Phenom X4, X3 45nm Lineup for H1 2009 Explained

[mdm-adph]

Where did I say the added cache on a Core 2 Chip was great for performance? And the 8MB on the Core 2 chips have always been there, when Intel went to 45nm they added another 4MB, and it didn't really help performance any. Intel added cache because they could, AMD is adding cache to try and improve performance in a flop architecture.

mdm-adph's world: "[Phenom] performs on par with equal-clocked conroe parts"

Your unconditional love for AMD has blinded you to the facts.

Oh, please -- I don't need a quote, I know you think it. You're basically supporting what I said by admitting that Intel added needless cache when they went to 45nm -- perhaps because they feared the potential of the Phenom? (Whether it was there or not, they were still adding cache when they perhaps didn't need to.) If it's silly for AMD to do it, it's silly for Intel -- believing anything else is hypocritical.

And as the multitude of posters showed in that thread you linked, I still don't think I was wrong in stating that about the Phenom.

And "unconditional love?" When I basically agreed with you that the K10 might shape up to be the netburst of the current scene -- not to mention that I've been vocal about the colossal blunders AMD has made in the past (wasting time buying ATI, for one). That's not what I'd call "unconditional love," unless you're talking about some freaky S&M shit.

 

[newtekie1]

No, you made a statement claiming I said something or believed something and I never said nore believe it.

It is not Hypocrytical to say AMD is doing it for different reasons than Intel. AMD NEEDS to do it because their performance is sub-par, they are adding the cache to help improve performance. Likely Intel is doing the same, adding cache is an easy way to help performance.

The big difference is that Intel doesn't need to add it, and didn't add nearly as much as AMD. AMD has doubled the cache on their processors, Intel added 50%. And I wasn't totally accurate in saying that the added cache on Intel's processors didn't help any, it does help in a lot of multi-media area actually.

AMD is jacking up the amount of cache to try and make up for the sub-par performance of the K10/Phenom architecture, just like Intel did with Netburst. Intel isn't doing the same with the Core 2 because their performance is Sub-Par. I'm not saying either side didn't add cache, and I'm not saying either side didn't add cache to improve performance. I'm saying that AMD is doing it to an insane level because it is their only option to improve performance at this point.

Oh, and there are no posts in that thread that back your statement up. Unless you call a few posts showing the Phenom managing to equal or surpase the Core 2 at he same clocks in a total of 4 out of 35 tests. Again, maybe if it was a little closer to 50/50 I would be more inclined to agree with your statement.

At this point, anyone that would make the statement that Phenom/K10 perform on par with Core 2 is either completely ignorant or a fanboy. Which are you?

Edit: Of course you are more than welcome to post some benchs that actually back your statement up and prove me wrong, if you can.

Actually i wasn't referring to overclocking, i was talking about how Intel released P4 & Celerons in the above 3 gig stock frequencies. If i'm not mistaken they did overclock well after Intel moved to 90nm, and AMD stopped overclocking well after putting on onboard IMC. 3GHz for AMD is not insane thats why i said the similarity with netburst ends there. But you are right, there are parallels with netburst that we discussed above.

You can't just look at clock speeds as a universal thing. Clocking netburst processors over 3GHz wasn't insane, in fact the netburst architecture was designed with high clock speeds in mind. You have to look at the clock speeds in context of the architecture. Ever since the Athlon days, an insane clock on an AMD was way lower than an insane clock on a P4. Over 3GHz on an Athlon XP was completely insane, but 3GHz is nothing on a P4. It all has to do with context of the architecture. 3GHz on a Phenom is insane, hell a 3GHz overclock on a Phenom is damn good right now, so releasing a stock processor that is clocked at the speed that most overclockers consider a good overclock is insane.

