Triple Core AMD's ???

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:25 pm

Anyone using this chip?

AMD Phenom 8650 Toliman 2.3GHz 3 x 512KB L2 Cache 2MB L3 Cache Socket AM2+ 95W Triple-Core Black Edition Processor

People are saying how low wattage this is for a complete system.... Anyone vouch for this?

$119 dollars.... that looks like a win performance wise.

jessekopelman · Post by **jessekopelman** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:27 pm

Such things are relative. Most on these forums wouldn't think a 95W TDP CPU (and AMD's TDP rating tends to be fairly close to actual draw, unlike recent Intel CPU) to be part of a low wattage system, but to those with multiple 100W+ graphics cards it probably seems so. I see that you can get an E7200 from Newegg for $119 at the moment. I bet it would be pretty competitive with the 8650 and still draw a lot less power at peak load (especially in scenarios involving overclocking). I guess to a large degree it depends on how many applications you run that can take advantage of more than 2 cores and how much of a premium you place on efficiency vs. raw power. Me, I think for the most part AMD desktop CPU plays only make sense in the sub $100 market.

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:02 pm

When is AMD expected to release 45nm quad-core?

austinbike · Post by **austinbike** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:38 am

Server parts before the end of the year.

lowpowercomputing · Post by **lowpowercomputing** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:46 am

Besides, I think a TDP of 95W is a bit high for a triple-core CPU. The Phenom 9750, for example, also has this TDP, but for four cores clocking at 2.4GHz each. Intel's non-extreme 45nm Quads also have a 95W TDP. So it's not really that impressive. It would be with a 65W TDP IMHO which ought be doable since AMD offers 65W quad-cores (with a lower clock speed and a price premium though).

I agree with jessekopelman. If you don't use apps that can take advantage of more than 2 cores or never run enough apps simultaneously, you'll be better off with a cheaper, faster (as in higher clock speed) and lower-power dual-core. The E7200 is a good offer as it'll be noticeably faster than the 8650 as long as a maximum of two cores are utilized as far as I can see.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:52 am

Using twice as much power as an E8500? No thanks.
Wait for 45 nm if you want AMD.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:20 pm

I have found that anything under 250 watts of power draw is as silent as miserly, crappy system running at 120 watts on draw. You still need fans, you still can use a silent psu. the temps may be in low 40's C on max draw for the 250 system, and 30's C for the miserable system, yet both are way below tolerances to run 24/7, near silent, for several years.

I was asking what peoples experience was or is with tri-core amd's.

a quad core 45nm intel? oh yeah, thats darn cheap.................

I could get the board, ram and Black edition tri core for the same price as the comparable Intel quad chip on 1333 bus (anything older on a lower bus is really sub-par)

jessekopelman · Post by **jessekopelman** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:05 am

There is no comparable Intel quad-core. Intel per core performance is far superior -- especially the 45nm chips. What we are saying is to ask yourself whether the performance of the 8650 is actually going to be superior to that of a C2D E7200, which can be had for the same price. There seem to be many scenarios where the E7200 performance actually superior. Do you actually run the right software or have such a heavy multitasking workload that 3 slower cores will be superior to 2 faster cores?

dragmor · Post by **dragmor** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:34 pm

If your going to run integrated graphics the 780G and 790GX boards seem to get a ~30% boost from a Phenom compared to an X2.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:05 am

jessekopelman wrote:There is no comparable Intel quad-core. Intel per core performance is far superior -- especially the 45nm chips. What we are saying is to ask yourself whether the performance of the 8650 is actually going to be superior to that of a C2D E7200, which can be had for the same price. There seem to be many scenarios where the E7200 performance actually superior. Do you actually run the right software or have such a heavy multitasking workload that 3 slower cores will be superior to 2 faster cores?

e8400's go as fast in gaming situation as triple core amd's.

there is a HUGE myth behind intel's being better for everything. It is kinda sad. Yes, I do use 3 cores if I had them. No, I would not use 4 cores. Also, for gaming puposes, quad core intels normally hamper gaming unless its ultra 2008 stuff. dual cores do better most often on gaming. THe tricore amd's run better numbers than higher clocked am2+ dual core amd's by a considerable margine.

