Friday, July 10th 2009
AMD Staring at 140W Barrier with Phenom II X4 965?
Two of AMD's biggest setbacks with the 65 nm Phenom X4 series were 1. the TLB erratum fiasco with the B2 revision of the chip, and 2. the virtual TDP wall it hit with the 2.60 GHz Phenom X4 9950, at 140W. At that wattage, several motherboards were rendered incompatible with the processor because they lacked the power circuitry that could handle it. The company eventually worked out a lower-wattage 125W variant of the said chip, and went on to never release a higher-clocked processor based on the core.
MSI published the complete CPU support list of its a new BIOS for the 790GX-G65 motherboard a little early, revealing quite some about unreleased AMD processors. At the bottom of the list its the Phenom II X4 965. This 3.40 GHz quad-core chip will succeed the Phenom II X4 955 as AMD next flagship desktop offering. Its TDP is an alarming 140W. Alarming, because this is a chip with a mere 2 unit bus multiplier increment over the Phenom II X4 940, the launch-vehicle for AMD's 45 nm client processor lineup. There are, however, two things to cheer about. RB-C2 is not going to be the only revision of this core, future revisions could bring TDP down, or at least make sure clock-speeds of future models keep escalating, while respecting the 140W mark. A future variant of Phenom II 965 could come with a reduced TDP rating. The list interestingly also goes on to reveal that AMD will have a 95W version of the 3.00 GHz Phenom II X4 945.
Source:
HardwareLuxx.de
MSI published the complete CPU support list of its a new BIOS for the 790GX-G65 motherboard a little early, revealing quite some about unreleased AMD processors. At the bottom of the list its the Phenom II X4 965. This 3.40 GHz quad-core chip will succeed the Phenom II X4 955 as AMD next flagship desktop offering. Its TDP is an alarming 140W. Alarming, because this is a chip with a mere 2 unit bus multiplier increment over the Phenom II X4 940, the launch-vehicle for AMD's 45 nm client processor lineup. There are, however, two things to cheer about. RB-C2 is not going to be the only revision of this core, future revisions could bring TDP down, or at least make sure clock-speeds of future models keep escalating, while respecting the 140W mark. A future variant of Phenom II 965 could come with a reduced TDP rating. The list interestingly also goes on to reveal that AMD will have a 95W version of the 3.00 GHz Phenom II X4 945.
184 Comments on AMD Staring at 140W Barrier with Phenom II X4 965?
I hope they don't start a TDP war. :(
If they'd drop the volts on the BEs, then they wouldn't have to worry about high TDP at stock clock. Noobs. :laugh:
$50 buck difference, and the intel build has 2gb more ram, so if they went 3gb the build's would be even closer in price, the 1gb difference isn't important as anyone getting 4gb or less usually goes 32-bit OS so the usuable ram for the AMD build with 4GB would still be 3gb-3.5gb.
100$ cheaper and same overclocking performance.
You don't seem to mention the performance difference between the i7 and PII.
Okay people, note that we're less than one percent of this market's consumers. From what I can see, AMD are being mainly used in the value segment, and not really performance, while higher end offerings are typically Intel (OEMs).
1. they have to suffer the heat
2. they have to suffer the price which is higher than phenom 2
3. they cant deny that they need a high end cooler if they want to overclock
4. they cant deny that they need a well ventilated case which is expensive.
5. they cant deny that the dragon platform is superior to the intel platform
6. they cant deny that intel graphics are a disgrace and a shame and its not getting any better.
7. they cant deny that core 2 is end of life old architecture with socket soon to be discontinued and core i 7 is too expensive to replace it.
etc.
I simply tried to back up my point with screenies of the 3 different parts between an i7 and AMD build. You only typed up words. However ShadowFold actually backed up his claims with a screeny of an AMD build that was cheaper, instead of a post that only contained text. I stand correct price wise, however not efficiency per dollar.
Crisis averted!
2: agree again, but an i7 owner can retort that a Ph II owner suffer lesser performance depending on the build and use of the PC
3: i agree, but so would anyone choosing to overclock a Phenom II BE, high end cooler i disagree with as the xiggy 1283 darkknight is 40 bucks and performs just fine, best 2009 coolers review
4: I don't know anyone that would purchase either high end build without purchasing a good case, as someone paying for the 955 black edition is more than likely going to overclock and the desire for lower temps even if they would be acceptable is still there.
5+6: i wasn't talking integrated graphics, no body in their right mind purchasing either build is going to go with integrated graphics...seriously
7: core 2 and its socket will be dead, absolutely, but then core 2 matches Phenom II performance. So that statement is a moot point.
And you guys have it easy, in the UK there is about a £200 difference.
On topic, 140W alarming, for whom ? Somebody running a top of the line processor would do so for OCing and would surely get a good board with adequate power circuitry. With a slew of good boards from MSI and Gigabyte, don't think 140W should be a problem anymore.
The people with 780 and 770 boards might have a problem though but they would be stupid to think that they could save money by going with a cheap board and top of the line CPU. In the end it will cost them more.
I've run my PII 920 at the stock 2.8Ghz on only 1.184v with no problems since day one. That's down from 1.30v stock, I did the same thing with my PI 9850 and P1 9500 processors which both undervolted like champs. The 4850 I used to run does the same thing, the Kuma I just setup does the same thing (1.13v so far from 1.30v).
Does Intel do the samething with their processors in being able to drop the voltage to far lower than the stock voltage level without reducing performance at all?
Kei
(btw, I don't care about the super overclock voltages only stock or very close to stock) :)
www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3593&p=2
PII 920's TDP = 125W however, some die's were capable of running @ 1.0V for stock speeds giving the TDP a rating of as low as 65W.
I have estimated that my TDP on the PII 920 I have @ 3.4Ghz is 95-100W judging from the APC's wattage reading and the efficiency factor of my PSU @ 83%.
What I am trying to say is this- They ramped the voltage to get higher usable dies.
-edit-
I have run my PII @ 3,086Mhz @ 1.0V and it was 100% stable but when I get into the 3.2-3.4Ghz range the voltage needed to keep the speed goes up a large amount... I need 1.375V to keep stable at that speed. @ 4Ghz I was able to get it to POST and load windows @ 1.485V but the NB died on the board b4 I could get a CPU-Z... ;-(
So it all depends on the die imho. Luck of the draw.
2. true, but i get much more performance
3. most people buy high end air coolers or water on these forums anyways regardless if they use intel or amd
4. i run my whole setup in a $50 antec 300
5. LOL ok there
6. no i7 x58 boards even use integrated graphics so wtf are you saying
7. core 2 quads still hold their own against phenom ii's and keep up with i7s in gaming
8. you are an amd fanboy lol