMD had the better archietecture. Nowadays C2D is pwning the crap outa AMD with their upped cache and FSB. Where as the current argument is being said about cache and quads, we'll just have to wait and see if the 6mb L3 is gonna help at all. No point in arguing over something that isnt out yet. Thats like arguing whether my shits gonna be light brown or dark brown later today based on what i had to eat yesterday.


----------



## SANEagent (Aug 30, 2008)

Evo85 said:


> If these ring true in the end, I just found my next CPU!



Same here!


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 30, 2008)

> Same here!


+3 but i was gonna get a 9950 anyways :/


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 30, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> +3 but i was gonna get a 9950 anyways :/



The 140W 9950 is 177 with free shipping on newegg

Do you think it's worth the buy or wait? B/c that's pretty cheap.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 30, 2008)

Well ill make the decision when i have some money to spend  I have to buy a new board and new PSU as well (i have good DDR2 waiting)

Knowing me ill probably wait to see benchies on the new 45nm, and see if the FX rumour is true. If it is, then see how much they are. Then probably buy a super cheap 9950 still rofl.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 30, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Nowadays C2D is pwning the crap outa AMD with their upped cache and FSB .



Ummmm thanks, do i need to say much more? LOL ^


Ok maybe i used a bad eg, the P4's were woeful anyway no matter what Cache sizes they had, enough said there. But on a AMD it made a big difference, thats why you had the FX CPU's, with higher amount of Cache, and also the lower 3700, 4000, etc, and with this increase of Cache size alone, made them perform better in mainly gaming. This factor alone made us decide to buy a 3700+ over the 3800+, because it would be better in games.

Im not saying that Cache alone is the be all and end all, but im saying its what stands out the most and also makes them perform better in CERTAIN apps. you cant tell me it doesn't help? then why would they even bother putting that much on? If it doesn't make a difference then WTF?  I bet a lower Cache C2D vs a normal rated C2D would loose in a lot of areas, not all, but alot. But we cant =/, so we will have to wait and see for these new AMD's then compare with C2D.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 30, 2008)

C2D with small cache is like trying to breed a dog without nuts. It just doesn't work very well haha.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 30, 2008)

> Ok maybe i used a bad eg, the P4's were woeful anyway no matter what Cache sizes they had, enough said there. But on a AMD it made a big difference, thats why you had the FX CPU's, with higher amount of Cache, and also the lower 3700, 4000, etc, and with this increase of Cache size alone, made them perform better in mainly gaming. This factor alone made us decide to buy a 3700+ over the 3800+, because it would be better in games.


Idk why but 3000+ @ 2.8ghz > 4000+ @ 2.8ghz for me. The Sandy had 1mb where as the Venice had 512k but i ALWAYS got a better cpu score with the Venice. With the cooling i had both walled at 2.8ghz, but the Venice ran cooler and used less volts. So even AMD vs AMD sometimes more cache isnt better. But like i said, really no point in debating chips that arent out yet. 45nm Deneb will have 6mb L3 so we will see if it makes a vast improvement against its bigger competitor i7.


----------



## Abu Assar (Aug 30, 2008)

*Deneb 4 GHz is FAKE*

hi all

regarding the original thread , it is an old screen shot of an oc'd deneb
and the real voltage is 1.475 not 1.168 as cpu-z did't read it correctly .

here is the original screen shot which the reviewage site faked shamefully :







and for more info refer to this topic in amd forums:
http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=318&threadid=99307&enterthread=y

so , please btarunr state this facts on the first post , because this hurts AMD greatly
as over hyping their product will only means that it has a very little chance to meet the expectations .

and let's play the wait and see game

no more deneb rumors and over hyping fake news please .


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 31, 2008)

Your just posting the same thing thats been hashed and rehashed in this thread. I think that screenshot or dirations of it have been posted at least 3 times in this thread already.


