AMD Phenom II

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

AMD Phenom II

Post by Mats » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:50 pm

Edit:

SPCR Review.


Here's a list of 31 other reviews.

__________________________________________________________
Some info about the upcoming CPU's:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Source
The original source is ChipHell, or maybe even AMD! :lol:
Last edited by Mats on Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

speedkar9
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:39 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: AMD Phenom II

Post by speedkar9 » Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:01 pm

I wonder why they chose to use a 9xx naming scheme... kinda seems a little too familiar (i7 anyone?). This is going to cause massive confusion on the consumer level.

Suosaaski
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:46 am

Re: AMD Phenom II

Post by Suosaaski » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:15 pm

speedkar9 wrote:I wonder why they chose to use a 9xx naming scheme... kinda seems a little too familiar (i7 anyone?). This is going to cause massive confusion on the consumer level.
It is just as much confusing as Intel using 9xx for i7 (Pentium D anyone?).

Moon GT
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:29 am
Location: Edinburgh

Post by Moon GT » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:05 am

I'm guessing they're choosing the numbers precisely NOT to confuse consumers, like the old days when an Athlon 3000+ was supposed to be the same speed as a 3GHz Pentium 4, even though it didn't run at 3GHz.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:56 am

Moon GT wrote:I'm guessing they're choosing the numbers precisely NOT to confuse consumers, like the old days when an Athlon 3000+ was supposed to be the same speed as a 3GHz Pentium 4, even though it didn't run at 3GHz.
My feelings exactly: AMD has always chosen naming conventions that made it as easy to compare to Intel as they could.
[size=67]Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600[/size]

Mariner
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:25 am

Post by Mariner » Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:41 am

Moon GT wrote:I'm guessing they're choosing the numbers precisely NOT to confuse consumers, like the old days when an Athlon 3000+ was supposed to be the same speed as a 3GHz Pentium 4, even though it didn't run at 3GHz.
Actually, the Athlon XP 3000+ etc ratings weren't meant to represent the equivalent clock speeds of the P4s. They were meant to represent equivalence to one of the original Athlons running at the stated clock speeds i.e. an Athlon XP 3000+ was equivalent to a classic Athlon running at 3GHz.

The fact that these chips were practically equivalent to their P4 counterparts was, I'm sure, entirely coincidental. :twisted:

Strid
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post by Strid » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:06 am

Yeah, AMD has done a good job so far. But I strongly doubt, that an Phenom X4 920 will be even close to the Core i7 920 in terms of performance. Perhaps in watts, lol, but not in computing power. :lol:
[size=75]Main rig: Antec NSK1380 | Lapped Xeon E3110 | ASUS P5QPL-VM (using IGP) | 2x 2GB Corsair XMS2 800 MHz | MTRON Mobi 3525-32 GB | WD Caviar GP 1TB (Scythe Quiet Driv'ed, on foam) AAM=128 | Lapped Scythe Ninja Rev. A fanless + Arctic Silver 5 | PicoPSU-160-XT + Dell DA-2 200 W brick | M-Audio Audiophile 2492 | 1x Nexus 120 mm @ 550 RPM[/size]

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:28 pm

Strid wrote:Yeah, AMD has done a good job so far. But I strongly doubt, that an Phenom X4 920 will be even close to the Core i7 920 in terms of performance. Perhaps in watts, lol, but not in computing power. :lol:
Yeah, uh... AMD's got a little ground to make up. Even if you ignore clockspeed, the 9950 is about 60% as fast as the i7, which would mean the Phenom II would need to make up a ton of per-cycle performance to catch the i7.

Image
[size=67]Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600[/size]

Suosaaski
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:46 am

Post by Suosaaski » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:18 am

AZBrandon wrote:
Strid wrote:Yeah, AMD has done a good job so far. But I strongly doubt, that an Phenom X4 920 will be even close to the Core i7 920 in terms of performance. Perhaps in watts, lol, but not in computing power. :lol:
Yeah, uh... AMD's got a little ground to make up. Even if you ignore clockspeed, the 9950 is about 60% as fast as the i7, which would mean the Phenom II would need to make up a ton of per-cycle performance to catch the i7.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/ ... 3_14_l.gif
Sisoft is an irrelevant synthetic test.

