AMD Strikes Back with Phenom II -- Full Analysis and First Benchmarks!
Posted 01/08/09 at 11:00:00 AM by Gordon Mah Ung
Comments
Print
Email
| Benchmarks | ||||||||
| Model | 3GHz Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition | 2.6GHzPhenom X4 9950 Black Edition | 2.83GHz Core 2 Quad Q9550 | 2.67GHz Core i7-920 | 2.93GHz Core i7-940 | 3.2GHz Core i7-965 Extreme | 3.2GHz Core 2 Extreme QX9770 | |
| MainConcept (min:sec) | 1,569 | 1,867 | 1,660 | 1,300 | 1,190 | 958 | 1,489 | |
| MainConcept Pro (min:sec) | 942 | 1124 | 988 | 741 | 679 | 608 | 889 | |
| ProShow Producer 3.1 (min:sec) | 802 | 1210 | 918 | 670 | 616 | 619 | 772 | |
| Premiere Pro CS3 (min:sec) | 841 | 987 | 771 | 759 | 701 | 617 | 686 | |
| Photoshop CS3 (min:sec) | 142 | 168 | 124 | 125 | 123 | 110 | 115 | |
| Cinebench 10 32-bit | 99,791 | 8,179 | 10,837 | 12,632 | 13,793 | 15,398 | 12,175 | |
| Cinebench 10 64-bit | 12,049 | 10,431 | 12,288 | 15,217 | 16,651 | 18,963 | 13,849 | |
| Valve Map Compilation (min:sec) | 143 | 167 | 130 | 152 | 141 | 125 | 116 | |
| ScienceMark Overall | 1,903 | 1609 | 1,,716 | 1,710 | 1,885 | 2,091 | 1,920 | |
| ScienceMark Membench | 9,198 | 7,279 | 7,105 | 12,737 | 13,028 | 13,312 | 8,560 | |
| PCMark Vantage x64 Overall | 6,447 | 5,724 | 5,945 | 6,616 | 6,767 | 7,510 | 6,423 | |
| PCMark Vantage Overall | 6,085 | 5,299 | 5,460 | 5,347 | 6,043 | 6,705 | 5,961 | |
| Sisoft Sandra RAM Bandwidth (GB/s) | 11.69 | 9.73 | 6.9 | 18.07 | 18.09 | 18.15 | 7.4 | |
| Sisoft Sandra RAM Latency (ns) | 97 | 95 | 81 | 79 | 78 | 77 | 79 | |
| Everest Ultimate MEM Read (MB) | 7,716 | 6,701 | 8,006 | 14,449 | 14,841 | 15,167 | 8,252 | |
| Everest Ultimate MEM Write (MB) | 6,085 | 4,856 | 7,075 | 11,627 | 14,788 | 12,041 | 8,490 | |
| Everest Ultimate MEM Copy (MB) | 9,734 | 7,760 | 7,334 | 15,039 | 15,011 | 15,583 | 8,426 | |
| Everest Ultimate MEM Latency (ns) | 59 | 65 | 66 | 39 | 37 | 39 | 67 | |
| WinRAR 3.80 (min:sec) * | 882 | 1091 | 888 | 652 | 645 | 584 | 837 | |
| POV-Ray 3.7 (min:sec) | 570 | 712 | 548 | 498 | 462 | 408 | 488 | |
| 3DMark06 overall | 12,018 | 11,639 | 12,583 | 12,407 | 12,559 | 12,859 | 12,906 | |
| 3DMark06 CPU | 4,116 | 3,532 | 4,276 | 4,620 | 5,035 | 5,638 | 4,717 | |
| 3DMark Vantage | 6,928 | 7,301 | 7,459 | 7,450 | 7,453 | 7,516 | 7,588 | |
| 3DMark Vantage CPU | 20,207 | 26,709 | 30,615 | 34,909 | 35,548 | 39,725 | 32,446 | |
| 3DMark Vantage GPU | 5,524 | 5,877 | 6,034 | 5,902 | 5,868 | 5,917 | 6,044 | |
| Quake 4 (FPS) | 190 | 152 | 180 | 145 | 156 | 228 | 207 | |
| Valve Particle Test (FPS) | 85 | 69 | 100 | 131 | 143 | 161 | 111 | |
| Crysis 1.2 10x7 very low CPU1(FPS) | 140 | 112 | 153 | 151 | 155 | 164 | 153 | |
| Crysis 1.2 10x7 very low CPU2 (FPS) | 85 | 70 | 95 | 113 | 115 | 106 | 113 | |
| World In Conflict 1.09 10x7 Very Low Graphics | 170 | 136 | 188 | 223 | 232 | 250 | 220 | |
Bold denotes winner.
