Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Shows Upcoming Phenom II CPU At 6.0 GHz+

Posted by timothy on from the calm-down-there-cowpoke dept.

Vigile writes "Today during a press briefing at AMD's offices in Austin, TX the company showed off some upcoming technology that should be available sometime early in 2009. What was most impressive was the overclocked speeds of the pending Phenom II X4 45nm processors. On air cooling AMD showed the quad-core CPU running at nearly 4.0 GHz while with much more extreme liquid nitrogen cooling help the same CPU reached over 6.0 GHz! It looks like AMD's newest processor might finally once again compete with the best from Intel, including its recent Core i7 CPUs."

4 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Overclocking BS by chrysrobyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look, I don't think overclocking in liquid nitrogen is cause for a slam dunk conclusion that AMD is now competitive with Intel, but stating that it's not impressive and not an indication of the performance of the processor indicates a complete lack of understanding of electrical design.

    This wouldn't have worked, for example, with the original PPC 7400 (G4) past 500MHz. As it turned out, there was a hard stop getting past that. Finding FMax (maximum frequency) independent of reliability and power concerns highlights design weaknesses. If they can overclock by 50% with adequate cooling, one can conclude they don't have any early or late mode problems preventing higher frequencies, and that metal isn't the limiting factor. In fact, they can easily conclude that the electrical design is sound and that their limit will be what they can qualify from a reliability perspective.

  2. I've stuck with AMD by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, I can put together an AMD box equivalent to an Intel for about $200 bucks cheaper. That money goes into my Video Card and I wind up with a better overall System.

    Second, AMD clearly differentiates their product. An XP 6000 is faster than a 5000, etc. Buying an Intel CPU is a chore (and make sure you get the right board, That's not always clear either).Basically I'm Lazy, and Intel's made it a pain to pick the right processor.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I've stuck with AMD by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      from the reviews I'd seen, etc. was that AMD was slightly slower per clock-cycle than Intel, and that the range of available clock speeds didn't go as high, either.

      That's all true. Intel's been beating AMD at that for a while now.

      Thing is, that's never the question that you want to be asking when you buy a new computer. Who cares which company has the fastest chip at $1000. The important question is: If I spend $90 on a chip, what's the best I can get? What if I spend $150? Is that better than putting $60 somewhere else? How about $200?

      In the $75 - $250 range (the range I personally care about), AMD and Intel are pretty much always trading blows. Here's a good chart for illustration: Crysis CPU Benchmark. Note how, for example, the Intel chip at $187 is slower than the AMD chip at $170.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  3. Re:Overclocking BS by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can't get a Core 2 CPU to run at 5Ghz no matter how hard you try.

    I'm sorry, but it's quite easy. All you need is the following:
    - Intel Core 2 Duo SP9300 (x 3)
    - Duct Tape

    Bam! 6.78 Ghz. Done.