----------



## Abu Assar (Aug 31, 2008)

if it has been posted earlier then i apologies for the redundancy

and that's why I asked btarunr to state this in the first post , as this thread is 11 pages so far and this post will be buried in two days .


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 31, 2008)

And do you have solid proof that its a fake?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Aug 31, 2008)

I got some pretty good proof its real though


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/phenom-amd-4ghz,6249.html


----------



## flclisgreat (Aug 31, 2008)

barley 4ghz on ln2 is not 4ghz stock on air, by far


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Abu Assar said:


> hi all
> 
> regarding the original thread , it is an old screen shot of an oc'd deneb
> and the real voltage is 1.475 not 1.168 as cpu-z did't read it correctly .
> ...



that shot isn't from reviewage, so stop lying please.

I already posted that shot saying no one really knows what is what (voltage and for some reason the stepping is not shown) please read from the start and you will see that this shot is from the site below. look at the STEPPING (right now its over c1/2) deneb processor is based on C0 stepping . It is assumed that C0/? stepping will replace present B3 stepping , which are based on 65 nm processors phenom. 

this is the site that posted that picture, good try though  
http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2008-08-01/1217578981d9645.html

this url shows the OEM/standard (not FX) cpu the deneb will most likely come as 3+ghz and even they will overclock to over 4ghz which we all know (@ 4ghz not even you will be disappointed matey)
http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2008-07-12/1215832034d9447.html


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> I got some pretty good proof its real though
> 
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/phenom-amd-4ghz,6249.html





i think this  is what you are looking for
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/showthread.php?t=199643


----------



## Abu Assar (Aug 31, 2008)

by fake I meant that this piece of news from the reviewage site is not real , they based their conclusions on an over-clocked phenom , and putting their badge on it , and trying to convenience us that phenom fx will be 4 GHz on 1.167v WITHOUT ANY LIABLE SOURCES .

and this is what I called over hyping the deneb , and this hurts AMD more than benefiting them . 

I'm an AMD fan , and I wish they regain the performance crown as much as the next guy , but
spreading fake ... umm , spreading not so reliable news from an unknown and dishonest site is not a good thing for AMD , as I said before .

anyway , I really want to believe that it is true , but not through reviewage .

btw, thanks X1REME for the original review site , I took the screen shot from the AMD forum thread I posted its link in the previous post .


----------



## kid41212003 (Aug 31, 2008)

Let's wait and see, but my oponion is :
This is fake.

Unless Phenom FX architecture is 100% different from Phenom Deneb and Phenom Agena. Can AMD comes up with a new architecture this fast? 
Phenom FX over 4GHz and this is stock speed at extreme low voltage. This is like 2-3 years in the future.

Everyone know that Intel Core 2 Duo can clock really high at low voltage, but why Intel didn't clock it higher? If I remember right, the researchers intended to make a CPU that can run at least 10 years without problems.

So, a Phenom FX 45nm over 4GHz at extreme low voltage, suprassed all current techs, and this can last lat least 10 years without problems. I think this is really hard to believe.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Abu Assar said:


> by fake I meant that this piece of news from the reviewage site is not real , they based their conclusions on an over-clocked phenom , and putting their badge on it , and trying to convenience us that phenom fx will be 4 GHz on 1.167v WITHOUT ANY LIABLE SOURCES .
> 
> and this is what I called over hyping the deneb , and this hurts AMD more than benefiting them .
> 
> ...



hi, i know what you mean by over hyping. every response i make is more than double checked for its source and verify with others sites as they are samples most likely but will most defiantly over clock over 4ghz as even the phenom gets there with some help (ln2) . and even amd people say it will be 3+ghz (OEM not FX).

currently i have an Intel set-up with ATi gpu but will go all amd very soon (spider platform), just like before the c2d, why? because the i7 will cost you an arm and a leg to adopt and personally i think people like not so informed should be aware that there is going to be an alternative from AMD which will hopefully cost half the price and be up to par performance.

