Wednesday, August 27th 2008
AMD Phenom X2 Information Trickles
Time draws closer for the Athlon 64 X2 to retire. It has seen its good and bad days, leading Intel versus the Pentium D and trailing it versus the Core 2 Duo. German site Hardware Infos shed light on the primary lineup of the dual-core edition based on the K10 architecture, the Phenom X2. There are no core architectural changes for the Phenom X2, codenamed "Kuma" over the K8, except that like the Phenom X3 and X4, these chips feature 2 MB of L3 cache apart from 512 KB caches per core and the revised HyperTransport interface. The listed models come at a rated TDP of 45W. The first three Kuma chips listed have clock-speeds ranging from 1.90 GHz to 2.30 GHz and have been given model numbers that look confusing to the older PRN system AMD employed, with the top Athlon 64 X2 rated at 6400+. The later releases of the older X2 using the Brisbane core broke away from the older PRN and we saw models such as 4450e, 4850e or 4850b (note the absence of the "+").
The naming of these chips asserts that. For example, the 1.90 GHz Kuma part is named Phenom X2 GE-6400. Going by the performance evaluations of other parts based on the K10 architecture, at 1.90 GHz + the 2 MB L3 cache, this part might not be on par with the Windsor core Athlon 64 X2 6400+. Contradicting earlier reports that AMD would work out Kuma parts on the 45 nm fabrication process, all three Kuma parts reported are based on the 65 nm fab process.
The Phenom X2 GE-6400 has a clock speed of 1.90 GHz, the GE-6500 has a clock speed of 2.10 GHz and the GE-6600 even higher at 2.30 GHz. All parts feature 512 KB of L2 cache per core, a 2 MB L3 cache, HyperTransport 3.0 link speed of 1600 MHz (3200 MT/s) and rated TDP of 45W. Pricing and availability remain to be seen.
Source:
Hardware Infos
The naming of these chips asserts that. For example, the 1.90 GHz Kuma part is named Phenom X2 GE-6400. Going by the performance evaluations of other parts based on the K10 architecture, at 1.90 GHz + the 2 MB L3 cache, this part might not be on par with the Windsor core Athlon 64 X2 6400+. Contradicting earlier reports that AMD would work out Kuma parts on the 45 nm fabrication process, all three Kuma parts reported are based on the 65 nm fab process.
The Phenom X2 GE-6400 has a clock speed of 1.90 GHz, the GE-6500 has a clock speed of 2.10 GHz and the GE-6600 even higher at 2.30 GHz. All parts feature 512 KB of L2 cache per core, a 2 MB L3 cache, HyperTransport 3.0 link speed of 1600 MHz (3200 MT/s) and rated TDP of 45W. Pricing and availability remain to be seen.
35 Comments on AMD Phenom X2 Information Trickles
1) It's not a flop -- somewhat of a "letdown," yes, but certainly not a flop. The latest Intel offerings are just hard to beat, that's all, but here's a comparison -- just because my Corvette is slower than your Ferrari doesn't mean my Corvette is a "flop."
2) It performs on par with equal-clocked conroe parts -- where's the poor performance? :confused:
3) It overclocks quite well from what I've seen -- or is a 3.4GHz overclock (I've seen tons of examples) from a stock of 2.6 not good enough? Let me remind you that most of the later batches of Q6600's are having trouble getting above 3.2GHz.
4) And the fact that it's worth looking at because of the price is a good thing. :D
...but the R700 GPUs are ok ;)
lemonade, how come you have so many stars? :D
No, they don't perform on par with equally-clocked Intel parts. Look at the X4 9700@2.4Ghz vs. the Q6600@2.4GHz. I didn't go through every single test they ran, but I looked at most of them, and there wasn't a single one I saw where the Phenom matched or beat the Q6600 at the same clock speed. So I would like a little proof that the Phenom parts are equal to Intel parts clock for clock.