| AMD, Intel CPUs Compared | |||||||||
| Model | AMD Phenom II X4 940 | AMD Phenom II X4 920 | AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition | AMD Phenom X3 8750 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | Intel Core 2 QX9770 Extreme Edition | Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition | Intel Core i7-920 | |
| Clock Speed | 3GHz | 2.8GHz | 2.6GHz | 2.4GHz | 2.83GHz | 3.2GHz | 3.2GHz | 2.66GHz | |
| L1 Cache (total) | 512KB | 512KB | 512KB | 284KB | 256KB | 256KB | 256KB | 256KB | |
| L2 Cache (total) | 2MB | 2MB | 2MB | 1.5MB | 12MB | 12MB | 1MB | 1MB | |
| L3 Cache (total) | 6MB | 6MB | 2MB | 2MB | N/A | N/A | 8MB | 8MB | |
| Front-Side Bus / Interconnect Speed | 3.6GHz | 3.6GHz | 3.6GHz | 3.6GHz | 1,333MHz | 1,600MHz | 6.4GT | 4.8GT | |
| Execution Cores | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 8*1 | 8*1 | |
| Process Technology | 45nm | 45nm | 65nm | 65nm | 45nm | 45nm | 45nm | 45nm | |
| Transistors | 758 | 758 | 450 | 450 | 820 | 820 | 731 | 731 | |
| Die Size | 258 | 258 | 285 | 285 | 214 | 214 | 263 | 263 | |
| Wholesale Price | $275 | $235 | $174 | $124 | $316 | $1,399 | $999 | $284 | |
| Interface | AM2+ | AM2+ | AM2+/Am2 | AM2+/AM2 | LGA775 | LGA775 | LGA1366 | LGA1366 | |
| TDP*2 | 125 | 125 | 140 | 140 | 95 | 136 | 130 | 130 | |
| Memory Support | Dual- Channel DDR2/ DDR3*3 | Dual- Channel DDR2/ DDR3*3 | Dual- Channel DDR2 | Dual- Channel DDR2 | Dual- Channel DDR2/ DDR3*4 | Dual- Channel DDR2/ DDR3*4 | Tri- Channel DDR3 | Tri- Channel DDR3 | |
*1 CPU features Hyper-Threading virtual cores.
*2 AMD and Intel TDP ratings do not directly correspond
*3 DDR3 supported in core but not in any shipping motherboards presently
*4 Dependent on chipset
How the Mobos and CPUs Match up
Anyone who has tried to use a Nikon teleconverter and lens from 30 years ago with a brand-new digital SLR will tell you that compatibility doesn’t always mean easy to understand. That is, trying to figure out which 30-year-old lens works with which camera is enough to make you want to buy a modern lens.
The same can be said of AMD’s AM2, AM2+, and upcoming AM3 sockets. Physically, the various CPUs will fit in the sockets but electrically they won’t all work. For example, the 2.8GHz Phenom II X4 920 has a DDR3 and DDR2 controller in it. However, plug the CPU into an AM3 board in a few months and it won’t work. For that, you’ll need a new AM3 CPU. That new AM3 CPU, by the way, will actually work in most DDR2-based AM2+.
Thoroughly confused yet? We are. As grateful as we are that AMD isn’t forcing its customers to buy new boards, the AM2, AM2+, and AM3 thing has thrown for a loop. Here’s how it breaks down:
| AMD, Intel CPUs Compared | ||||
| AM2 MOBO | AM2+ MOBO | AM3 MOBO | ||
| AM2 CPU | Yes | Yes | No | |
| AM2+ CPU | Maybe | Yes | No | |
| AM3 CPU | Maybe | Yes | Yes | |
Intel Hopes You’re Ready for Eight Cores
AMD may be gaining ground, but that’s not holding back Intel, which will waste no time this year with a new octo-core CPU, a true budget series CPU, and major changes to the world of chipsets and graphics.
