Pretty good results. If priced right, these can be successful. If these really are quad-cores where one core isn't working, then AMD can save some good money!

These are expected around mid-Q2 2008, right?

robodude666Pretty good results. If priced right, these can be successful. If these really are quad-cores where one core isn't working, then AMD can save some good money!

they are, at least thats what is being said...
I don't think you could activate the 4th core though... its damaged anyway... :laugh:

a111087they are, at least thats what is being said...
I don't think you could activate the 4th core though... its damaged anyway... :laugh:

Well, in that case, if they are quad cores with a defective core then AMD is making a really nice move! Instead of throwing out the bad chips and wasting money (they AMD has little of) they are selling them as triple-core processors :) And their performance isn't even that bad either!

This is something Intel probably couldn't really do as it would cost them more money since their quad-core is two duals glued together :laugh:.

Intel has a different scheme. Dies with one defective core become low power notebook chips. A correctly working die, that draws lots of power is a low end unit. The high end dies are ones that draw lease amount of power. The highest binned chips are the low power high freq units, those are the quads.

i hate how the chips always say they are from the year before, what confidence to know a brand new chip is already a year old in the companys eyes lol.

spootityi hate how the chips always say they are from the year before, what confidence to know a brand new chip is already a year old in the companys eyes lol.

haha! well i think its because it was delayed so much

"AMD Phenom X3 is supposed to fill the gap between today's dual-core and quad-core processors."

Phenom X3 2.3GHz get 2575 is 3DMark06 CPU score, I get 2627 with my dual @ 3GHz, so mine is better \o/ :p @2.66GHz I get 2367, so 2.3 GHz would be ~2100 and that would be a lot more than Phenom X2. Now if they make those X3s near same price as Core 2 Duos, then AMD got a winner :)

dont by fooled by the 2006 cpu score.. its a single core x 3.. your dual is a single core x 2.. being as most things stiil just use one of the cores its the single core score that really tells u how fast the things are..

sandra does pretty much the same thing.. pretends a quad core is 4 x as fast as a single.. which of course is utter rubbish in a world which is mostly single thread still..

trog

well done AMD, thanks for triggering another Intel price cut, any ideas on how much these triple core cpu's will cost?

I can't understand why people are pleased with these results. Intel's aging quad core beats all of AMD's new chips fairly easily at stock, and I have to believe the new 45nm chips will absolutely destroy them in benchmarks. Were also not mentioning how easily Intel's chips can OC, gaining more performance for price while staying cool. The Phenom 9500 on NewEgg is almost the same price as the Q6600, it's bugged or so I hear, and gets outperformed. The only thing ATI & AMD got right in my book in the last year or so is the 3800 series.

thats not a big jump vs the CPU with Lower Clocks. So it appears its making progress.

OnBoard"AMD Phenom X3 is supposed to fill the gap between today's dual-core and quad-core processors."

Phenom X3 2.3GHz get 2575 is 3DMark06 CPU score, I get 2627 with my dual @ 3GHz, so mine is better \o/ :p @2.66GHz I get 2367, so 2.3 GHz would be ~2100 and that would be a lot more than Phenom X2. Now if they make those X3s near same price as Core 2 Duos, then AMD got a winner :)

OrbitzXTI can't understand why people are pleased with these results. Intel's aging quad core beats all of AMD's new chips fairly easily at stock, and I have to believe the new 45nm chips will absolutely destroy them in benchmarks. Were also not mentioning how easily Intel's chips can OC, gaining more performance for price while staying cool. The Phenom 9500 on NewEgg is almost the same price as the Q6600, it's bugged or so I hear, and gets outperformed. The only thing ATI & AMD got right in my book in the last year or so is the 3800 series.

Not everyone overclocks despite how it looks so looking at techpowerup users as a medium xD AMD has been faster in real games with similarly priced processors, don't know if they still are. Not all Core 2s stay cool while OCing. My chip goes superhot if you up the voltage a bit. Same for that Q6600, if it's not G0 stepping.

