Any of the reviews discussing energy efficiency compared to Intel?

Wonderful news!

I've been looking forward to this set of processors since I first heard about them. AMD really needed to gain some price footing still and this is where they get it.

I will be even more excited when I start seeing some value priced low wattage parts.

Look at Anandtech's recent article. Better than C2Q, worse than i7. Actual power consumption is nearly identical with i7, but i7 provides more performance/watt. Phenom II would be a good choice for a high-end desktop today, but it will be hard to argue in its favor once i5 comes out. At that point, AMD will have to price it down to mid-end or lower.

I dont see what all the hoopla is about, if anything this is just confirmation of how horrible AMD is actually doing.

Sure their new CPU's are competative with Intels PREVIOUS generation of CPU's, and when i say competative i mean just that. Not really any faster than, but can keep up with. But when it comes to AMD's new Phenom II vs Intel's new Core I7 its a complete wash. Better performance all around AND lower power consumption for the Core I7's.

AMD needs to seriously kick up there game, they cannot just keep going at their current pace and just hope that intel faulters so they can catch up again.

Aris - that's like complaining about how crappy the per capita income in Colombia is compared with the US. You're comparing a relatively small company with the industry giant - I read somewhere that Intel's R+D spending is greater than AMD's entire earnings. Even if that figure is slightly wonky, the fact that AMD is keeping up, if barely, is something amazing and worth applauding. Intel can afford to fund multiple parallel R+D efforts (P4/Core, Core/I7) and take the risk that one of them may fail/ underperform - AMD can't and so has the make the most of the architecture it has.

Besides, if AMD really was doing as poorly as you infer, why does Intel slash its CPU prices so agressively? Surely if Intel has nothing to worry about and has such amazing products, it wouldn't need to compete on price? Besides, AMD has a keen edge on total platform cost - it's why I went AMD for a recent upgrade.

There's an interesting chart in the Tom's article that shows power consumption versus time on a series of tasks:

(Sorry about image size- it wouldn't let me make a regular link)

The 800 series Phenom II (quad-core, L3 cache reduced to 4MB from 6MB) has the lowest idle consumption of the bunch, and is comparable to an E8500. It would be interesting to see how these 800 and also 700 series Phenoms fare on a more efficient platform than the 790X...

Haha, not to be too off topic but Colombia gets a huge amount of money from the US, second only to Israel (I think), as a result of the war on drugs and more recently, the war on terror.

It would be kind of funny if AMD sold drugs on the side.


These processors are looking like they get some serious performance even at stock clocks. So I would be curious to see how well they undervolt. That would be some serious punch if they could perform as well as they do with less wattage. If not, 3+ghz on stock volts is good too

The problem with that chart and most of the others out there is they didn't test the most interesting of the new Phenom II CPUs for power usage. The best bang for the buck are the X3 models

* AMD Phenom II X3 720 - 2.8GHz, 7.5MB Cache - Black Edition in PIB at qty price of $145
* AMD Phenom II X3 710 - 2.6GHz, 7.5MB Cache - Available in PIB at qty price of $125

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdp ... /18185.png and others show that the 720 is the fastest of the Phenom II CPUs at stock speed due to the favorable L3 cache to number of CPUs ratio.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... =3512&p=10 shows that it does that while using less power.

Put one on an AM2+ MB that you may already have and you are talking a sweet simple dual core to tri core upgrade with a nice bonus of 6MB L3 cache. Give it a little time and you might even get one around $100.

The best thing is that these CPU's works in AM2+ and even in some older AM2 motherboards.
Imagine upgrading from an old X2 to a X4, and all you need is a new CPU.

That's why the total cost for an upgrade becomes quite low, and that's why you can't compare it to i7, the price difference is just too big, even with a complete system.
The prices for DDR3 RAM and X58 boards are too high.

It is a fair comparison. Just a few years ago AMD was the king of desktop performance with intel barely able to keep up, and no one had any quibbles with comparing the two back then. So now when the tables are turned its "dont pick on poor AMD, its not a fair comparison!"?? please.

Intel stayes competative on price points because that was exactly the mistake they made last time around. They underestimated AMD and ended up sitting in second place for the better part of 5 years because of it.

And for the record i'm not a fanboy of either. I have an AMD machine and an Intel machine at home. I bought AMD back when they were the best product, now its Intel. In all honesty i want to see AMD succeed because it means better deals for the consumer. But as it stands right now they are at least 1 year behind.

EDIT: someone resize hybrids picture.

No it is not a fair comparison, just look at the total cost, like I just mentioned.
AMD have nothing that's comparable to €i7, neither in performance nor price.
A fair comparison was the K8 against the C2D when it showed up back in 2006.

And AFAIK, Core 2 continues to be the current generation, not the previous generation, as long as the Ci5 isn't available.
Remember that K10 isn't new either, it just got a die shrink that made it useable. Clock for clock it's still pretty much the same, and the extra cache doesn't make that much difference.