Multithread enthusiasts should be pleased with Intel’s plans for Nehalem. Although nothing is set in stone, the company is reportedly bringing out a desktop CPU with eight cores. With Hyper-Threading, 16 cores would be available to applications. This thread-monster would be confined to the LGA1366 platform though and aimed at the highest end of enthusiasts.
Later this year, Intel will also introduce its budget LGA1156 processors. Previously known as LGA1160, the chip will feature four fewer pins and one big addition. While in today’s computers the PCI Express lanes are controlled by the chipset, Intel’s budget quad-core Lynnfield and dual-core Havendale will have PCI Express built directly into the CPU package. A simple Direct Media Interface link will plumb out of the CPU to connect to the lowly SATA, audio, and other low-bandwidth I/O. Both Lynnfield and Havendale will feature dual-channel DDR3 controllers in the die, but Havendale may have the most impact. Havendale should be Intel’s first attempt at integrating graphics within the CPU package on a shipping processor. With a GPU talking to the CPU at QPI speeds and with direct access to an on-die memory controller, the impact of Havendale may have far more repercussions on the PC world than an eight-core Nehalem. We’ll be happy if it just means that Intel graphics won’t suck.
How to Tell the Difference Between the Top Procs
Intel’s quad-core Penryn Core 2 Quad is the only chip here that doesn’t use a monolithic design. Instead, these are two separate dual-core CPUs connected via the front-side bus. Note the massive chunks of L2 cache at the bottom of the chip. This L2 cache has helped lessen the advantage that AMD’s previous CPUs had in memory performance.
Intel’s Core i7 is actually lower in total transistor count than the Core 2 Quad and Phenom II but is second only to the honking-big Phenom in die size. Intel’s first monolithic quad-core has been criticized for having meager L2 cache, but it hasn’t hurt the CPU from being the fastest gun in the west.
The original Phenom’s 65nm-process made it a huge chip with just 450 million transistors occupying a full 285mm2 of die space. AMD now admits that it was a mistake to push for a monolithic quad-core design using a 65nm process as this chip ran hot and had terrible yields.
Since it’s mostly a die shrink, Phenom II is actually very similar to the Phenom die. Overlay the Phenom’s die shot with the Phenom, and you’ll see a lot of familiar structures between the two with the major difference being the size of Phenom II and the additional fields of L3 cache near the bottom of the die.
New Benchmarks?
Submitted by shadowstar on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 8:43pm
Now that the new Phenom supports DDR3 will you be running new benchmarks showing how they compare with Intel? I am curious since I am planning on building a computer with one of the new Phenom cpus.
Amen twodotwhatever!
Submitted by MyMojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 5:42pm
Great info, and I totally agree.
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Phenom II
Submitted by twodotwhatever on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 10:39pm
3 weeks ago I put together a Phenom 8750 and a TA770 A2+ with a 8800GT. So the 8750 runs at 2.9. Did 3dmark06 and got the same score as a 8400 Wolfie with the same 8800GT....online result. The 8750 runs at less than 40 degrees no matter what with a Opteron 185 cooler and the fan at 90%
Have waited for January to see what AMD was going to do. Am buying a Phenom II 940 and 2 4870's for a Biostar 790GXM-A board and will try to run the cpu at 3.6 on air. It should be enough for anything out there now or in the near term.
In other reviews with a OC'd 940 Phenom, game performace was on a par with the Intel 9770 or the I7 920, and that's what matters to me, since I don't rip movies or MP3's, but the main factor in all this is price. I don't need a $549-$700 cpu, or a new motherboard for $299.
I'm not saying the new Phenoms are the best, just that it makes alot more sense to me to not have to throw out existing hardware and start over. I realize you can OC Intels chips into oblivion so the whole overclocking deal a non issue but it's nice to just set the multiplier in the bios.
Submitted by MyMojo on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 7:05pm
Hey jihnn! I like to get second opinions too. I WILL be buying a new Phenom II, but waiting for the 945. It's reported to be DDR3 compatible. Check out the stats from Overclockers Club. http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/ In my opinion, it's well worth the cost savings compared to Intel. My prediction? If AMD sells it's 945 for around $275 too, I think your going to see Intel take a big step back on their i7 prices!