You have to understand AMD is not as rich as Intel and fan boys like you (No offence) actually advertise for it from forums etc. (just like the gpu)

Also dont forget that AMD constantly lives with the fear that it is out-resourced and out-spent compared to Intel. If it reveals too much about its future strategy and Intel likes that strategy there is a theoretical chance that Intel could take this idea and deliver a product way before AMD. This was probably a key reason for the company to switch its entire communications strategy and remains completely quiet (e.g GPU) about a new product until it exactly knows its specs/place and capabilities, and is convinced that Nvidia/Intel can’t beat it to market anymore.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> Let's wait and see, but my oponion is :
> This is fake.
> 
> Unless Phenom FX architecture is 100% different from Phenom Deneb and Phenom Agena. Can AMD comes up with a new architecture this fast?
> ...



Its not 100% different but 50% different (K10 to K10.5 then 2?% to K10.5 Rev D) and this is the same architecture as K8-K9-K10 but ironed out bugs as the erratum problems with phenom. as you can see the AMD X4 Phenom (Agena) is already hitting 4.050ghz which was impossible before.

as you can see Intel is ahead of AMD (6 to 12 Months) and the only way to catch up was to miss a few on the road map (I have already listed and showed the road map in the previous post)

sorry mate but having a CPU in this age and day for 10 years is ridiculess, not saying AMD will go down that path (Nvidia Anyone)


----------



## kid41212003 (Aug 31, 2008)

The 10 years CPU isn't because people going to use it for 10 years, It prove the reliable for the CPU. And this is IMPORTANCE for servers.

Many retailers have life-time warranty for their products, but that not what they wanted to tell customers, they wanted to tell them that "our products can work perfectly fine in years that we confident enough to give you a life-time warranty".

AMD miss few on the road map?

AMD Athlon 90nm -> Brisbane 65nm -> Phenom.

The performance inreassed through new generation is not big. They pushed out Phenom in hurry to have a quad-core. Why don't they just skip Brisbane and go straight to Phenom/Kuma? What the hell were they doing? And now, you're telling me AMD gonna have a Phenom FX clock at 4GHz at extreme low voltage?

I can't see your points. If they say it can be Overclock to 4GHz, I can believe this, but a Phenom default speed at 4GHz will need a hardproof.

I don't want to argure with you over something not released, i'm telling you my points, it depends on you and the way you understand it.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 31, 2008)

Lets not forget the sreeny of the add of that one mobo. Had the Phenom FX logo in it.

Either way, like i said who cares?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Aug 31, 2008)

flclisgreat said:


> barley 4ghz on ln2 is not 4ghz stock on air, by far



Yes, but that was a current 9950BE.  65nm.


----------



## zithe (Aug 31, 2008)

It doesn't look right anyway. The size of the text is inconsistent.

Unless it really looks like that...


----------



## Chicken Patty (Aug 31, 2008)

heres some more proof, well not proof, but shots of the set up and stuff


http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/amd-phenom-overclocked-4ghz-ln2-57206/

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/overclockers_break_4ghz_barrier_amd_processors

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9082&Itemid=1


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 31, 2008)

/shakes head

pipe dreams are not real


----------



## btarunr (Aug 31, 2008)

Abu Assar said:


> by fake I meant that this piece of news from the reviewage site is not real , they based their conclusions on an over-clocked phenom , and putting their badge on it , and trying to convenience us that phenom fx will be 4 GHz on 1.167v WITHOUT ANY LIABLE SOURCES .(....)