Check this review by Anandtech: http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3456&p=1

45nm Opterons simply dominate power consumption and price/performance comparisons. And the absolute performance ain't too bad either :)

Naturally we need more benchmarks to better understand the differences over a wider area of applications.

Moon GT
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:29 am
Location: Edinburgh

Post by Moon GT » Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:46 am

As long as the new Phenoms can compete with Core 2, they should at least be able to stay in the game for mid-range systems, which is where I'd be more likely to spend my money.

Tobias
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 9:52 am

Post by Tobias » Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:09 am

Quad core CPU:s at 2.3-2.7GHz with a TDP of 55W? Sounds great to me:)

Oh, and I found this slightly amusing, though:)
Note: The line for Harpertown four DIMMs is dotted in the above graphs because we did not actually run this configuration but speculate this is the power consumption based on idle power consumption analysis
It's always nice to build conclusions on speculation like that :D

Suosaaski
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:46 am

Post by Suosaaski » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:24 pm

Tobias wrote:Quad core CPU:s at 2.3-2.7GHz with a TDP of 55W? Sounds great to me:)

Oh, and I found this slightly amusing, though:)
Note: The line for Harpertown four DIMMs is dotted in the above graphs because we did not actually run this configuration but speculate this is the power consumption based on idle power consumption analysis
It's always nice to build conclusions on speculation like that :D
They could have just left it out and test with 16GB of RAM which is a likely scenario these days, for example for a virtualization host. But at least they added the note there.

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:51 pm

If they can make a low idle drawing x3 720 chip that's unlocked....

oooo that's what I would get :) Cheaper, less overall pull, but a 3rd core for offloading craptastic winblows functions.

x4 I am skipping until they get to like x8.

Dragon platform looks good. the 790 series is really cool with the 700-750 southbridge. I like it all working perfectly together which is what you get from amd and a 89 dollar board.

Ever wonder why intel's new boards are so expensive????? The cpu has an IMC. in all the previous years, the excuse was that the board is much more complicated on a intel for it lacks IMC.... now its more even the board is simpler, the boards chips are tinier....
shrug.

Suosaaski
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:46 am

Post by Suosaaski » Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:38 am

It seems cold bug is gone and AMD just might be back in the OC game as well: Phenom II @5+GHz running Crysis.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:45 am

Ans some reports claim even 6 Ghz with liquid helium and Inquirer reports even as much as 6,3 Ghz which I am more than doubting. But 5,0 Ghz so you can play Crysis and not simply pass thru simple Benchmark... Now that is pretty good achievement...

Maybe AMD can make sucker punch on Intel now that it made sucker punch on nVidia earlier... Maybe, maybe not...
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.

FartingBob
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:05 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by FartingBob » Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:18 am

These could well be competitive with the C2D 45nm quads, i doubt they'll be a match for the i7's, but then they are in a completely difference price range. You can take one of these phenoms and slot it into a £50 mobo with cheap DDR2 ram if you wanted.
Good news for people with AM2+ boards who fancy an upgrade without changing half the system.
I have no signature!

Suosaaski
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:46 am

Post by Suosaaski » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:39 am

FartingBob wrote:These could well be competitive with the C2D 45nm quads, i doubt they'll be a match for the i7's, but then they are in a completely difference price range. You can take one of these phenoms and slot it into a £50 mobo with cheap DDR2 ram if you wanted.
Good news for people with AM2+ boards who fancy an upgrade without changing half the system.
Without very well multithreaded programs, i7 is really not much better then Core 2 Quad so if AMD can compete with Core 2, it can also do so for i7 for most applications.

pony-tail
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Brisbane AU

Post by pony-tail » Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:40 pm

I currently run 2 machines one with Athlon X2 6400+ one with Phenom X4 9850 and both on AMD 780 mobos with HD3850 graphics There is no noticeable difference running Ubuntu 810 ( my Windows only box is C2Q 6700 on a P35 Shuttle , windows only because the P35 Shuttle would not play nice with Linux )
If AMD's new Dragon Platform is as well balanced and stable as the Spider platform it most likely will be worth my while upgrading . That said I have found very little to be gained in most applications by using a Quad ( Intel or AMD ) or any major real world speed difference between the C2Q and AMD at similar clock speed . I would like to run an i7 on a 790 (place letters of choice here ) mobo but that is not going to happen . So for me Phenom II is looking to be good enough if the price is right - if not I will just keep using what I already have .
Small Fast and Silent - Quiet SFF With Gonads!

austinbike
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:09 pm

Post by austinbike » Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:09 pm

Tobias wrote:Quad core CPU:s at 2.3-2.7GHz with a TDP of 55W? Sounds great to me:)
Actually the 2.3-2.7 shanghai parts are 75W acp, not 55w. However, I have seen a few benchmark results that show the 75W shanghais drawing about the same power as 55W barcelonas. Impressive.