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Submitted by dc10ten on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 2:51pm
already happening.
you all cursing AMD should reconsider
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intel_cut_chip_prices_soon
bar graphs and charts oh my, bar graphs and charts oh my
Submitted by jihnn on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 7:29am
i have been checking the benchmarks for the new amd and the i7 versus the older intell cpu's
in the real world how much diff. do you really experience. geeze i really want to buy amd, however when i look at the benchmark charts they arn't even close to an i7
i don't need fanboy help but would like some good imput
I say buy what you can
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 2:49pm
I say buy what you can afford. I have a C2D E8400 based system I built last year and I don't need to upgrade. But I want to and if I had the cash I would build an I7 box. If you don't have much cash I say build the I7 920system. Shop around on the motherboards. I used the 750i SLI based motherboard for my C2D because it was about $150bucks and offers full dual X16 SLI like the more expensive boards but for half the cost. You just have to decide on what you can skimp on. I've always been poor and have always had to carefully balance performance verses price. It's difficult buy I think it's alot of fun building on a tight budget. Have fun and shop around. It takes lots of research to get the right hardware that does what more expensive hardware does.
I bet you can build a CoreI7 Quad based system with at least 4gigs of ram for a $1000 dollars or less and not skimp on much.
Submitted by jihnn on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 7:08am
i like amd and want to buy their products. when it makes sense i do buy amd gear.
a week ago my amd rigs mb stoped working, it is now hanging from the ceiling along with all the other much loved puter stuff that has died over the years.
now do i buy amd and have a puter that might be relevent for .... don't know maybe 2 or 3 years and save about $300 or do i go intell and and have a better upgrade path.
i don't build a puter just to have the newest and fastest, i build them because it is fun.
i play online games, do just a little photo editing and burn some not many cd's i don't need an i7 but maybe i need all the memory that is supported by their mb's.
i'm playing warhammer now and they have got pvp right..... it takes skill and teamwork to win..errr sorry off subject
anyway the way online games seem to be going it is taking more and more memory to play them to get the smoothest gameplay
will the amd platform be adequite or do i need to feed the intel machine
Screw youself Keith E. Whisman
Submitted by DrMD on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 5:03am
Apparently biatch you got me wrong you ain't the end all on this forum. Don't like it stop reading, then start your own magazine for your like-minded self-realized superiority complexed idiots.Maximum PC is like saying Maximum Automobile, if it's got 4 wheels but if you say Maximum Ferrari well then I know going in what it's about.I've been a subscriber since the 1st BOOT and if you only want Maximum subscribers with your opinions start your own snob rag.Otherwise bend over loser.
Submitted by srogers2750 on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 7:48pm
I had 2 old Cyrix chips, up till last year when I finally threw them out.
I still have a working Via C3 800 socket 370. As long as you werent gameing, Cyrix was ok, HOT! though, way hotter than the K6-2's
Kinda disapointed Via doesnt make CPU's anymore, they were awesome for building cheap, web browsing pc's.
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 11:37pm
Awesome memory. I remember their 6x86 PR processors the PR stands for Performance Rating. A PR 133 might have run at 90mhz... Crazy times. I rember when IBM bought them up.
Submitted by jr1475 on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 2:39pm
I have remained loyal to AMD ever since Cyrix went out of business. I work for a major telco and once installed data circuits in Cyrix's Richardson, Texas office. They had a good thing going but stepped down after about 200mhz. Then there was AMD. Affordable, reliable and always a huge return on the bang for buck factor.
Fast forward to the present. No, AMD isn't kicking Intel's butt, simply and subtly making their move just like the memorable day the ATI 4870 Video card hit the shelves of the stores guys like me watch and wait and then pounce on the best as soon as it becomes available. GDDR5. Smaller die. Great performance. Most importantly, affordable. The fact that I will be able to drop this new Phenom II x 4 into my present rig and take off without missing a beat is quite a nice thing.
Sure, AMD did what it had to do to survive in the present economic environment, but having personally served in the military and walked the streets of more than a couple of the UAE, Dubai investors are fine with me as long as the core people who make this stuff work are able to call the shots. AMD must exist because there is no Goliath without David. Way to go, AMD! Your success will not please everyone. Just plain old guys like me. Oh, and Wall Street might want to take a look. Kudos, Man.