The reliable source is commonsense. Assuming the screenshot at least is real, why would AMD provide a FSB multiplier value which at some point or another, not be implemented into a product (or if the core isn't capable for reliable operation at that FSB x Mul setting)? FX-62 used a 14.0x multiplier, but the max that Windsor could offer was 16.0x, hence it was implemented as X2 6400+, Taken, if 25.0x by Deneb isn't real, 20.0x is right in the screenshot, it's available for the Deneb core, meaning it looks realistic that AMD makes a product out of that value, and look at the VCore to further assert it. It's not like they plugged the chip into the mains either. Follow the link in the first para of the news post, follow its source, read the review where the Chinese team found the 2.30 GHz Deneb peak at ~55W IIRC.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> The 10 years CPU isn't because people going to use it for 10 years, It prove the reliable for the CPU. And this is IMPORTANCE for servers.
> 
> Many retailers have life-time warranty for their products, but that not what they wanted to tell customers, they wanted to tell them that "our products can work perfectly fine in years that we confident enough to give you a life-time warranty".
> 
> ...



The deneb is not a server part but a desktop part. the server part is called shanghai and I agree the servers need to be mostly bug free (which is why x3 phenom never made it to the servers/workstations)

The road map in 2009 is going to be drastically different to the one shown (8-12 cores, bulldozer, fusion etc will come earlier or overly changed). 

If the OEM DENEB Is 3.2/3.4 and Even 3.6, do you think the Deneb FX will be anything but faster. (Just look at the history of AMD FX)


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2008)

X1REME said:


> actually games matter very much as it stimulates the small enthusiast crowd, which in return effects normal users choice in buying. (that's a FACT)
> 
> well its funny how Intel can use there (qpi etc) to communicate between there chipsets (server and desktop) so why is it not possible for amd who actually invented it.
> 
> ...


My point was neither are better for gaming. Games are so gpu limited, that just about any quad core is completely unnecessary, regardless of who built it. In that light, neither can really use it to their marketing advantage against their competitor anyway. The point is completely moot for gaming.

And when did I say AMD couldn't use HT? I said the current HT is already faster than what we need. We will see no benefits from increasing it's speed. Only multi-socketed servers will see the benefits.

And the AMD designers did have a great design with K8, AT THE TIME. This is the point you are missing. K10/10.5 are just updates to K8. the architecture itself is aging. AMD needs either a completely new architecture to compete with Intel, or at least some major, MAJOR revisions to K10. The die shrink is not major enough.

You guys can continue to believe this news item, if you wish, but I think you are just setting yourselves up for another disappointment. yes, AMD is making some good tweaks and changes, but you are all failing to realize that Intel is as well. Until AMD releases a new arch, they are gonna stay behind Intel. The Core 2 arch is flat out more efficient than K8/10/10.5.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt we'll even see 3.6GHz deneb released. And if they do, Intel will just answer back with their own high-clocked parts. Besides, didn't AMD hint to 3GHz Phenoms before they even released? We see how that turned out, don't we? 

We all know Intel is sandbagging the clock speeds anyway, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing such high overclocks. My quad does 4Ghz on less than 1.4V as it is, let alone the newer 45nm steppings.

AMD is just not gonna win this round. I still hold my hopes up for the next arch tho.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Wile E said:


> My point was neither are better for gaming. Games are so gpu limited, that just about any quad core is completely unnecessary, regardless of who built it. In that light, neither can really use it to their marketing advantage against their competitor anyway. The point is completely moot for gaming.
> 
> And when did I say AMD couldn't use HT? I said the current HT is already faster than what we need. We will see no benefits from increasing it's speed. Only multi-socketed servers will see the benefits.
> 
> ...



lolz I already said k8-k9-k10-k10.5-k10.5 Rev D is the same architecture and where you getting the next architecture from? there isn't any lolz. its all going to be the same with enhancements, which you say don't make a squat of difference (45nm = more transistors = less power usage = more power output = higher clocks = DENEB FX). even the fusion, bulldozer, shanghai, hydra etc will be the same but later 2009/2010 with a name change of K11 which brings us to many cores (Magny-Cours 12-Core CPU in 2010) but same K10


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2008)

X1REME said:


> lolz I already said k8-k9-k10-k10.5-k10.5 Rev D is the same architecture and where you getting the next architecture from? there isn't any lolz. its all going to be the same with enhancements, which you say don't make a squat of difference (45nm = more transistors = less power usage = more power output = higher clocks = DENEB FX). even the fusion, bulldozer, shanghai, hydra etc will be the same but later 2009/2010 with a name change of K11 which brings us to many cores (Magny-Cours 12-Core CPU in 2010) but same K10



Where are you getting me saying they don't make a squat of difference? I never said that. I said they aren't a big enough difference. They are differences Intel can easily counter at this point.

