Print
AMD is now also resorting to smaller cache versions to differentiate its models. This is an old technique long used by Intel and AMD and helps maximize the yields. If a CPU has a bit of defective cache, Intel or AMD turn off that portion and sell it as a lower model which is why these new chips often have the same die size as the larger L2/L3 chips. As the process matures and the yields get good enough that all of the cache is good, the companies have been known to actually produce smaller cache versions to even further maximize the yield. Generally, the largest cache models cost the most. For AMD’s Phenom II lineup, a 9XX denotes the larger 6MB L3, while an 8XX denotes 4MB of L3 cache.
Again, here’s the view of AMD’s Phenom CPUs from an L3 cache perspective:
Like the cache, AMD is also maximizing its yields by taking quad-core procs that have one bad core and selling them as tri-cores. Initially, enthusiasts scoffed at the idea of a quad-core minus one, but they’ve gradually been accepted. AMD has also had some success by putting the tri-cores against Intel’s dual cores. For the most part, three execution cores will indeed give you better performance in multi-threaded applications and multi-tasking than dual-cores. Here’s a break down of the X3’s by clock speed.
The final difference with these new chips is the thermal or TDP ratings. The original Phenom II X4 940 and 920 both had enthusiast-class TDP ratings of 125 watts. As more mainstream parts, all five new CPUs run are rated to disperse about 95 watts of heat under full load. It appears that AMD is now pushing 125 watts as its maximum TDP for desktop parts. Only one chip, the original Phenom X4 9950, hits 140 watts. All others are 125 watts or lower. Again, here’s a view from the TDP perspective.
Comments are closed on this article
pcfxer
February 15, 2009 at 10:14am
Core2 Duo E8500 = $248.
Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition = $198.
Beating Intel for $50 less without touching the multiplier = priceless.
loadwire
February 12, 2009 at 7:22pm
I just got my issue of Maximum PC and i can't believe a 2.66ghz proc beat a 3.0ghz one... i mean i'm brand loyal to intel but come on amd!!!
cfmwarren
February 10, 2009 at 5:04pm
I agree about the SKU analogy...... WTH?
anyway, i still like AMD and i like the choice that they give you about DDR2 and DDR3 plus being able to use AM2+
falconkestrel
February 10, 2009 at 12:16am
Why do some of the charts have AM/PM by the time for how long it took to do a task. Do the only work in the morning or night. And I second what Techrocket9 said "NO MORE CHARTS" I thought I was reading Toms hardware for a second.
novengeance
February 10, 2009 at 11:16pm
I haven't used Excel in years but I'm guessing that the AM/PM times are some sort of automatic formatting done by Excel.
tanker2k4
February 09, 2009 at 8:33am
Was expecting some higher clocks from the AM3 chips.
I mean, come on AMD. THe highest speed released in this group is a 2.8ghz TRIPLE CORE ?!?!?!?
This is getting real old. Let's try for 3.2 or higher.
sasquatch42
February 09, 2009 at 3:12pm
the 720 kicks the crap out of the high end C2D's for less
I think AMD doesn't want to be in a clock speed war with Intel
pcwizmtl
February 09, 2009 at 8:16am
http://www.imeem.com/people/1va03u/music/tpy7nQtK/tom_jones_war_what_is_it_good_for/
:P
brockalee
February 09, 2009 at 6:42am
Everyone thinks they want choices, but then they just get confused and end up getting nothing. Twenty-two processors? Really? Wow.
n0ctis
February 09, 2009 at 11:40am
Yeah, look at all of the SKUs for Windows 7. You'd think Microsoft would have learned after the mess of Vista SKUs.