OnBoardNot everyone overclocks despite how it looks so looking at techpowerup users as a medium xD AMD has been faster in real games with similarly priced processors, don't know if they still are. Not all Core 2s stay cool while OCing. My chip goes superhot if you up the voltage a bit. Same for that Q6600, if it's not G0 stepping.

first off you are right not everyone overclocks...i didnt oc my e6420 until i decided that i was going to buy a new processor which i still havent bought yet ....
second amds athlon cpus were so good... i did not expect the improvement that the phenoms would be leaps and bounds overthem for the simple fact that they were already at a high....on the other hand
the p4s and the pentium ds... sucked so badly the only way for intel to go was up...not down...and if it werent for amd it would not be this way...
intel had to do something...and it did and i am glad....i
reviews have also shown that the nehalem or whatever and these yorkfields do not yield substantial improvement to be labeled as revolutionary products...IMHO i really do believe that yorkfield and nehalem are just improvements in the core architecture...the last one might be a new marchitecture but it is not leaps and bounds as of yet...it may be...and it might not be...
furthermore the phenom although quite unimpressive given its current state is no way at its best...and we must not forget that

springs113first off you are right not everyone overclocks...i didnt oc my e6420 until i decided that i was going to buy a new processor which i still havent bought yet ....
second amds athlon cpus were so good... i did not expect the improvement that the phenoms would be leaps and bounds overthem for the simple fact that they were already at a high....on the other hand
the p4s and the pentium ds... sucked so badly the only way for intel to go was up...not down...and if it werent for amd it would not be this way...
intel had to do something...and it did and i am glad....i
reviews have also shown that the nehalem or whatever and these yorkfields do not yield substantial improvement to be labeled as revolutionary products...IMHO i really do believe that yorkfield and nehalem are just improvements in the core architecture...the last one might be a new marchitecture but it is not leaps and bounds as of yet...it may be...and it might not be...
furthermore the phenom although quite unimpressive given its current state is no way at its best...and we must not forget that

athlon64 was great... until the first core2 hit the market. from then on, intel has been in the lead and this doesnt help AMD get anywhere near intel. - dont forget this is compared to the Q6600 (kentsfield) and the new 45nm penryn is on its way out... and they are clocked a lot higher, and can do 4Ghz easily on air cooling. AMD cant keep up.

OnBoardNot everyone overclocks despite how it looks so looking at techpowerup users as a medium xD AMD has been faster in real games with similarly priced processors, don't know if they still are. Not all Core 2s stay cool while OCing. My chip goes superhot if you up the voltage a bit. Same for that Q6600, if it's not G0 stepping.

i've seen that with allendale chips mostly. (and the new variants, 2MB conroes) on the E4x00 series. I guess they were the failures, and thats why they got dropped to budget chips

My athlon 64 still does a fine job.
Wonder what the price of these are going to be and the life span?

Will game devs use 3 cores in the future or will thay jump straight to utilizing 4 cores?

I believe multithreaded means that it takes advantage of any cores there. Doesn't matter how many cores you have.

hatI believe multithreaded means that it takes advantage of any cores there. Doesn't matter how many cores you have.

Thats correct.

tkpenaltyThats correct.

+1 to that - supreme commander scales well enough, on a quad core i can simply set the affinity to less cores and watch my FPS drop with each one.

to the AMD people: i have an FX-62 here as well (bought off this forum, in fact) and its got NOTHING on the intels for gaming. even at 3Ghz, it cant match a CPU at 1/8th its price (E6750) at stock, let alone OC'd. (gaming, not benchmarks - the AMD system sucks at supreme commander even with the same video card)

Mussels+1 to that - supreme commander scales well enough, on a quad core i can simply set the affinity to less cores and watch my FPS drop with each one.

to the AMD people: i have an FX-62 here as well (bought off this forum, in fact) and its got NOTHING on the intels for gaming. even at 3Ghz, it cant match a CPU at 1/8th its price (E6750) at stock, let alone OC'd. (gaming, not benchmarks - the AMD system sucks at supreme commander even with the same video card)

you must understand that and amd of yesterday is not gonna seriously beat or contend with its successor...