Releasing more cores in a single package can and will help, but Intel can do that as well, so that point is moot too.

If AMD is sticking with the K10 arch, I fear their only hope is that Intel hits a wall with their Core 2 arch, like they did with P4.

Keep in mind, I'm speaking of this purely from a performance perspective. I've not brought price into this, which is where AMD can make up the difference. (which they finally have with the current round of Phenom price cuts)


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

To be honest this is the first time I have my hopes high, although its still K10 (K10.5 actually). I was one maybe in every few who never had his hopes high with the phenom (Agena) after I saw the C2D specifications and cache anyWayZ lolz. 

oh and don't forget AMD can pack more transistors than Intel with newer tech, so imagine what AMD is gonna do with the 45nm shrink (lots more transistors/cache)


----------



## Melvis (Aug 31, 2008)

Wile E said:


> If AMD is sticking with the K10 arch, I fear their only hope is that Intel hits a wall with their Core 2 arch, like they did with P4.



They have hit there wall, why do you think they have the next GEN CPU the same architecture as a AMD CPU? OBMC

Only hope AMD have if that the NEXT gen CPU from intel doesn't do as good as everyone says it will.

Food for thought.

AMD AM2 X2 6400 3.2GHz 65nm
AMD AM3 X2 6400 1.9GHz 45nm

Can anyone see it?


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Where are you getting me saying they don't make a squat of difference? I never said that. I said they aren't a big enough difference. They are differences Intel can easily counter at this point.
> 
> Releasing more cores in a single package can and will help, but Intel can do that as well, so that point is moot too.
> 
> ...



good point on the price (amd is well known for that anyway). 

Intel has already hit a wall as they have fully used the cache and have over spilled to L3 cache (copied amd again). have already used the integrated memory controller (copied amd again). so what next (a wall as most say, especially AMD)


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2008)

Melvis said:


> They have hit there wall, why do you think they have the next GEN CPU the same architecture as a AMD CPU? OBMC
> 
> Only hope AMD have if that the NEXT gen CPU from intel doesn't do as good as everyone says it will.
> 
> ...


No, i7 is NOT the same arch as AMD. It's a Core2 with an on board MC added, and their version of HT. It still does 4 per clock, whereas AMD does 3. Yes, they copied AMD's ideas for those 2 technologies, but the design of the core itself is a tweaked Core2, which is still a more powerful arch, clock for clock than K8/10/10.5.

Do not confuse chip/package features with the core's architectural design.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Intel i7 has only 12 to 20% max performance on their current cpu`s and none whatsoever in games.

and don't forget how much its going to cost to adapt this new platform from Intel (i7), where as AMD is using the same socket for there server and desktop, meaning amd has already a platform in place for both server/desktop. that's a few points to amd, and their cpu will be cheaper to make and market including higher gains for motherboard makers but cheaper for users as it will use an am2/+ platform (am3 + ddr3 in between)


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2008)

X1REME said:


> good point on the price (amd is well known for that anyway).
> 
> Intel has already hit a wall as they have fully used the cache and have over spilled to L3 cache (copied amd again). have already used the integrated memory controller (copied amd again). so what next (a wall as most say, especially AMD)



Intel already has 32nm in the works. They haven't hit their wall yet.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2008)

X1REME said:


