Slashdot Mirror
45nm Phenom II Matches Core 2 Quad, Trails Core i7
An anonymous reader writes "AMD recently debuted its 45nm Phenom II processors, and The Tech Report has already run them through a complete suite of benchmarks to see how they perform compared to Intel's latest and greatest. The new 2.8GHz and 3GHz Phenom IIs are in a dead heat with like-priced Core 2 Quads, but they generally fall well behind Intel's new Core i7 chips. TR concludes that AMD's future doesn't look as bleak as some say, and future Phenom IIs could compete favorably with more affordable Core i7 derivatives."
But it could have been if I had a Core i7!
is that the CPU price is only one component of a significantly higher overall platform cost. Both memory and mainboard cost significantly more if you want to build an i7 rig.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
The main problem is that AMD is doing the exact same thing Intel did when the P4 was out: they went to a smaller litho process, slapped on cache, and cranked up the clockspeed. If you read the review carefully you'll note that while the new Phenoms are faster than some Core 2 quads, they are not faster on a clock-for-clock basis. Remember back when AMD was leading in that category and it was such a big deal?
As of right now the Phenoms are a good deal IF you already own an AM2+ mobo... otherwise they are not a good deal for 2 reasons: 1. AMD is coming out with the incompatible AM3 socket that will use DDR3 memory in the next few months, so these current chips will have a very short shelf life; 2. Intel doesn't have to do any innovation at all to beat these chips, all it has to do is drop the prices on current Core 2 quads like the 9550 that outperform the Phenoms but are currently priced higher... dropping prices ain't rocket science and there are rumors these cuts could be coming by the end of the month.
As for the Core i7, sure it is more expensive, but even the 920 model appears to wail on these chips, and there is a whole lot more future-proofness in buying a low-end i7 right now. Interestingly, the review mentions the new Phenoms have 758 million transistors which means they have about 27 million more transistors than Nehalem... but Nehalem at 2.66 Ghz is easily beating a Phenom at 3.0Ghz. It looks like what AMD really needs is a new architecture, but that does not appear to be coming any time soon.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Since I'd hate to go back to the bad old days, before the megahertz wars, when processors were expensive. For desktop/low-end workstation use, the phenom IIs seem to be merely ok, price competitive with the chips intel currently has down there; but not in a position to beat the i7s. Where these new cores will be quite interesting, though, is in 4 socket and higher configurations. Even with substantially inferior core designs, AMD has been stomping Intel in the 4+ socket area, since hypertransport is markedly superior. With actually competitive cores, AMD should find 4+ sockets to be a party, at least until Intel gets quickpath stuff ramped up.
So you didn't notice how you can't spell "Islamo-Communist mental case" without I n t e l then?
which is totally what she said
The later AM3s will have 95w x4's in feburary. Check your board's product page if they plan on supporting it for that model.
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
If AMD wants to improve sales they should do what they did for the X2 line: lower power consumption. I don't care what any of the "experts" say - the moment I saw the whopping 130w listed next to the i7 920 I immediately decided I didn't want one. The Athlon 4850e already has the crown on the dual core front, so if they can manage a respectable 95w quad core, AMD could corner the efficiency market. I know they had to release this chip to generate revenue, but I'd hoping that low power quad is in their future plans.
On another note, it's quite funny to see such high power requirements for the new intels. Am I the only person who remembers AMD getting ridiculed about the Phenoms power consumption? Now that intel has finally released a true quad core chip, their power consumption is the same or more than AMDs. Granted that does nothing about the performance gap, but at least it quiets the power critics.
The Opteron 838x (shanghai) stomps all over anything available from Intel, they won't have a part that competes until 2H'09 at the earliest when they get the Xeon Corei7 working.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
... "AMD finally on par with Intel tech from two years ago."
Seriously. I love AMD. I've been using AMD chips since my very first system of my own, which had a mighty K6-166.
This past Novemeber, I finally bit the bullet, sold my Athlon X2 system, and upgraded... To a Q6600-based rig. Some may scoff that it's only a 2.4ghz chip, but I'm running it at 3.4ghz right now, and I'm fairly sure I'll reach 3.6ghz with a bit more work.
To be sure, those who don't overclock, but want a powerful AMD-based system will find this chip worthwhile. I would expect those to be people who already have AM2+ systems looking for an upgrade (I have a good friend that wanted an ultra cheap upgrade for her desktop a few months back... I built her an AM2+ X2 setup. Guess what? Now she can upgrade to something worthwhile. Yay!).
However, for the enthusiast, the hardware tweaker, the overclocker... The Phenom II is a disappointment. It has been said it can overclock to as high as 3.8ghz with good air cooling, maybe even 4ghz if you go with water. Awesome. C2Q can clock every bit as high, and you'll get more performance per clock out of it as well. I paid $180 for my Q6600. At 3.4ghz, it'll out-pace the top-end Phenom II. That Phenom II cost $275. Which is about the same price as... A low-end Core i7 chip that will overclock to 4ghz and beyond. With the i5 chips coming down the line, what's stopping Intel from slashing Core 2 prices?
All-in-all, the Phenom II is a powerful chip, and would serve well as the heart of an AMD rig, delivering worthy performance for almost anything. The problem is, a Core 2 Quad will do ya one better every time, for the same cost or less, and has been doing so for the past two years.
I'm anxiously waiting for AMD to bring back the glory days when they actually tried to compete with Intel, not just chase their taillights.
[Trojan.]
I had an Athlon 500Mhz (the oldest, slowest, first one they ever made -- it was back when AMD was just jumping on that fad of putting the chip on a slot instead of a socket). First of all, this was before NetBurst, so it was competing against P3s, not P4s. Second, it was better than the P3. I know this because if the P3 had been better, I would have gotten it instead. The K6-2s were the last "not decent" chips AMD made.
And it also did not run hot. A few years later, when I was finally upgrading the graphics card (from a TNT2 to a GeForce 3), I noticed that I had never even plugged in the CPU fan! It had run perfectly well passively-cooled that whole time!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Not to take away from some impressive stuff AMD has done, but AMD's glory days were also helped out by Intel shooting themselves in the foot. Back when AMD had the top-end x86s, invented AMD64, etc., Intel's 900-pound-gorilla R&D machine was off working on Itanium, running their x86 line mostly on autopilot. Once they mostly gave up on Itanium and swung their resources back to x86, AMD, as you might expect, has had a much harder time.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10