AMD Staring at 140W Barrier with Phenom II X4 965?

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Jesus, that's more than a Core i7 965 with HT and Turbo on.

I hope they don't start a TDP war.

 

[TheGuruStud]

They need to bin (I don't really mean bin, but w/e) these chips better. You can run 3.4 ghz on what, 1.25v?

If they'd drop the volts on the BEs, then they wouldn't have to worry about high TDP at stock clock. Noobs.

 

[ShadowFold]

Bring on the HEEEEATTTT

 

[D4S4]

amd`s prescott

 

[Kitkat]

yeah see i knew they already had (from previous anoucment) a lowered (required) twp i was unsure if 965 would have it and i guess not but my 955s ok for now, like i said in previous post too id like to see 975 i thought theyd skip 965 anyway. But good info on the revision sounds nice. I also hear too that half the info thats out about it is false even what mobo manus are posting (from an interview i read amdzone i belive) but even that was weeks ago. i think 975 will have all the upgrades most are looking for. As far as it being incompatible with some mobos most who buy this chip wont care BEs were never meant (even lower twps) for lower end boards anyway those ppl know what they get them selves into when they buy a low end board and a high end chip (atleast i hope they do) It only means we can keep our 955s for another 3/12 months lol thats usulay the time it takes.

 

[snakeoil]

phenom II is a power efficient architecture, instead intel's core i7 is a certified powerhog, temps under load are 80 c for core i7 with stock cooler and stock speed , while phenom II is just 45 c under load with stock cooler and stock speed. everybody that have core i7 has to suffer the heat and the price (like in hell) while phenom II users are cool and with money in the wallet.

 

[TheGuruStud]

amd`s prescott

Cmon now. It's nowhere near 200W tdp (I'm serious, intel lied so bad back then)

 

[a_ump]

phenom II is a power efficient architecture, instead intel's core i7 is a certified powerhog, temps under load are 80 c for core i7 with stock cooler and stock speed , while phenom II is just 45 c under load with stock cooler and stock speed. everybody that have core i7 has to suffer the heat and the price (like in hell) while phenom II users are cool and with money in the wallet.

power efficient, the Phenom II wins. but money wise, a Phenom II build and i7 920 build are very close now, enough to make that price difference argument negligible.

$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.

 

[tkpenalty]

Its almost as bad as a prescott, minus the inverse exponential increase in performance (anything over 3.6Ghz = no perf increase whatsoever for prescotts ). AMD Really need to work on a new architecture instead of a die shrink, beacuse die shrinks don't really help for high TDPs, especially if it is due to the way the architecture works. Die shrinks are stopgap in this case basically.

power efficient, the Phenom II wins. but money wise, a Phenom II build and i7 920 build are very close now, enough to make that price difference argument negligible.
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/Intel174.jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/AMD139.jpg
$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.

Power efficiency doesn't mean lower power usage, it means how much performance for how much power you use. The phenom is less efficient than the i7s which also has an intergrated memory controller.

 

[snakeoil]

power efficient, the Phenom II wins. but money wise, a Phenom II build and i7 920 build are very close now, enough to make that price difference argument negligible.
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/Intel.jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/AMD.jpg

$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.

maybe if you use the crappiest parts available not everywhere, you cant deny that core i7 is more expensive if you use quality parts, and because is very hot you need a good cooler and a well ventilated case which make it more expensive. could you reduce the size of your post please?,

 

[ShadowFold]

power efficient, the Phenom II wins. but money wise, a Phenom II build and i7 920 build are very close now, enough to make that price difference argument negligible.
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/Intel174.jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/AMD139.jpg
$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.

 

[tkpenalty]

maybe if you use the crappiest parts available not everywhere, you cant deny that core i7 is more expensive if you use qualilty parts, and because is very hot you need a good cooler and a well ventilated case which make it more expensive. could you reduce the size of your post please?,

phenom II is a power efficient architecture, instead intel's core i7 is a certified powerhog, temps under load are 80 c for core i7 with stock cooler and stock speed , while phenom II is just 45 c under load with stock cooler and stock speed. everybody that have core i7 has to suffer the heat and the price (like in hell) while phenom II users are cool and with money in the wallet.

Intel's CPUs only run so "warm" because of incorrect temperature readings from programs such as core temp which always never address the issue of the tjunction temps being 15 (or 25) or so degrees off the real readings, but yeah its slightly warm, but nothing to fret over (80*C? BS, the CPU can't even run at that temperature without shutting itself down). Secondly the stock cooler is pure CRAP. But comparably an i7 CPU doesn't have to high TDPs just to blow any Phenom II out of the water. (Slight OC). Its only because AMD supplies a slightly better CPU that they dont run so warm.

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).

 

[snakeoil]

there are a few things that core i7 users cant deny

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.

 

[a_ump]

maybe if you use the crappiest parts available not everywhere, you cant deny that core i7 is more expensive if you use quality parts, and because is very hot you need a good cooler and a well ventilated case which make it more expensive. could you reduce the size of your post please?,

crappiest parts available, i believe you simply looked at the price and refused to believe they were that close. I picked the best rated parts for each build on newegg that weren't rediculous. Everything on the AMD build is 5eggs with plenty of reviews, the same goes for the intel build excluding the motherboard which has a 4 egg rating. That whole "need a well ventilated case and cpu cooler" um excuse is pointless to mention. Who buys a top of the line CPU(either build) without purchasing a decent case anyways? or aftermarket cooler to add to it. If your between and AMD and i7 purchase, is that going to change the case you'd pick because you change the CPU? No your going to pick the same case no matter the build.

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.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

They need to bin (I don't really mean bin, but w/e) these chips better. You can run 3.4 ghz on what, 1.25v?

If they'd drop the volts on the BEs, then they wouldn't have to worry about high TDP at stock clock. Noobs.

It's so easy, the solution is right here guys!


Crisis averted!

 

[a_ump]

there are a few things that core i7 users cant deny

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 wich 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.

1: i agree, i7 is indeed hotter than Ph II
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.

 

[Darren]

power efficient, the Phenom II wins. but money wise, a Phenom II build and i7 920 build are very close now, enough to make that price difference argument negligible.
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/Intel174.jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/090710/AMD139.jpg
$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.

So what happens to the prices once you put in a 780 chipset and DDR2 PC8500 in the Phenom build instead? More than $50 difference, more than $100 difference I assure you.


And you guys have it easy, in the UK there is about a £200 difference.

 

[wolf2009]

bring on my heater for next winter ! it gets quite cold here and didn't know AMD was getting into the heating business.

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.

 

[Kei]

I've been curious for a long time now if any of the Intel guys out there are able to knock their voltages down significantly at stock speeds (or nearly stock). I understand the TDP ratings of all of the AMD and Intel processors, but I've never had an AMD processor that I actually needed to run at....heck or near the stock voltage.

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)

 

[wolf2009]

I've been curious for a long time now if any of the Intel guys out there are able to knock their voltages down significantly at stock speeds (or nearly stock). I understand the TDP ratings of all of the AMD and Intel processors, but I've never had an AMD processor that I actually needed to run at....heck or near the stock voltage.

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)

yes, Core i7 can run at 0.88 V idle

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3593&p=2

The ASRock X58 Extreme passed our full test suite at 21x160 for a final 3.37GHz core speed. We enabled the BIOS with full power management options and Core Vid at 1.15V (with offset) resulting in an idle voltage of 0.880V and full load voltage at 1.016V. VTT was set to 1.2V and VDimm at 1.60V with memory timings at 7-8-7-20 1T for DDR3-1600 speeds.

 

[ShadowFold]

They have the voltage higher like that so it's 101% stable.

 

[Flyordie]

Different die's run at different TDPs.
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.

 

[3xploit]

there are a few things that core i7 users cant deny

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.

1. my 920 runs at 3.9ghz on air and loads at mid 60s - which is perfectly fine for any chip (amd or intel)
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

 

[erocker]

This thread has nothing to do with i7 so stop while you're ahead. There's plenty of other threads to take your i7 discussion to.