But yes, AMD will have trouble with Ci5 when it shows up, the platform that it's actually comparable to.

So because AMD no longer is capable of producing a high end chip to compete with Intel we are no longer able to compare the two? THIS is AMD's top o the line. You go to Intel and ask to see their top o the line, and its the i7. Even if you do forego the i7, how long have the Core2 Quads that this processor can barely keep up with been out? Since March of 08.

How is comparing AMD's latest and greatest to a processor almost a year old a "fair comparison"???

sure AMD may have had the performance crown a few years ago, but that doesn't change the FACT that AMD is a considerably smaller company with fewer resources than Intel, does it? Surely even someone as bullheaded as you can accept that?

One reason AMD did well with the Athlon64 was precisely because it was a smaller, and therefore more nimble, company and caught the lumbering giant that is Intel going in the wrong direction. Now the Intel giant has changed direction and thrown all it's considerable resources at the problem, we have Core 2 and i7, and complete ownage of AMD. The fact that AMD is even merely staying in the ballpark is a huge testament to the company, not a reason for yet more tedious "AMD get off your ar$e, you owe us for our previous adulation" comments.

Now, in breaking news, [insert suitable analogy] the cheap top of the range model of a small company is yet again thrown up against the expensive top of the range model of an enormous company AND FOUND WANTING. Those small company slackers! How dare they not give us a comparable expensive model for us to waste our money on!

Because for those who are buying a CPU/whole system, it doesnt matter if a $2,000 i7 system beats an $800 Phenom II system, because they are different markets and not competing against eachother for people's money.

Compare a $800 C2D/C2Q system with a $800 AMD system, that makes sense. It doesnt matter that one is brand new and currently the companies top end, while one is nearly a year old. The vast majority buy according to their set budget and wont go over by more than a small amount. Telling people that a system that costs twice as much will outperform the other is irrelevent.

fartingbob - I'm afraid every forum in the world seems to have member who takes a contrary view to reality and will defend it to eternity, even when no one else agrees with him. Aris is ours

Because they're in the same price range.
If you disagree, ask yourself why Intel have dropped prices for C2Q up to 40 % but not for i7?

It is just as fair as it will be when the Ci5 shows up and it will be compared to the 9 - 12 months old Deneb.

The X58 chipset and the Ci7 is a premium platform that costs more than the regular platforms, and the whole concept is similar to the first generation socket 940 FX back in 2003 before S939 showed up.

If we use your way of comparing, why not compare the fastest VIA CPU with the fastest Intel CPU, no matter the price difference? It doesn't work that way.

You can't just ignore the price factor.

The vast majority ask the sales clerk "whats faster, intel or amd?" and the store clerk says "well intels new i7 is currently the fastest". Then the customer goes over and buys something from intel, even if it isnt the i7. Even IF the intel machine their buying is actually slower than a comparably priced amd machine.

This is the same problem ATI had for years, where people would buy something from Nvidia even if a comparibly priced ATI part was "technically" faster because Nvidia currently made the fastest GPU. Luckily for ATI, they caught on to this phenominon years ago and have since been a better competitor.

EDIT: While you may be able to make an educated analisys of the situation and choose between amd and intel based on your specific needs, the big picture is a much different story. Public perception right now is that AMD is slow. So most people who arnt tech savy don't even bother to compare lower priced options from AMD with comparably priced options from intel. All they know is "AMD is slow, and Intel is fast" so they want an Intel.

This is the same phenominon that made VHS the standard over BETA and why Intel kept pushing the GHZ myth higher and higher for so long because customers just bought whatever computer had the largest number.

The second question the customer asks, though, is "Why is this system 200$ more expensive than that system? The GHz is the same, the RAM is the same, why should I buy this system?". That is when the sales clerk says "Well, you basically pay for the latest technology, the best worth for your money is ..." (Been there, done that).

As for your edit. No, the Public don't have a clue about any strengths weaknesses between AMD/Intel. The semi tech-savy public might, but they hardly constitute the majority of the buyers.

As far as your assumption that the sales clerk actually knows anything about computers I will leave uncontested, I've met both kinds (and I used to be one), although mostly those who doesn't have a clue. I have, for instance, had numerous clerks tell me that XP1700+ was clocked at 1.7GHz. I doubt they know anything about Ci7 performance (Personnel in small specialised computer vendor shops, though, is a whole other thing (been that as well), but then we hardly talk about vendors vying for the general public any more, but rather the tech-savy who knows the difference between AMD and Intel)

Price is the factor for majority of the peoples. The performance freaks are very, very small numbers, even fewer than us, DIY-peoples. Because of that, it does not make sense to compeare 999$ core 7i to 30$ Sempron.... Majority of intels revenues from CPU side comes from C2D's, cheapest C2Q's and Celeron's. The profit gained now for Core 7i is almost none-existant for now. The premium priced products are rarely profitable, especially in IT industry. Especially during now, the global financial crisis / depression, entry and midrange products are the one which sell, as entire IT industry will see heavy drop in their sell. Basicly Core 7i was launched worst possible time when looking financial situation.