> Intel i7 has only 12 to 20% max performance on their current cpu`s and* none whatsoever in games*.
> 
> and don't forget how much its going to cost to adapt this new platform from Intel (i7), where as AMD is using the same socket for there server and desktop, meaning amd has already a platform in place for both server/desktop. that's a few points to amd, and their cpu will be cheaper to make and market including higher gains for motherboard makers but cheaper for users as it will use an am2/+ platform (am3 + ddr3 in between)



Right, which is why I said even current cpu's are more than enough for games, from both Intel and AMD. There are no gains to be had there any time soon.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Intel already has 32nm in the works. They haven't hit their wall yet.



trust me when I say Intel will get beat to the 22nm/32nm with AMD and IBM co-developing it, even tsmc claim to be ahead of Intel in 32nm. Intel certainly had the upper hand in these recent transitions but the future is anther story as it clearly defines who will make money and who wont by one simply jumping a step ahead of the rest (which now everybody tom di*k and harry wants to do)
*



			Intel already has 32nm in the works
		
Click to expand...

*and do i remember correctly you saying there isnt much gains in transition


----------



## Melvis (Aug 31, 2008)

Wile E said:


> No, i7 is NOT the same arch as AMD. It's a Core2 with an on board MC added, and their version of HT. It still does 4 per clock, whereas AMD does 3. Yes, they copied AMD's ideas for those 2 technologies, but the design of the core itself is a tweaked Core2, which is still a more powerful arch, clock for clock than K8/10/10.5.
> 
> Do not confuse chip/package features with the core's architectural design.



Ok so your telling me that a move to L3 Cache, and the move to a OBMC is not the same Arch as a AMD CPU? and will HT even be in the next i7? Im not saying there goin to be the exact same Arch, but this time more then ever there goin to be very very close. and hello with this new improved arch of AMD's will bring the arch of both CPU's even closer again.

Do not confuse the arch tech of a AMD to a arch tech of a C2D of now, and the similarities that will be of i7.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 31, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Ok so your telling me that a move to L3 Cache, and the move to a OBMC is not the same Arch as a AMD CPU? and will HT even be in the next i7? Im not saying there goin to be the exact same Arch, but this time more then ever there goin to be very very close. and hello with this new improved arch of AMD's will bring the arch of both CPU's even closer again.
> 
> Do not confuse the arch tech of a AMD to a arch tech of a C2D of now, and the similarities that will be of i7.



L3 cache, OBMC, HT (called CSI for Intel), are not part of the core arch. They are features of the overall package. I'm referring to the very core of the respective arch's. Intel is ahead there. 

AMD used to make up for having a less efficient/powerful core design by incorporating the above mentioned features in their chips, but with Intel readying the release of i7, AMD has lost that advantage (assuming Intel doesn't royally screw it up). They will need to make it up by coming up with a better core.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 31, 2008)

well core i7 is being launched @ 3.2, and the non extremems are FSB locked, so there is a good chance the FX could be faster @ stock and the rest of the denebs as well or overclock better than there similary priced Corei7 competitors


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 31, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> well core i7 is being launched @ 3.2, and the non extremems are FSB locked, so there is a good chance the FX could be faster @ stock and the rest of the denebs as well or overclock better than there similary priced Corei7 competitors



The extreme is being launched at 3.2ghz, the other more affordable versions are going to be launched at 2.66 and 2.83ghz. The non extreme's don't have locked qpi (no fsb), all nehalem's are supposedly not going to be very overclockable by raising the external clock, as they become unstable. This just means it will require different methods of oc'ing, namely raising the multi. It remains to be seen whether the lower end's will have locked multi's, so it remains to be seen how they oc. 