James R. Rea
Submitted by Pixelated on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 12:05pm
"It wasn’t all bad news for Phenom II though. The chip won the
ScienceMark 2.0, Quake 4, and PC Mark Vantage tests and eked out a win
in the Valve map compilation test".
Well thank god for that, I was just considering buying a new AMD based PC so I could run 5 year old games and synthetic benchmarks. None of that real world stuff matters to me. Thanks AMD!
Submitted by DrMD on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 3:38am
When you become my Maximum Dad then you can tell me what to type on my pc, maybe you like bending over stupily priced crap but I won't and I'll type whatever comment I feel like.Besides your so-called bible actually prints articles on all dollar versions of pcs even gasp dare I say budget pcs so Keith mind your own business and if you have actual comment about the Phenomll then type that and don't worry about being my editor.
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 7:35pm
Go Screw off DrMD. Quit being a cyber bitch.
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 1:04am
DrMD this is MaximumPC.. That means performance Price be damned so you should expect mostly high performance minded folks here. It does no good to argue here about prices. There is a publication that is price oriented and that is Computer Shopper. So just be a little easier on us because we belong here. I would understand people arguing about prices at Computer Shopper but not here. It's not about cost here.
If AMD were to build a stupid fast CPU then just like in the past MaximumPC would be giving AMD awards and everyone here would be talking trash about Intel.
I was only wondering why Intel still sells a proc for a grand. Doesn't seem right seeing as there are no competing processors that cost as much.
So damn it everyone love one another. Group hug everyone and lets get back to playing with Windows 7 official Beta and Left4Dead.
Submitted by DrMD on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 9:07am
End yourself and your maximum bs my comments were not a phone call to you so for you to tack on my comments just shows you for the troll you are.So just comment on what you think not what I think or can you even think beyond what someone else types, you are just the typical sheep going over the maximum cliff, happy landing on a pile of BS!
Submitted by Driftweed on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 8:30am
Irrelevant? And with that comment sir, you show you truly can break the laws of physics by sucking and blowing at the same time.
2003 build: Intel p4 2.8ghz, 1 gb memory, just tossed in a radeon 9300 AGP vid card last year. Still relevant to this day. Handles it's fair share of workload to this day.
2006 build: Core 2 duo e6400, 1gb memory, and an nvidian card. Irrelevant for all the reasons you state Amd is best. This is the year I nearly went with AMD. Once again thanks to looking at the speed king, A minor upgrade and it could probably give AMD newest a run for the money at the same price. 3 years later.
Both builds you now deem irrelevant for the very same reason you deem AMD relevant today? How odd.
2009 build: Looking like another intel machine. Why does speed matter again? Time will tell indeed. As i said before I get a whole system every 3 yrs. However, every year I plop $500 in upgrades, whether it be vid card cpu monitor memory hard drive whatever.
If you want to debate relevancy of processors over time (intel vs. AMD) take it to the forums. I simply made a comment about how it used to be a close call between the two companies for speed king. I follow the speed king's for my money.
Please don't attack those of us who are NOT looking for then next best processor for their e-machines. Not everyone is in the same boat as you.
I follow Maximum Pc's logo: minimum BS. And because of those ingorant remarks to prove your fandom you just rose the depth of BS to knee-high, so I'll end it since you cannot.
Submitted by DrMD on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 2:15pm
The only pieces of that Intel/Windows crap that will be relevant in 3yrs is maybe the case, mouse, and keyboard go sell your pipedreams to someone just hatched.In that amount of time it's not going to make 3seconds worth of difference and you'll still be watching that stupid hourglass for hours.
Huh?
Submitted by GreenTurtle on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 5:25am
?
Submitted by Driftweed on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 11:43am
Yeah UNLESS your someone like me who buys a 3-5 yr system. THEN it matters who fastest at the time. And when i go to replace my system I ask myself: do you want to nickel and dime yourself on an annual "budget" or just go all out with something that is gonna remain relevant for the next 2 yrs? Sticking with AMD is more like a subscription:
You pay less, get less and have to do it more often just to keep up on a very regular basis. OR you can simply budget out $2500 get a nice Intel system and be good to go for much longer with less investment over the long-haul.