 

[MadClown]

shame i only have AM2+, but that doesnt mean i cant get a 3.0ghz quad,

 

[soldier242]

3GHz on a Phenom is insane, hell a 3GHz overclock on a Phenom is damn good right now, so releasing a stock processor that is clocked at the speed that most overclockers consider a good overclock is insane.

yup it is tru that OCing a AM2+ Phenom to 3Ghz is hard to do, but i think that these die-shrinked CPUs will clock better and the architecture improvements would help clocking the the next phenom to and past 3Ghz, i don't consider it insane in any way ...

to the added cache, i think there were some tests showing that the actual phenom architecture doesn't profit that much from added cache and now i think AMD is either adding a huge amount of cache, because they didn't change that much and thats the only way to compensate or the improvements really profit from the cache ... either way i'm eagerly waiting for the 45nm phenoms to show up ... yikes, it sound really confusing

 

[mdm-adph]

Oh, and there are no posts in that thread that back your statement up. Unless you call a few posts showing the Phenom managing to equal or surpase the Core 2 at he same clocks in a total of 4 out of 35 tests. Again, maybe if it was a little closer to 50/50 I would be more inclined to agree with your statement.

At this point, anyone that would make the statement that Phenom/K10 perform on par with Core 2 is either completely ignorant or a fanboy. Which are you?

Edit: Of course you are more than welcome to post some benchs that actually back your statement up and prove me wrong, if you can.

Hmm -- I seem to remember the benchmarks for all these: Winrar, OpenSSL, 3D Studio Max 9, Studio 12, GZip Linux, Sandra Whetstone tests, Scimark Linux, all memory bandwidth tests. Seems good enough for me.

"Up to par" does not have to mean "faster than" -- it means an acceptable level of performance in relation to something else. And I'm still not fully convinced that any benchmarks that show Intel chips with huge leads aren't because of some Intel-only instruction set that, of course, AMD is not going to be able to match.

 

[newtekie1]

Hmm -- I seem to remember the benchmarks for all these: Winrar, OpenSSL, 3D Studio Max 9, Studio 12, GZip Linux, Sandra Whetstone tests, Scimark Linux, all memory bandwidth tests. Seems good enough for me.

"Up to par" does not have to mean "faster than" -- it means an acceptable level of performance in relation to something else. And I'm still not fully convinced that any benchmarks that show Intel chips with huge leads aren't because of some Intel-only instruction set that, of course, AMD is not going to be able to match.

Again, that isn't even close to half the benchmarks, and there is no way I am even considering the memory bandwidth tests. AMD is going to win those simply because they have an integrated memory controller, and they have no effect on any real world performance. And no, less than 10 benchmarks out of over 40 with the Phenom winning is not good enough to back up the statement than Phenom/K10 is equal to Conroe based processors clock for clock. I'll agree with your statement when you can show me close to 50/50.

Oh, and now we have gone from "equal" to "up to par", your argument just keeps getting worse. No one said "up to par", you are just trying to change the argument to help your side out. You and I both said "on par" which means equal to, look it up.

Oh, so now anything that Intel wins, it has to be because of some instruction set that AMD could never match. It could't be because the processor are just better, could it? And even if it was because of an instruction set, it doesn't matter, Intel's processors still outperformed AMD's. The architecture is just better.

 

[KBD]

i'm afraid newtekie is right, mdm. Core 2 is def better than Phenom, that may change with the Deneb, but as of now Core 2 is a beats Phenom clock for clock, not by a great deal but it does.

 

[Mussels]

the AMD fans who are clocking the phenoms cant catch up to intel, but that doesnt mean they dont deserve respect for trying. theres no challenge getting the fastest, most overclockable hardware and going 'looky me i blew $6k on this rig!' the challenge is getting the underdog and getting it as damned fast as you can

 

[miloshs]

the history goes like this concerning who has the better CPU...

Intel
AMD
Intel
AMD
Intel
AMD
Intel
AMD
...
..
.

getting the pattern here?

 

[kysg]

There is no pattern its just another day in the biz of cpu's.

 

[Steevo]

Dammit, I wish I would have waited to get my board, mebey I can change it and RMA it.

 

[Chicken Patty]

Anybody have any idea on the pricing of these things yet, at least for the Deneb?