and to the guy who replied to my post...i think you miss the point... i basically meant that the leaps in improvements from the a64 to phenom should not be that great early...in the long run we will see the benefit alot more...thats why we have a thing called revisions...the leap from the athlon xps to the 64s were enormous because it was a change in the marchitectural structure and design...in reference to the phenom being a change like that is absurd in more ways than one... a look at DAAMITs roadmap would show this....

also all amd need is just to recoup as much as possible...and to tell you the truth...the reason why you can go to newegg and still see the first batch of phenom 9500 available is because thats the low end...and no one building a system around their so called spider system wants to build it with a weak processor when they know that if they already have an am2 proc they can tough it out so to speak and wait for the better processors that will/should be arriving shortly...i for one is doing that and i own both a am2 sys and a core2...i support em all....i run nvidias chipsets/gpus...intels cpu/chipsets/even gpu (laptop)...amds chipset(790fx)/gpu/and of course their cpus

So no fanboi here im an avid supporter of them all and i will be getting a q9450, phenom black ed(higher than 2.3 stock), another 3870 and if the 3870 x2 can run cx withe the 3870 then i will just substitute that instead, another 8800gt and i might just change my intel mobo...

Mussels+1 to that - supreme commander scales well enough, on a quad core i can simply set the affinity to less cores and watch my FPS drop with each one.

to the AMD people: i have an FX-62 here as well (bought off this forum, in fact) and its got NOTHING on the intels for gaming. even at 3Ghz, it cant match a CPU at 1/8th its price (E6750) at stock, let alone OC'd. (gaming, not benchmarks - the AMD system sucks at supreme commander even with the same video card)

I have the same cpu at the same speed as yours, I can't understand your problem with gaming tho, I only have issues with Crysis but then again I've only got 2GB or ram and a 256MB x1950 Pro! Also, where can I buy an E6750 for 1/8th of the price of an FX-62? The cheapest I've found a retail E6750 in the UK is £116 but the fx-62 can commonly be purchased on fleabay for similar dough if rip-off merchants are avoided, they're not as common a chip I believe! :eek:

Oh, and GO AMD WOOT WOOT! :D

Hell yeah, yall are right. I sincerely hope that is what AMD is doing. Makes alot of sense and they could also make X2s if two cores were damaged or no good. If they did it that way, they wouldnt have to have two different lines tooled to make x2s and x4s <G>

Not bad...

rhythmeisterI have the same cpu at the same speed as yours, I can't understand your problem with gaming tho, I only have issues with Crysis but then again I've only got 2GB or ram and a 256MB x1950 Pro! Also, where can I buy an E6750 for 1/8th of the price of an FX-62? The cheapest I've found a retail E6750 in the UK is £116 but the fx-62 can commonly be purchased on fleabay for similar dough if rip-off merchants are avoided, they're not as common a chip I believe! :eek:

The FX chips cost a ton here in aus, so it will be different overseas. The sup com issue is odd, but may just be related to the expansion - everything runs great on the two intel systems, but slow as poop on the AMD system with the 8600GT.

Price wise, the FX-62 retails for $1100 in aus, while my quad core goes for $350.

However the phenom just hit the market here, around $350 for the quad 9500 model. This puts aside my price concerns, however i do think the performance will be lacking compared to intel... so these tri-cores better have a good price advantage when they hit.

trog100dont by fooled by the 2006 cpu score.. its a single core x 3.. your dual is a single core x 2.. being as most things stiil just use one of the cores its the single core score that really tells u how fast the things are..

sandra does pretty much the same thing.. pretends a quad core is 4 x as fast as a single.. which of course is utter rubbish in a world which is mostly single thread still..

trog

The quad actually is nearly 4 times as fast, Sandra does multithreaded tests. Saying it isn't 4 x as fast because not everything utilizes the processing power available is a non-argument. It's like saying your C2D or X2 isn't faster than a P100 Because MS-DOS doesn't utilize anything.

There is no "pretending".