I have noticed since goign dual core with my 939 2 years ago that a third core for windows environment would actually be useful. I have seen many times where one core is near maxed/taxed and that means the 2nd core is about 15-25% at load in a game. THAT means that I am not actually using a dual core gaming rig for multithreaded capable gaming. I am using a single core and a gimped 2nd. When things get choppy, Windows can have bad load switching techniques in XP. this results in your cpu cache being hit empty. I read that and it makes sense. I have seen all of a sudden a massive turd dump at times no matter what patch installed or what "hotfix" applied to registry. XP loves the shared cache for gaming (what I do) and for windowing and flipping around odd crap and apps (what I do).

I dont encode video as I dont steal movies and I am not running a bridal film editing company. I do not "compile" but lets face that fact that even if I did encode or compile, who the hell does that every day or would even dream of using their computer while doing that to play something??

yes, so the tri core is really nice i just want to know thermal experience.

I am a cult believer in 3 cores is better than 4. i dont see the need for 4 for most things, but a 3rd free core to take on semi-multithreaded games from 2006+, that's really useful in a real environment (versus paid off time sampled sythetic environments like anandtech, etc)

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:09 am

dragmor wrote:If your going to run integrated graphics the 780G and 790GX boards seem to get a ~30% boost from a Phenom compared to an X2.

yes, this is cool. I think people are totally missing a huge point about phenom 4 and x3's. It is NOT a 3 and 4 chip version of their dual core amd chips. Its a completely new chip with different goodies and techniques. 2.3 tri or quad beats out a 3.x dual core for modern stuff. The crankiness issues concerning them is due to the fact that the "process" isnt 45 nm and that chips cant run at 3 ghz + out of the box/without adjustment.

thermals anyone? Bueler?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:14 am

~El~Jefe~: I don't really understand why the X3 would be better than the X4?
You will most likely want to go from 3 to 4 cores or more for the same reason you want to go from 2 to 3 cores now, so why wait?

The crankiness issues concerning them is due to the fact that the "process" isnt 45 nm . .

Wrong, it's not only about the manufacturing process, it's simply that they're hot because of it, and that limits their overclocking potential too.

Also, for gaming puposes, quad core intels normally hamper gaming unless its ultra 2008 stuff. dual cores do better most often on gaming.

Well it's because of the usually higher clock speed that dual cores have, but that's about to change.
I don't care for reviews where they run new games at 1024 x 768 just to make the CPU the bottleneck, it's just plain stupid. If you do that with a new system then the game will be more dependant on clock frequency only rather than clock frequency AND number of cores.
And if you look at older games at realistical settings then the CPU is even less the limiting factor.
Here's a good review, they stress the GPU with very high settings and test it with different CPU's. Not very common these days. . .

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:40 pm

a good comment would entail someone using x3 cores and giving me feedback

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:23 am

Mats wrote:I don't really understand why the X3 would be better than the X4?

1. The price of the X3 is significantly lower (about 25%) for those of us who upgrade often or are price conscious for any other reason. If there were a full line of X2 CPUs with L3 cache from AMD you could argue more for going with those but until they become common the X3 is low end of the L3 cache category.

2. The L3 cache size is the same on X3 and X4 so you get more cache per CPU core in the X3

So on a quad core that has 512k per core and 2m shared the cache for a chip with one core disabled is (512x3)+2048/(512x4)+2048 or 7/8. So instead of disabling 1/4 of the cache they are disabling 1/8th, but because they disable 1/4 of the cores when disabling 1/8 of the cache it actually helps the cache per core ratio instead of hurting it.

Tri core Phenoms get 1195k of L2/L3 cache per core in that example. Quad core Phenoms get 1024k. So the tri core gets 16% larger cache on a per core basis.

Another way of looking at that would be 2MB/4 cores is 512KB, but 2MB/3 cores is 682.6KB. That would be 33% larger L3 cache on a per core basis but the benefit isn't that large so I'd prefer to go by the 16% larger number so as to not overstate the benefit. Your actual usage patterns would determine how much the L3 cache helps. It could be almost no help or way more than a 33% improvement depending on the code running.

3. Power Draw?

# Unfortunately I haven't see proof of this one but you would assume power draw would be lower on 3 cores versus 4. It may actually be that the highest power draw X4s are turned into X3s to keep the TDP reasonable instead of just using disabled core X4s. Without a thorough power survey of hundreds of X3 processors there is room for doubt on both sides of this issue. Whatever happens here may be an issue with the X2 versions coming out. If they have similar power draws then dropping to an X2 with L3 may not save power. Maybe that is why we aren't seeing many X2 with L3 cache models before 45nm.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:37 am

I had thought about this as well. I wonder about issues of power on once x4 chips maybe now being x3's. This might be a bit uncalled for though. I have seen reviews where all the x3's ran cooler on load and idle than x4's.