All you guys still showing love to AMD need to think about that particular set-up. Imagine if you built a system 2 yrs ago with top of the line CPU, GPU, and memory, and motherboard. Now imagine if it was an intel dual core versus an AMD dual core. Who's gonna be the first one buying the chip?
For extreme gamers? nah, I just want my dvd movies burned sometime today. And if a new game comes out I just mite want to play it instead of watching a slideshow. (I know, I know, that's the graphics card. But the CPU IS relevant as well).
Ultimately it boils down to that little hourglass symbol you see when you open a window or how fast the bar fills up when your installing a new program. If you like that little hourglass, AMD is for you.
Maybe, just to show everyone the speed difference MaxPC can do real world everyday computing on video and show everyone why speed matters.
Submitted by DrMD on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 8:58am
I find it ridiculous to spend that kind of money on Intel for what,more than half of the so-called buyers are frickin dreamers with hardly two nickles to rub together, the rest if placed in front of a PC without knowing the proc wouldn't have a damn clue how fast their crap was getting done and doing what, some PITA game, IRC, email, basically nothing they're doing even needs that computing power other than to continue to power their overblown sense of themselves as having "IT".AMD is the obivious choice for all but a very few but these idiots have more money than brains.So go stare at your benchmarks and continue to troll the web.
Submitted by ixianradeon on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 8:56am
I belive the benchmark in the 6th row down is a typeo I think it should be 9,791 instead of 99,971 in the Cinebench 10 32-bit
Got money to burn? go for a
Submitted by pcwizmtl on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 7:02am
Got money to burn? go for a crazy Intel Setup
Got money to save but want to have mid-range performance? Go AMD.
I built a Quad Core AMD box with 4gb 800Mhz mem 2 4850's crossfire for about $800 CAN
That aint bad.
The equivalent for Intel cost close to $1300 CAN
Nuff Said
***Sigh***
Submitted by 3DARTWORK on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 4:13am
I have been a AMD user for years. Out of all the workstations and servers I have, only 1 is intel. But, they have really been pushing me away. First with the falling behind in performance, then with buying ATI, as I use all nvidia products. Then with a good chunk of their stocks being bought by middle eastern interests. Now, with their pushing their own 3 way brand, and not letting computer builders, like me, chose what is best for MY needs or my customers needs.
For the first time, I am thinking about intel. AMD has been good in the past but they are making to many dicissions FOR people when it should be 100% the customers choice. And me being told that one day I might have to buy intel just to get the support of the video cards I need because AMD has its own brand is not right.
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 1:08am
This is the 3rd generation of CPU's that AMD has not even attempted to compete with Intel. So why does Intel still sell it's extreme edition CPU's for a thousand dollars and more? There is no competing AMD EE cpu. With the exteme cpu from Intel all your getting is an unlocked multiplier and maybe a couple hundred mhz faster than a non EE cpu. But that is not always true as Intel has in the past released an EE and a regular cpu that both had the same speed and features except for the unlocked multiplier on the EE and the EE was nearly $500 dollars more expensive. This is really getting stupid.
The whole reason for locking the multiplier was the prevent rebranding cheap CPU's from being sold as Faster expensive CPU's. It's starting to appear to me that perhaps that may have just been an excuse to come up with the EE CPU.
Well I have never bought an EE cpu and never will. It's an all out waste of money that is better spent on other hardware.
Submitted by Shalbatana on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 9:00pm
I would love to moniker myself with an "extreme gamer" label, but I am ALWAYS on an extremly tight budget, and can never afford anything remotely close to $1000 just for a cpu. Hell my entire computer must come in less than half of that usually.
So yeah... count me in. It's not earth shattering, but AMD is right, it works for people like me.
_______________________________
"There's no time like the future."
Hate to admit it.....
Submitted by ghot on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 7:38pm
...but I still see the top of the line I7 showing poorly on 3DMark06 overall...kinda makes ya wonder :)
Good news
Submitted by Redeye on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 6:41pm
This is good stuff. First off, competition is good for the consumer and secondly I own an AM2+ board, so I expect to drop and roll at some point in the near future. Good work AMD, keep up the momentum and make some comebacks like ATI has done with their latest GPUs.