Thats a little out of context dont you think? Its more like comparing a $290 Core i7 to a $190 Phenom II X4.



You have missed my point completely. Its not about what actually makes money, its all about public perception.

@Tobias, i think you give the average consumer more credit than they deserve. You said it yourself, the "semi tech-savy" plublic will have that perception, and they are your store clerks and online sales reps selling these things to the public who dont have a clue. So your telling me when the semi tech savy sales reps all think AMD is slow and you should go with Intel that it wont effect the greater majority? Even if they did go so far as to attempt to explain the differences to the general populace, they arnt going to understand 95% of what they say, and will likely end up just going with whatever the clerk recommends. And when the clerk is already biased towards one company based on public perception... You connect A to B.

In any case, its a valid concern for AMD. No one has disputed that AMD's best is anywhere close to where Intel is now, and at one time AMD was ahead. If they continue to slide further and further behind, eventually they'll end up like VIA selling CPU's to niche markets and not even being displayed at local retail stores.

Aris: Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like some posts are still more or less replies to your first post, the one that looked like a personal opinion, while you have moved on to the discussion about public perception.
Could it be why you misunderstand each other?

My position hasnt changed from my first post, its always been about public perception. Its not my fault it took people this much explination for them to figure it out. Perception is everything in life, the sooner you learn this the better off you'll be. Facts rarely actually matter, they just tend to coincide with its percieved truth. But its the perception that actually effects anything.

Well that explains everything.

Actually, the only perception offered, regarding AMD is "AMD is back on track" on all reviews and the only one saying different in this thread is you:)

I may give the average consumer to much credit, but you may give them to little:) The average are interested in two things only. They are very cost sensitive and they want to feel that they made a good deal. Intels brand name might in some cases play a role for a customers decision, but that is very rarely so important that it is actually a concious thought. And the good salesman doesn't care. He manage to make the consumer feel he made a good deal based on the type of computer he has in stock.

And I don't know about Wallmart, but in Sweden the salesmen at the bigger retailers isn't exactly tech-savy, more ofthen than not.

I'd really like to hear someone explain to me how a company can go from being the leader in their industry to falling a year behind their primary competitor as being "back on track".

You clearly miss the part between Q3 2006 (when AMD lost the leadership), and two months ago, when they came up with something that actually affected Intels pricing. Between that they were much worse than today.

If you still fail to understand, please have a look at these reviews.

ha ha ha ha, hoo hoo hoo hoo. Awesome



You just don't get it do you, AMD was never a leader. It had a performance edge for a few years, but it never had majority market share, its CPUs weren't widely available in retail systems and the majority of the public didn't know AMD from their arse. You aren't going to pay any attention to what I say, I'm sure, because it doesn't fit your own unique world view, but most people DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT CPU IS IN THEIR PC. They really don't, not a bit. I'd wager a huge no. of people don't even know what a CPU is. If a PC does what they want at a price they can afford, that's all that matters. Rampant fanboism is the preserve of nerdy tech forums, not the general public. How else can you explain the enormous retail success of the P4, even after the Athlon64 came out and became established.

Honestly, you're the definition of brick wall.

In Aris' defense I don't think he misunderstands at all. I think his point is that the reviews are overpraising AMD. It is like people saying it was good enough for the Arizona Cardinals to make the Superbowl and lose, because nobody expected them to get that far. But exceeding expectations and still losing does not make you a winner -- you remain a loser. And the problem for AMD is that they are losing where it really counts -- profitability.

Personally, I question whether Phenom II is a good enough effort from AMD. It is just barely good enough to hold its own with Intel chips that have already earned back their R&D and it will not hold its own against Intel's next generation. So, where does AMD have a chance to make money in all of this? The reason they need to come up with something clearly better than Intel is not to beat them in a technical sense, but to have something they can sell for a premium to recoup some of their loses from the past several years.

From a business perspective, I think AMD should be using 45nm to chase Atom rather than i5/i7. The whole point of Atom was to make something that was incredibly inexpensive to manufacture that could play in emergiing markets where power efficiency is more important than raw performance. Playing in those markets was the whole reason AMD acquired the Geode stuff, but they seem to have largely dropped the ball. For whatever reason the folks running ATI seem to have a better grasp on how to do things than those at the mothership. If AMD would concentrate more on being profitable rather than have equivalent solutions to Intel, they'd have a better chance to survive long term and be around and keep Intel on their toes. Maybe if they can actually get this Foundry spinoff done, it will help them focus.

Soo . . anyone here interested in the new AM3 CPU's? matt? Tobias?

I think the X3's looks pretty good, especially since I have a motherboard that works with it. I'm just going to wait until the prices settles.


I'm not gonna buy a Core 2, I mean come on, they're like one year old, that's so 2008. The AM3 CPU's are brand new so I guess they must be better.