My goal is to use a 790gx sort of chipset with 700 southbridge and x3. I THINK it's a solid idea. I have water cooling so I know even an overclocked version of this would be cool. I just am trying to keep overall power draw down as I am using a Phantom 350 fanless psu. I love that thing and it cost like 170 dollars so im not about to chuck it for some fanned unit if I can make it work.

I also am running a 3870 card which is a wonderful card in terms of gaming and power draw.

accord1999 · Post by **accord1999** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:24 am

There's been plenty of reviews with power consumption of the X3s. For example here:

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14606/12
http://hothardware.com/Articles/AMD-Phe ... or/?page=8
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/cpu ... 50-p3.html

It looks like you get modest Intel dual-core performance at Intel 65nm quad-core power consumption, a true worst of both worlds. It's better than an X4 but that's like saying it's better than a Smithfield.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:30 pm

dhanson865 wrote: 1. The price of the X3 is significantly lower (about 25%) for those of us who upgrade often or are price conscious for any other reason. If there were a full line of X2 CPUs with L3 cache from AMD you could argue more for going with those but until they become common the X3 is low end of the L3 cache category.

AFAIK, the OP doesn't upgrade very often, just like me, but the price is of course a reason.

dhanson865 wrote:2. The L3 cache size is the same on X3 and X4 so you get more cache per CPU core in the X3

So on a quad core that has 512k per core and 2m shared the cache for a chip with one core disabled is (512x3)+2048/(512x4)+2048 or 7/8. So instead of disabling 1/4 of the cache they are disabling 1/8th, but because they disable 1/4 of the cores when disabling 1/8 of the cache it actually helps the cache per core ratio instead of hurting it.

Tri core Phenoms get 1195k of L2/L3 cache per core in that example. Quad core Phenoms get 1024k. So the tri core gets 16% larger cache on a per core basis.

Another way of looking at that would be 2MB/4 cores is 512KB, but 2MB/3 cores is 682.6KB. That would be 33% larger L3 cache on a per core basis but the benefit isn't that large so I'd prefer to go by the 16% larger number so as to not overstate the benefit. Your actual usage patterns would determine how much the L3 cache helps. It could be almost no help or way more than a 33% improvement depending on the code running.

Is that even important since it's shared cache? A single core can access all cache if the other cores doesn't use it, right?
Anyway, the X4 can still do more work at the same time when needed.

dhanson865 wrote:3. Power Draw?

# Unfortunately I haven't see proof of this one but you would assume power draw would be lower on 3 cores versus 4. It may actually be that the highest power draw X4s are turned into X3s to keep the TDP reasonable instead of just using disabled core X4s. Without a thorough power survey of hundreds of X3 processors there is room for doubt on both sides of this issue. Whatever happens here may be an issue with the X2 versions coming out. If they have similar power draws then dropping to an X2 with L3 may not save power. Maybe that is why we aren't seeing many X2 with L3 cache models before 45nm.

I'm sure that the X3 uses less power, but again, this is not very important for the OP. If it was then I think he would wait for 45 nm.

I think that the upcoming 45 nm CPU's will be using much less power than they do now. The only early report I've seen shows that the power is almost cut in half, and that was tested with an ES. The jump from 2 to 6 MB L3 cache is also a good change.
The current X3's are simply not popular at SPCR AFAIK, most likely because they're hot. If I was upgrading for the first time in two years, I'd wait for the new ones. Three months left to X4, and I think it's about 6 mohths for X3.

OCedHrt · Post by **OCedHrt** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:55 pm

I do agree with the OP that for many users, 4 cores is really too much and 2 is just not quite enough. This especially applies in cases where you have something using 100% of 1 core but you still want to have 2 cores left to have that benefit in overall system responsiveness.