It's unlikely the 4-cored fx will take on a 8-logical core i7 in multi-tasking, and to me it seems pretty unlikely their architecture will all of the sudden jump from being less efficient than most core 2s to being more efficient than nehalem. i7 after all, is purely core for core speed 15-20% faster than core 2. Oc'ing they could have an advantage maybe if intel is stupid and gets greedy by locking the multi's of the chips people would actually buy, but they're gonna need quite a speed boost to really compete.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 31, 2008)

Intel to have multis unlocked on unextreme chips??


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 31, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Intel to have multis unlocked on unextreme chips??



 I know, but stranger things have happened. If they don't intel may be the main factor in amd regaining ground.


----------



## X1REME (Aug 31, 2008)

Wile E said:


> L3 cache, OBMC, HT (called CSI for Intel), are not part of the core arch. They are features of the overall package. I'm referring to the very core of the respective arch's. Intel is ahead there.
> 
> AMD used to make up for having a less efficient/powerful core design by incorporating the above mentioned features in their chips, but with Intel readying the release of i7, AMD has lost that advantage (assuming Intel doesn't royally screw it up). They will need to make it up by coming up with a better core.




Nehalem (i7) is only a small step forward in integer performance, and the gains due to slightly Increased integer performance are mostly by the new cache system (Database performance)

It has been established from multiple sources that AMD has done NO Barcelona development after the B3 stepping that fixed the TLB bug. They instead decided (I think correctly) to focus on Deneb/shanghai CPU. The result is that Deneb is more than a simple shrink, more than a stepping evolution, and actually introduces significant (m)architectural changes. The result? With the die shrink and internal changes, using the Barcelona Phenoms as a guide to what speeds Denebs can reach is pointless.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 31, 2008)

X1REME said:


> Nehalem (i7) is only a small step forward in integer performance, and the gains due to slightly Increased integer performance are mostly by the new cache system (Database performance)
> 
> It has been established from multiple sources that AMD has done NO Barcelona development after the B3 stepping that fixed the TLB bug. They instead decided (I think correctly) to focus on Deneb/shanghai CPU. The result is that Deneb is more than a simple shrink, more than a stepping evolution, and actually introduces significant (m)architectural changes. The result? With the die shrink and internal changes, using the Barcelona Phenoms as a guide to what speeds Denebs can reach is pointless.



Are you delusional? I'm being serious. Sure, there's minor tweaks and more cache, that's it. They don't have the time nor the resources to redevelop this failed architecture. Their survival depends on Bulldozer and you can bet they're working day and night on that sucker.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 1, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> *Sure, there's minor tweaks and more cache, that's it. They don't have the time nor the resources to redevelop this failed architecture.* Their survival depends on Bulldozer and you can bet they're working day and night on that sucker.


Thank you. That's the point I have apparently failed to get across so far.


----------



## X1REME (Sep 1, 2008)

> Originally Posted by X1REME  View Post
> Nehalem (i7) is only a small step forward in integer performance, and the gains due to slightly Increased integer performance are mostly by the new cache system (Database performance)
> 
> It has been established from multiple sources that AMD has done NO Barcelona development after the B3 stepping that fixed the TLB bug. They instead decided (I think correctly) to focus on Deneb/shanghai CPU. The result is that Deneb is more than a simple shrink, more than a stepping evolution, and actually introduces significant (m)architectural changes. The result? With the die shrink and internal changes, using the Barcelona Phenoms as a guide to what speeds Denebs can reach is pointless.






TheGuruStud said:


> Are you delusional? I'm being serious. Sure, there's minor tweaks and more cache, that's it. They don't have the time nor the resources to redevelop this failed architecture. Their survival depends on Bulldozer and you can bet they're working day and night on that sucker.