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:53 pm

I wonder if these CPU's will bring back HTT overclocking?
790 boards can do 400 MHz, but that's only with K8 so far.

It's too bad that old AM2 boards most likely won't get BIOS updates for P2, P1 was never really an alternative anyway.

pony-tail
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Brisbane AU

Post by pony-tail » Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:43 pm

Quite a few AM2+ mobos from gigabyte and Asus will work with a bois update . there was a list on AMDzone on 26/11/08 of the boards they intend support for .
Small Fast and Silent - Quiet SFF With Gonads!

austinbike
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:09 pm

Post by austinbike » Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:14 am

I was able to drop an Opteron quad core (1356) into a gigabyte GA-MA69SM board.

No problem recognizing it with the latest bios.

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:27 am

pony-tail: Yeah but I was talking about AM2.

austinbike: Good to hear! Can you tell me the exact model name? I couldn't find it on their site. Maybe it's this one?
I have an old Gigabyte AM2 nVidia mobo that supports P1 X3's, but I'd really like to use it with a P2 instead.

Some AM2 boards seem to work with 65 nm P1's, but I have no idea if the P2's will work.
My guess is that they'll be left behind and won't get a BIOS update.

pony-tail
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Brisbane AU

Post by pony-tail » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:37 pm

pony-tail: Yeah but I was talking about AM2.
That is why I specified the AM2+ in my post so as not to have confusion .
Small Fast and Silent - Quiet SFF With Gonads!

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:52 pm

austinbike: It seems like the CPU can't lower the Vcore in idle when used together with an older, single plane AM2 motherboard, have you noticed this?

austinbike
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:09 pm

Post by austinbike » Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:28 pm

Yes, that is the board and yes, the vcore does not drop, but the frequency does.

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:23 pm

The power consumption has once again claimed to be really low.
This site says the 940 uses 50 W under load, while the 9950 uses 120 W.

Next week we'll know for sure.

Tzupy
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1561
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:47 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Tzupy » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:41 am

What happens next week, so we'll know for sure?

That site actually claimed a 70W difference between an old Phenom and the new underclocked one.
Maybe this still means that a stock clocked 925 (2.8 GHz) will draw a maximum of 55W?
I plan to upgrade my mobo, CPU and memory in the next 2-3 months, so if the 925 is on par with the Q9550s, I'm going for it.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:54 am

I don't understand AMD's marketing here. I've got an Opteron 185 currently, which was rated at 110W when I got it. It's a very hot chip and is challenging to keep it below 65C when slightly overclocked, even with the HDT-1283, which is one of the top HSF's available. The main reason I have avoided even thinking about going AMD again is that I know how hard my 110W rated chip is to keep cool and the Phenom X4's are all 125-140W rated.

Meanwhile Intel has plenty of 95W rated C2Q's. The Intel chips, because they were the first to go 45nm, really do deliver on their promise of lower power draw and greater overclockability. I would think if AMD wanted to recapture the mainstream again, they should have released these chips as 65W rated for the 2.1-2.5ghz models if the draw is really that low, and 95W for the 2.6-3.0 models. If it's really capable of 4ghz on air, then sell it as a 3.6 and if it draws 140W to do it, then at least people know what they're in for.

As it stands, I still can't picture myself buying AMD right now if they are offering higher power draw per clockspeed, especially with many real-world applications showing that Ghz for Ghz, they underperform Core2 chips anyway.
[size=67]Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600[/size]

CallmeRoth
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:41 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CallmeRoth » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:06 am

Iam not sure if anyone mentioned it but theres also a new platform slated for announce and a new socket.

Dragon - 790GX, PhenomII, HD4800's

and the AM3 socket which Iam kinda confused about because Gigabyte has said their 780G and 790GX are "AM3 Ready". Also I think in Q2 they will be FINALLY releasing some DDR3 ATI based boards.
-AMD/ATI Lifetimer-
-Dragon Platform-

Post Reply