I am using an AMD Phenom 8450. Using the retail HSF, this idles about 38-40C for me with the fan at 3k RPM (automatic undervolting from bios). It is not silent but isn't noticeable more than a few feet away from the system. Then again, I am using a P180 Mini case. However, sometimes the temp rises and the fan can spin up to 6k and is very loud so I plan on replacing this HSF with a Thermalright SI-128 SE.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:19 am

OCedHrt wrote:I do agree with the OP that for many users, 4 cores is really too much and 2 is just not quite enough. This especially applies in cases where you have something using 100% of 1 core but you still want to have 2 cores left to have that benefit in overall system responsiveness.

I donâ€™t think you need two free cores to benefit overall system responsiveness but one. The advantage of a tri-core is that if you are running an application that is only optimized for two cores and they are fully loaded it means you still have a core free for other duties. If your typical peak workload fits this scenario then a tri-core could make sense but it still depends on a lot of other factors and what your priorities are.

My personal negative feelings towards Phenom X3 are based on the high cost, high power consumption at idle and load and limited over-clocking potential especially in terms of performance per watt. I chose an Intel E5200 instead which cost me over Â£30 less and gives good performance and performance per watt at 2.9GHz at stock voltage. If I have an application that loads 2 cores fully and I want to work on the system at the same time I just set the priority of it to low and the system remains responsive. When it comes to multitasking itâ€™s often the hard drive or RAM that become the bottlenecks no matter how many cores you have.

If Phenom X3 could match my E5200 in the metrics that are important to me then the extra core would make sense in theory but in practice I donâ€™t think itâ€™s significant. The 45nm tri-cores might change the situation though so itâ€™ll be interesting to see how they perform.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:25 pm

119 dollars for 3 cores!?? unlocked muliplier, 2.3 ghz....

thats not a lot of money for what you get. yes, i agree as well with 3 is better than 4 for usefulness. My dual core system craps out at times wanting a 3rd core. I couldnt see it wanting a 4th core for gaming yet? or ever shall i say based on the fact that gaming is around graphics card inovations and leaves quantity of cores as being required out of the picture.

thanx for the 8450 numbers

vnv01 · Post by **vnv01** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:07 pm

OCedHrt wrote:I do agree with the OP that for many users, 4 cores is really too much and 2 is just not quite enough. This especially applies in cases where you have something using 100% of 1 core but you still want to have 2 cores left to have that benefit in overall system responsiveness.

I am using an AMD Phenom 8450. Using the retail HSF, this idles about 38-40C for me with the fan at 3k RPM (automatic undervolting from bios). It is not silent but isn't noticeable more than a few feet away from the system. Then again, I am using a P180 Mini case. However, sometimes the temp rises and the fan can spin up to 6k and is very loud so I plan on replacing this HSF with a Thermalright SI-128 SE.

Just got my HTPC set up yesterday, and this is my first build in 6 years so I was a bit rusty.

Gigabyte 790GX
Phenom X3 8750
Ninja Mini Cooler w/fan
4GB A-Data (DDR2-800)
Radeon 4670
500Gb SATA HD
22x DvD/RW
Antec Fusion Remote Max

My bios read an idle temp of 49-50C with fan speeds around 2200rpm.
That seems a bit high to me.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:40 pm

If you want the Ninja Mini to cool at its best you need two things

1. a bolt down mounting kit (not sure which one to use off the top of my head)
2. a bigger fan

a 92mm/100mm, or 120mm fan would work. If you aren't worried about height slap some Kaze Jyu slim fans on it if you need a slim fan.

Kaze Jyu 100mm Case Fan (1000rpm) SY1012SL12L
Kaze Jyu 100mm Case Fan (2000rpm) SY1012SL12M

I like to undervolt fans so i'd go for the 2000rpm 100mm fan and then slow it down.

If your case isn't height limited slap a 120mm slipstream of your choice on it (800 RPM, 1000RPM, or 1200RPM would work. Though you'd want to slow down the 1000 or 1200).

If neither of those floats your boat grab a cheaper 92mm yate loon or some other 92mm sleeve bearing fan and undervolt it.

In short the 80mm fan on the ninja mini isn't the best option for a quiet pc.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:07 pm

Well to me the whole 3 vs 4 cores discussion is like saying "I need more RAM, I'll get 1.5 GB because I have no use for 2 GB, YET".
You realize that you need more, yet you can't see that you'll end up wanting more again.
Though you'll save 50 bucks, the 2.5 GHz X4 9850 with unlocked multiplier cost $169 . .
I'm not saying that 3 cores isn't enough, but the forth core won't be in the way, you'll have use for it, just like you will have use for the third core.