I speak facts where as you speak general talk (personal opinion and nothing more lol) 

The text above (by me which you call delusional) is researched from well respected sites e.g toms-anandtech-overclockers-xbit-technews-wikipedia etc. and etc. 

if you still disagree which you will am sure, because you have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever, let me point it out for you, since you have not clearly read or even made an attempt to read what I and others have said on page 1 to 12!. I will say it again for your sake but will say it only once ok?. ok, *from K8 to k10.5 and well into the future AMD WILL HAVE THE SAME ARCHITECTURE but instead core revisions only* did you understand that. since there not bringing anything else out apart from deneb and shanghai still based on the same architecture, its common sense its what they have been working on coz they have been made by amd not anyone else, DUH 



> wile "Thank you. That's the point I have apparently failed to get across so far".



right from the start you have been claiming that there is minor revisions only whereas the rest of the world including AMD them selves (who are gonna make the chips) claim big improvements including 45nm which in it self is not minor, then there is the Immersion lithography, 4th generation of strained-silicon, more transistors/pins, ddr3, new leading edge technologies??????, Ultra-low-k Dielectrics, 6mb L3 cache, HyperTransport 3.1, PCIe 3.0. K10.5 rev... Look i could be here all day


----------



## suraswami (Sep 1, 2008)

WOW 12 pages of WAR?

But X1REME, I think AMD hasn't increased IPC.  That is the key there.  No matter what they do I7 is going to win.  I hope they come out with a proc that has more IPC than their I counterpart.


----------



## X1REME (Sep 1, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Are you delusional? I'm being serious. Sure, there's minor tweaks and more cache, that's it. They don't have the time nor the resources to redevelop this failed architecture. Their survival depends on Bulldozer and you can bet they're working day and night on that sucker.



lets get to deneb and shanghai first, and not jump to conclusions (Bulldozer) which is more ridiculess then the talk we are having now without someone shouting "wait till there out will yah"  

plus there's a chance they could be trashed for something else (e.g hydra) as you have not seen samples nor has anyone else.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 2, 2008)

X1REME said:


> right from the start you have been claiming that there is minor revisions only whereas the rest of the world including AMD them selves (who are gonna make the chips) claim big improvements including 45nm which in it self is not minor, then there is the Immersion lithography, 4th generation of strained-silicon, more transistors/pins, ddr3, new leading edge technologies??????, Ultra-low-k Dielectrics, 6mb L3 cache, HyperTransport 3.1, PCIe 3.0. K10.5 rev... Look i could be here all day


They are still minor revisions in terms of performance. Hi or Low K, immersion litho, 4th gen silicon, etc., etc. doesn't changes the per clock performance of the chip at all. All it changes is the way they stamp them out, and how far they'll be able to shrink them. They are manufacturing advancements, not micro-architecture advancements.

HT3.1 and PCIe 3 aren't going to do a damn thing for performance, when PCIe 2 and the current HT are already overkill, and nowhere near maxed out in desktop environments. The only area that could see a benefit from HT3.1 is multi socketed servers. Nothing will see a boost from PCIe 3 as of yet.

The only things you mentioned that will effect the per clock performance is the higher cache, and possibly DDR3.

Those 2 things will not be enough to push them ahead of (or even to match, for that matter) Intel, clock for clock. Thus, only minor revisions are being made, from a performance standpoint.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 2, 2008)

Wile E said:


> They are still minor revisions in terms of performance. Hi or Low K, immersion litho, 4th gen silicon, etc., etc. doesn't changes the per clock performance of the chip at all. All it changes is the way they stamp them out, and how far they'll be able to shrink them. They are manufacturing advancements, not micro-architecture advancements.
> 
> HT3.1 and PCIe 3 aren't going to do a damn thing for performance, when PCIe 2 and the current HT are already overkill, and nowhere near maxed out in desktop environments. The only area that could see a benefit from HT3.1 is multi socketed servers. Nothing will see a boost from PCIe 3 as of yet.
> 
> ...





they might bring them alot closer though. and if thats the case and AMD really does release a much higher clocked chip ie 4 or 4.4ghz intel wont have anything that can match it until they can release higher clocked chips. so if this is true i see a win win situation for the consumer because no matter what we get higher clocked parts and i'm sure they will get nice and cheap


----------