Submitted by jvc08 on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 5:58pm
the new cpu might not be as fast as the new i7 but is close enough in my opinion. good news for people who prefer amd. its about time for amd.
It helps me, at any rate...
Submitted by Cache on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 8:30am
With the new Phenom II's, Intel may lower a few prices here and there to keep things competitive on the mainstream market. Given that AMD is completely abandoning high-end chips, one has to wonder if their time on top a few years ago was just a fluke and not a genuine accomplishment. Although AMD still cannot cough up anything noteworthy for people who genuinely want powerful systems--we'll see if their production models are as overclock friendly as the hand-picked demo models from earlier.
Even if they aren't, it's not all a wash--someone has to be the KMart of computer chips.
Real World Test
Submitted by Bender2000 on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 6:17am
Grab the interns and hand them a calculator and a screwdriver, time to bake up an $800 AMD box and throw it in the ring with last month's Intel $800 box. Equalize on case, HDD and RAM and we'll see if we can get better performance from the CPU/MoBo/GPU combo that can be budgeted. AMD isn't rying to topple the Core i7 but looking to get in with all those kids trying to squeeze the most out of the least, which the $800 PC was supposed to represent.
Submitted by Driftweed on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:09am
You know, the benchmarks used to at least have AMD win a couple categories because they were more "efficient". And back then they used the hell out of it, and we all remember it. Amd was cheaper and slighlty slower than intel with the benchmarks almost split. Oftentimes with intel only "winning" by the margin of error. I never was a fanboy of either company, but seriously when your new model of chip isn't designed to make a modest attempt at being the speed king spmething wrong. But then again, shortly after AMD bought out ATI didn't we see ATI do the same thing? There first board's were only meant to compete with Nvidida's lower end parts. So who really know's. Maybe they're just taking baby steps like they did with ATI? If the gap in performance remains like this for much longer Intel's could eventually just say why bother getting faster?
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 12:34am
It's good to see AMD still around but I believe they should have scrapped Phenom altogether and built an all new power house CPU. People are just going to continue buying Intel parts because Intel will just lower the price on it's CPU's to make sure people don't see AMD CPU's as an alternative to Intel. So AMD is still doing it's job to keep CPU prices down through competition with Intel it's not going to survive unless they start thinking performance.
So I'm sticking with Intel hardware until AMD can do better than this. This isn't even trying.
Submitted by srogers2750 on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 7:24pm
I have been building computers since the socket 7 days. my first AMD was a K6-2 300, had it running with a 3dfx Voodoo 3 3500, later upgraded it to a k6-2 500, but man that setup out performed my P2-350 everytime... Last Intel Chip I have built with was a P3, and my wifes old dell was a P4 2.5ghz.... it was ok, was limited to AGP4X.....but My single core AMD Athlon 64 1.8 ghz killed that P4 rig.... was like night and day, course I was using a gigabyte mobo with agp 8x :)
Ever since..I have stuck with AMD, and I really dont care what intel puts out, because even when my interest perks up, I go to CompUSA and play with the computers. Most of the time the intel machines are either locked up, or are choppy, while the AMD machines just plain run smooth, so I lose interest in intel, all over again.
While I miss, 3dfx....AMD/ATI merger excites me! Soon I'll have matching parts for every pc I build.
Did it once with an AMD all SIS setup, with a SIS Sabre 400 vid card, ran that for 2 years no problems, stable as all heck.
I stand by AMD till this day, and as long as there around, I dont feel the need to build an Intel Machine.
Submitted by Cambi on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 7:01am
I certainly wont lie, when building a bargain basement PC I do always choose AMD, they are absurdly cheap and provide ample power for most people that I build PCs for. However, for myself I refuse to compromise. I need extremely powerful PCs to do the work that I do and I like to spend a little more early so that my parts stay competitive later. This top of the line AMD processor can't even put up a decent fight against the cheapest Core i7 which is only dollars away -- I wouldn't even bother considering it. Overclocking the Core i7 to the AMD processor's speeds would only make the AMD look even more outclassed. Completely dissapointing. A competitve market drives down prices and promotes progress. Now Intel doesn't even need to care, they are top dog without a competitor.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.