The new 45 nm Operons are about two weeks away and I'm very curious what they will be like and how much power they use.
The 4 core 2.7 GHz model is rated for 75 W, and that's much better than todays models which doesn't even reach that speed in stock.

Me on the other hand am satisfied with a T2300 from 2006, and I'll keep it for a year at least.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:00 am

2.7 ghz is what I will wait for.

nehalem is shown to be gaming doldrums and immature so 2.7 would absolutely rock for gaming.

the new IMC has little to no bearing on performance it seems.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:27 pm

Uh.... ok amd is out of business

maybe I will get a 65 nm 3x core instead

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:36 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote:Uh.... ok amd is out of business

Umm, no they're not? What do you mean? This, or Intel's complaints regarding the licensing?

Greg F. · Post by **Greg F.** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:26 pm

[
I chose an Intel E5200 instead which cost me over Â£30 less and gives good performance and performance per watt at 2.9GHz at stock voltage. If I have an application that loads 2 cores fully and I want to work on the system at the same time I just set the priority of it to low and the system remains responsive. When it comes to multitasking itâ€™s often the hard drive or RAM that become the bottlenecks no matter how many cores you have.

If Phenom X3 could match my E5200 in the metrics that are important to me then the extra core would make sense in theory but in practice I donâ€™t think itâ€™s significant. The 45nm tri-cores might change the situation though so itâ€™ll be interesting to see how they perform.[/quote]

I think I read somewhere that the Toliman X3 8450 ran at 75% while an E5200 ran at 100% while playing a Blue Ray. I don't remember and can't find it right off, but I imagine that would be referring to the Toliman in a 780G or 8200 and the E5200 in a G45. If memory serves the Toliman benefited from the 3.5 HT. It had nothing to do with two or three cores.
I might be misstating. I wish I could find that now. I think the Intel combo used more wattage. Anyone else see this? So yes, it does depend on specifically how you want to use your computer.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:11 pm

I would hope someone running a x3 would be using a new ati video chips where the cpu wasnt being taxed much at all. interesting poitn though.

people do not realize that only the fastest clocked intel dual core chips outpace an x3 for things like gaming. 45nm at 2.7ghz is going to fly.

jessekopelman · Post by **jessekopelman** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm

Greg F. wrote: I think I read somewhere that the Toliman X3 8450 ran at 75% while an E5200 ran at 100% while playing a Blue Ray. I don't remember and can't find it right off, but I imagine that would be referring to the Toliman in a 780G or 8200 and the E5200 in a G45. If memory serves the Toliman benefited from the 3.5 HT. It had nothing to do with two or three cores.
I might be misstating. I wish I could find that now. I think the Intel combo used more wattage. Anyone else see this? So yes, it does depend on specifically how you want to use your computer.

That must have been a hell of a Blu-Ray, as most dual-core AMD processors coupled with a 780G would run at ~50% average utilization when playing back Blu-Ray disks . . . Anyway, the example given is 100% about bad drivers/software support for the G45 and has nothing to with number of CPU cores or memory bus. There is evidence of G45 doing just as well at BD decoding as 780G or 8200 when coupled with good drivers and compatible software (see Anandtech's recent G45 MB comparo, for an example). It is pretty well established that you don't need anything near a high end CPU to play BD when coupled with a modern graphics card or IGP.

Is the X3 better than a similarly priced C2D in some situations, yes. In the majority of situations, no. Is the 780G currently better than the G45 in terms of software support, definitely yes. Do you need an X3 over an X2 to take advantages of those benefits, no. Does the X3 coupled with a 780G game better than and X2, yes. Is it still humbled by an X2 coupled with a $50 GPU, yes. Is the power consumption less for a X3 + 780G than for a 45W X2 + $50 GPU, no. Is the price better? No (4850e is $65, so only $115 with $50 GPU, vs. $120 for 8650). So, if you feel X3 is right for you, fine go for it; just don't try and make a general purpose case because it just isn't there with current X3 performance/pricing.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:54 am

Mats wrote:
~El~Jefe~ wrote:Uh.... ok amd is out of business
Umm, no they're not? What do you mean? This, or Intel's complaints regarding the licensing?

they dont make chips anymore and they arent called amd and their stock is worth nothing and they cant go above 2.5 ghz for over a year.

yes they are currently out of business.