Even if, and that is a big if at this point, they were equal clock for clock, due to Phenom's poor clock speed scaling, we don't see Phenom parts released at nearly the same clock speeds as Intel parts, and they certainly don't reach the same clock speeds when overclocked. The fastest Phenom x4 on the market is 2.6GHz, the fastest Core 2 Duo is 3.2GHz right now.I've seen very few Phenom X4's get to 3.4GHz, but I don't disagree it is possible. 3.4GHz from 2.6GHz is only 800MHz, just like a Q6600 at 3.2GHz from a stock of 2.4GHz. In the case of the Q6600, going to 3.2GHz from 2.4GHz is actually a better overclock than the X4 going from 2.6GHz to 3.4GHz, even though the final clock speed of the X4 is higher. They both only go up 800MHz. In the case of the Q6600, that is a 33% overclock, and with the X4 it is only a 30% overclock. Granted, not a huge difference, but in terms of percentage over stock(or how much you get for free), even the bad Q6600's were better than the X4's.
Though the Q6600 is old news. Look at something new, the Q6600 has been the focus of attention for long enough. Why not talk about the Q9400? The Q9400's are hitting 3.6GHz and beyond pretty easily.Yes, price is a good thing. Though if price is your concern, the Q6600 easily has the price market taken. Even the bad batches make it to 3.2GHz, and in the same price range you won't find a Phenom that will match it, both stock and overclocked. I know I said to look away from the Q6600, but it is just so hard!
www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/pinnacle-studio-11-plus,385.html?p=1308%2C1275 (less is better)
www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/sisoftware-sandra-xi,396.html?p=1275%2C1308 (higher is better)
www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/mainconcept-h-264-encoder,380.html?p=1275%2C1308 (less is better)
www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/hdtv-playback,377.html?p=1275%2C1308 (less is better)
www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/winrar,402.html?p=1308%2C1275 (less is better)
...self explained... :rolleyes:
www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/hdtv-playback,377.html?p=1275%2C1308
www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/winrar,402.html?p=1275%2C1308
:p
And the key there was, "I saw" I don't have the time to look through all 35 test, especially with Tom's slow load times. Appearently there are 4 tests where the Phenom matches or outperforms the Q6600, big deal. That certainly doesn't validate the statement that the Phenom/K10 architecture performs equally to Intel's Core 2 architecture clock for clock.
right now intel is better, we dont dispute that.
See attatched screenshots and you'll see what I mean about that. The power consumption is fantastic with these setups as they don't take very much voltage to run at all. Then again the energy performance from the X4 lineup is awesome as well IF you know what you're doing as they don't need the voltage they come with stock to actually run at those speeds, they're overvolted by a healthy amount. Knock that down and the temps and power consumption fall like a rock.
On my low power setting I'm running my Phenom 9850BE at 1.8Ghz which is MORE than enough speed to do anything (including play games with no lag at 60fps for almost anything) and I only need a ridiculously low 0.912v to do so. If people call that bad power consumption performance they must be using calculators to make their posts...
Even running at stock speed of 2.5Ghz I only need 1.072v which is nothing. I don't use H20 cooling or anything like that, I'm on air cooling all the time mounted inside a full tower case. My fan stays on silent mode at ALL times no matter the load and still never reaches a temp that even makes me care. Fan speed max is 2000+rpm (110cfm) yet as you see in the pics I don't even need half of that to get my system to run cool and not make a peep. The CPU fan is listed at the bottom of the list as Scythe110 (the other is my Scythe 40cfm side fan...which is more than what the cpu fan is doing).
These X2 Kuma's will be sweet indeed especially if they offer a black edition model. Either way it'll be sweet if they still decide to go with it.
K
(No offense, but Newtekie1 please don't reply to this, thank you :))
And get your facts straight, stop trying to make your side look better. They pointed out 6 tests and repeated 3 of them, but in 2 of those 6 the Intel was still outperforming the Phenom, which makes me wonder why they posted them, look at the 6 they pointed out and you will see this yourself. That leaves 4 where the Phenom managed to match or better the Intel at the same clock speed, and one was a synthetic memory test that AMD has been winning for ages due to their integrated memory controller, it has no real world impact. Matching or besting in 4 out of 35 tests is far from supporting the claim that the Phenom processors are equal to the Core 2 processors clock for clock. That statement just isn't accurate at all, no matter how much you want to say it is and try to argue.