Wednesday, August 27th 2008

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

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.
Source: Reviewage
Add your own comment

294 Comments on Phenom FX in the Works, AMD to take Another shot at...Kentsfield

#177
Tatty_Two
Gone Fishing
MelvisMmmmm 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! :eek:

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.
Posted on Reply
#178
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusionna 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! :respect: night guys
Yeah, no problem. I love running benchmarks. it's fun to see how different setups compare.
Posted on Reply
#179
Melvis
fullinfusionwell 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 ;)
Posted on Reply
#180
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
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...:toast:
Posted on Reply
#181
Wile E
Power User
blueskynisYou guys filled my mail! :rolleyes:
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.
Posted on Reply
#182
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
MelvisThats 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.....;)
Posted on Reply
#183
Melvis
fullinfusionThanks 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:D
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 ;)
Posted on Reply
#184
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
Wile EGo 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....
Posted on Reply
#185
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
MelvisKnow 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-:pimp:
Posted on Reply
#186
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusionyeah 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. :( )
Posted on Reply
#187
blueskynis
Fudzilla said Deneb will be K11, I think?
Posted on Reply
#188
Melvis
Tatty_OneNo 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! :eek:

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 ;)
Posted on Reply
#189
hat
Enthusiast
yeah AM2 was just 939 with DDR2 support
Posted on Reply
#190
Wile E
Power User
blueskynisFudzilla said Deneb will be K11, I think?
I meant the next major arch change, not just a "tweak and shrink"™.
Posted on Reply
#191
Bluefox1115
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.
Posted on Reply
#192
Melvis
fullinfusionumm 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-:pimp:
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:)
Posted on Reply
#193
Melvis
Wile EI 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?
Posted on Reply
#194
Wile E
Power User
Melvisyea 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.
Posted on Reply
#195
Wile E
Power User
Bluefox1115My 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.
Posted on Reply
#196
Melvis
Bluefox1115My 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 :D
Posted on Reply
#197
Bluefox1115
its not shared L2, its dedicated native to each core hence 4x512k, unlike Intel. just the like the 9800gx2 is 2x512mb 2x256bit.
Posted on Reply
#198
Tatty_Two
Gone Fishing
Bluefox1115My 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.
Posted on Reply
#199
Wile E
Power User
Bluefox1115its 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.
Posted on Reply
#200
Melvis
Wile ESome 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 =/
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 27th, 2024 05:13 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts