AMD To Crank Up Phenom II Clock-Speeds Upto 3.50 GHz, Planning New Models

[EastCoasthandle]

I doubt it and we are still talking about single cores here. There:
-games
-decoding
-encoding
-watching HD content
-unziping
-etc
at 4.2GHz the Intel 660 was formidable for it's time. This I remember specifically because me and my friends did comparisons back in the day

 

[EastCoasthandle]

A64 FX-51 2.8Ghz

 

[jbunch07]

I think these higher clocked phenoms are a great way to keep customers happy while they work on architectural improvements, In a way I see it as giving them more time to work on improving what they already have. We all know that they have been struggling for a while now, but now that they have something that works for them why not take advantage of the "headroom". I say good job AMD.
Now that customers are happy get to work on improving it even more.

 

[trickson]

I think these higher clocked phenoms are a great way to keep customers happy while they work on architectural improvements, In a way I see it as giving them more time to work on improving what they already have. We all know that they have been struggling for a while now, but now that they have something that works for them why not take advantage of the "headroom". I say good job AMD.
Now that customers are happy get to work on improving it even more.

Yeah ring them out for all they got I say !

 

[fullinfusion]

A64 FX-51 2.8Ghz

And this is what?
Common mate!!!!

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Common what? That's a A64 FX-51 clocked at 2.8GHz. A very popular, sought after CPU of it's time. (Look at the string name in the pic.)

 

[trickson]

And this is what?
Common mate!!!!

I think that was to show just how well the P4 really was .
I for one think that AMD is playing the same game Intel did and now it is all ok and great and wonderful . Not like it was when Intel did it . wtf:

 

[insider]

These chips ain't half bad, unlike a Q6xxx/Q9xxx purchase, you just drop the processor in and voila 3.5GHz, no need for time consuming in-depth bios voltage/multiplier/memory/strap/timings tweaking, long IntelBurnTest runs...

The prices would still have to drop further to sub £200 even for the 3.5GHz version.

As for this being compared to Intel's Netburst frequency ramping, don't be daft, this chip isn't setting any wattage records and far closer clock for clock than any P4 chip was to the Athlon XP, I used to have an Althon XP-M 2600+ @2.6GHz that destroyed any P4 chip.

 

[PCpraiser100]

These chips ain't half bad, unlike a Q6xxx/Q9xxx purchase, you just drop the processor in and voila 3.5GHz, no need for time consuming in-depth bios voltage/multiplier/memory/strap/timings tweaking, long IntelBurnTest runs...

The prices would still have to drop further to sub £200 even for the 3.5GHz version.

As for this being compared to Intel's Netburst frequency ramping, don't be daft, this chip isn't setting any wattage records and far closer clock for clock than any P4 chip was to the Athlon XP, I used to have an Althon XP-M 2600+ @2.6GHz that destroyed any P4 chip.

Yeah, plus it gives casuals confidence that their applications will fit processor requirements. Remember those 3GHz requirements that scared people with dual cores under that speed? Total chaos for no reason!

 

[Steevo]

and they said ddr2 was dead. Its interesting that these are keeping the same TDP... From reviews ive gathered that the current phenoms suck too much power bc leakage when pushed to 3.5Ghz+...

I wonder if the 940 BE will get the core upgrade as well since it might undermine the sales of the other chips if it does.

Leakage is not a concern, leakage would cause huge increase in temps, not in voltage requirements. I can push 1.6+ through this chip and get more heat, or I can keep the same voltage and gain a couple hundred more Mhz by more tweaking, but I have yet to see a real performance benefit for that last little bit.



AMD is making a hell of a chip for a cheap price, and that stays cool under load.


Comparing two different reviews you can draw your own conclusions. All I know is for cheap my system runs GTA4 like butter now.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1672/2/stock_to_clocked_core_i7_920_at_3_8ghz/index.html

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16



Even in the 3DVantage scores.


And considering the Phenom II set a (doesn't really matter for everyday use) 3D05 record by running 6.3Ghz and running at 6.5+ Ghz, and that was with air cooled cards. Imagine what a set of Ln cooled cards would do to the vantage score with the same setup.....

 

[erocker]

Please resist the urge to regurgitate your points over and over again, plus keep the insults to yourselves. Stay on topic.

 

[kid41212003]

I think these higher clock speed chip will be like the 6000+ and 6400+, and that's mean won't OC as good as the lower one.

But I think the 3.2GHz chip will be the best buy, and maybe the best overclocker.

 

[Kei]

What really get me is the fact that the Phenom II can OC well past that 3.5GHz mark and still can not hold a candle to the Q9550 when it is OC'ed as well...

I don't really get into these types of 'discussions' but man do you sound angry! I'm not certain I understand the statement you made above....are you talking about SuperPi or something? I left out the highest clocked Phenoms because it isn't really fair, I highlighted the runs with the closest cpu speeds to make it easier to see. This is Wprime of course which is regarded as one of the more apples to apples benchmarks out there. Looking at the PII and Q9550 times I'd say the PII is holding that candle pretty steady wouldn't you? It's been shown as well that although the Core i7 is faster than fast if you turn off the extra perks they have for it (Turbo and Hyper Threading) and run just raw cpu that the PII does very well against that as well with roughly the same clock speeds. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1175966&postcount=790

Relax guys nobody even knows if this is true at all, yet some of you are going at each other like mad it seems.

Kei

Btw, trickson you need a hug

 

[farlex85]

It's been shown as well that although the Core i7 is faster than fast if you turn off the extra perks they have for it (Turbo and Hyper Threading) and run just raw cpu that the PII does very well against that as well with roughly the same clock speeds. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1175966&postcount=790
:

Why don't you just disable 2 cores on a quad and then you'll find it performs similarly to a dual. Comparing performance of parts when one has available features disabled is useless at best, I'm not sure what your hoping to prove with that.

Anyway this is nice (albeit a bit behind), I wonder if perhaps intel will follow in kind and release some 3.5ghz chips. T'would be interesting to see a frequency dual.

 

[Kei]

Perhaps you're missing the point of my post Farlex? The post was about the PII vs Q9550, I included that bit about the i7 just to add something extra.

It's pretty obvious I didn't say that the i7 should be run without it's extra incentives. I along with the owner of that processor were simply stating that when you compared only the raw processor speed of both processors that the speed overall is pretty darn close which is nice.

And for the record some of us with Quads that understand we DON'T need all four cores 100% of the time do happen to disable 2 cores to save heat and power. To some people that don't pay attention to things like that it sounds stupid because the general idea seems to be if you have excessive power it's beneath you to use only what you need. When you put the Quads (at least Phenom's whether I or II) against the Dual core processors the Quads still win when only using 2 cores. That's in the thread too.

I do agree with you that Intel will likely put out some chips to attempt to counter AMD if these reports prove true. If both companies do this then customers should be pretty happy indeed. No real need to overclock is pretty cool. Of course the members here will still do it just because.

Kei

 

[kid41212003]

Even without TB and HT, Core i7 still ahead of PII by a great margin.

Let's see some CPU scores from 3DMark tests.

 

[Kei]

To OP sorry for the slight derail this is the last time.

Here you go i7 running full on and PII 940. Pretty good showing I think.

Of course when you play games the numbers for the two are even better. Nice and close both ways.

Kei

 

[kid41212003]

You're proving yourself wrong right there. Core i7 default clock is 2.66GHz vs 3GHz PII 940.

And the CPU score is so close, even though the PII have higher clock speed.

 

[Kei]

I'm slightly confused on what you mean here? The i7 has the higher cpu score that I know unless you're comparing the overclocked PII speed. Yea, that's probably what you mean. I have no idea what the i7 would score if you had the HT and Turbo turned off (like in that Wprime test). When you turn those on in Wprime the score is massively quicker than the PII as well.

I didn't prove myself wrong I've showed two different things. One was with the HT and Turbo and the other was without them. Everybody knows that the i7 is faster than the PII with the HT and Turbo on in many applications.

Kei

 

[kid41212003]

HT doesn't effect CPU score in 3DMark 2006 much (4 threads), It only does in Vantage (8 theads).

And with TB, the CPU top speed is 2.8GHz.

 

[Haytch]

When Intel was raising the clock speeds, i got happy!
Overclocking aside for a meer moment . . . If either Intel or AMD are releasing CPU's at higher clocks, then thats good.
Taking into consideration that most of US overclock, pretty much heavily;
a higher stock speed means a higher top end.

Trickson's Q6600 @ 2.66Ghz is indeed a great CPU. There's not much out there that can compare with its performance/$$$ ability (It made for the ideal HTPC processor ). Trickson's Q6600 is currently @ 3.7Ghz with his custom water cooling would pretty much be equal to the standard QX9770 with a $1500au price difference. Making the purchase of the 9770 completely stupid for someone with Trickson's ability to overclock.

. . . . . . . . Would love to see what Trickson would have to say/show us if his Q6600 was infact set to 3.7Ghz stock (Yes i know that Intel have no such CPU).

I like the smoke and mirrors because it confuses people, it blinds some, drives some away, but in the end theres only a handfull that accomplish the ending without being deceived.

 

[Wile E]

Meh, I'll believe this report when I see the SKUs release. They said there would be a 3GHz Phenom on 65nm, too.

 

[1Kurgan1]

What really get me is the fact that the Phenom II can OC well past that 3.5GHz mark and still can not hold a candle to the Q9550 when it is OC'ed as well . What gets me is that you eat this up like it is some new tech ... This is just cranking the shit out of the CPU then selling it back to you at a higher price when you can Over Clock the 920 to 940 speeds and get the same performance for a lesser price . Does this really make any sense to any one ? Do you think that since you can get a 3.5GHz CPU that you will get any more out of it than you can with the current clocked Phenom II's ? If so how do you figure this ? If the CPU can reach 6GHz ON STOCK AIR COOLING now that would be some thing but come on this is just smoke and mirrors here !

The Q9550 has 12MB of L2, little hard to compare a processor that released at a much higher price point than what the PII's released at. And even then I raise my BS flag, at similar clocks the 9550 will out perform a 940, but will not wipe the floor with it.

There is nothing to call here like there was in the P4 days. They aren't turning up the clocks and reselling old crap, the freaking PII's just released this month. Jump off the fanboy wagon and calm down. Don't need to write a paragraph long post every other post in the thread.

You are speculating about if these will or will not clock, let them release and let people judge then. This is completely different than the P4 days, back then you could buy a AMd proc for a cheaper price (didn't need no FX) and spank a more expensive P4. Now your saying a more expensive chip beats a cheaper chip, NO WAY, thats absolutely insanity! You are saying you get what you pay for here, I can't believe it, THIS IS MADNESS!

 

[Tatty_Two]

The Q9550 has 12MB of L2, little hard to compare a processor that released at a much higher price point than what the PII's released at. And even then I raise my BS flag, at similar clocks the 9550 will out perform a 940, but will not wipe the floor with it.

I agree, however, I know you were not aiming your comments at me but my earlier point was, when the AM3 PII's come out, with all these higher clocked variants, most of them will probably be more expensive than mid ranged Yorkfield opposition and therefore the "value" aspect of the purchase is pretty much gone, at that point it comes down to pure performance..... now many of those Am3 chips may win against mid ranged yorkfields, however at that point, the story has turned full circle without AMD's price advantage..... so surely just like current AMD buyers are saying now....the price adavantages go to AMD even though they may be a little behind on performance (generally), wont Yorkfield users then be saying the same? If that is the case, Intel has no reason to stop manufacturing Yorkfield and will be in a postion to make them so much cheaper.

 

[krisna159]

i hope this isn't dream

would be nice ... AMD Phenom II with higher clock+ DDR 3 can be catch up the Core i7 performance...
also would be nice if AMD put in triple chanel DDR3 memory too
maybe this is only dream...