Phenom vs. Conroe .

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Regs
When did the "Spider" class initally get announced? All I heard 6-12 months ago was Stars and the Agenia class with AMD saying 2.4 GHz and 2.6 GHz. Now we have Spider which charges us a premium for 100Mhz increments. Over clocking or not, 100Mhz difference in processors isn't exactly marketing brilliance.

"At first Phenom was going to launch at either 2.8GHz or 2.6GHz; then we got word that it would be either 2.6GHz or 2.4GHz. A week ago the story was 2.4GHz and lower, then a few days ago we got the final launch frequencies: 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz. "


"Rather than paper launch a 2.4GHz part, AMD chose to go with more modest frequencies, promising faster, more competitive chips in Q1 2008. It's not the best PR story in the world, but it's the honest truth. "

AMD is not the best getting things out of the door on time but at least they're honest. Though now they promise a 2.4GHz and a 2.6GHz for Q1 of 08'. God help them if they have to eat their words again.

Spider is a platform, not a CPU (similar to the way Centrino was a platform)...Agena is still the CPU.
Spider was first talked about 6 months ago.

 

[Mana]

Sigh, despite my earlier comments, after reading the reviews on Phenom I am finding myself inching more and more toward a Q6600. I only buy a CPU/motherboard combo every 1-2 years, and the fact that Phenom is apparently not overclocking very well really doesn't help things. However, the features of the 790FX are very tempting.

I really do honestly believe that once the next steppings are out, Phenom will be competitive, but at this time I'm not really sure I can justify buying it given my financial situation and buying habits. If only the new steppings were out now :|

AMD really needs a boost, but blargh I am conflicted.

 

[gOJDO]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003Well, what do you think will happen?

I think... This is a pure "paper launch". AMD will deliver few thousands Phenom 2.2GHz for X-mas, so they'll shut few mouths yelling about unavailability. I don't think AMD are going to reduce the prices enough to make the 2.2GHz worth more than a Q6600, since its much more expensive to produce then the Q6600.
I don't expect Phenom X4 to appear in volume in any stocks until Q2. Meanwhile AMD'll do their best to improve their yields and boost the frequencies.

IMO, they need a new revision which will reduce power consumption, increase the CPU frequency, fix the divider memory issue and increase the NB and L3 frequencies to cores frequency. That way they can improve the IPC up to 10%, while the higher frequency will lead to further performance improvement. 45nm won't come before mid 2009, so thats only what they can do with their 65nm and K10.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Actually, my point was in anticipation of a review like this. Seriously... You still don't get it. AMD will HAVE to adjust pricing especially after these reviews.

You think?! But will they?

Well, what do you think will happen?

I think Nehalem is no longer a 2008 cpu.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Actually, my point was in anticipation of a review like this. Seriously... You still don't get it. AMD will HAVE to adjust pricing especially after these reviews.

You think?! But will they?

Well, what do you think will happen?

I think Nehalem is no longer a 2008 cpu.

Nehalem may end up being the server processor to combat multi-socket server space.

Intel certainly has little motivation to roll it out for the desktop markets though.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
I think Nehalem is no longer a 2008 cpu.

Somehow I doubt it, I don't think Intel will postpone/alter their plans on AMD behalf.

What I think will happen, is that intel will use this "opportunity" to take their time and launch Nehalem only when they are comfortable with their yields (aka profit margins). If AMD's inability to scale Phenom (and Barcelona) will continue we may even see the Intel launch Nehalem with non-extreme versions, probably upper-mainstream / entry high-end versions (400$ to 600$ as a wild guess).

Also, this (Phenom launch) may (or may not) push Intel to allocate more resource into Larrabee.

My 2c.

 

[Vinas]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Now for the masses Phenom will do just fine. Enthusiast= Penryn.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Headroom on Phenom cannot compare to C2Q. Although it's a good upgrade for current AM2 owners. Still, I'll be upgrading from the e6600 to the e8500 instead of quad just yet.

 

[j0j081]

so when are the high clocking Phenoms predicted to be available?

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Apples to Apples is my best against your best= Apples to Apples.

No, apples to apples = $200 CPU vs $200 CPU with everything else as close as possible.

For my budget in my latest system, I went with an X2 6000+ @ £100. Pound for Pound, at and around this price, AMD beat Intel's offering and it was no contest.

That to me is apples to apples.

I agree with Lonyo. Whether Intel is faster clock or not, it is what is the fastest for my budget that matters, failing that... the most performance offered after overclocking as per my budget.

 

[Vinas]

Originally posted by: Hulk
Remember this is the world's first native quad core chip. AMD did do that and I give them a lot of credit for that achievement.

I'm not sure "true quad" matters at all except that it's harder to manufacture this stuff. Intel made a true quad (IMO) the cheap and effective way because they wanted to make money. I and many others credit intel with creating the first true quad, regardless if it's on the same piece of silicone or not. Really where's the performance benefit from producing 4 cores on one slab of silicone today? Unless of course you want a more expensive to produce, lesser yield product. Isn't that why AMD is producing the tri-core aka one core dead on a chip CPU? I believe intel had and still has the right approach to producing quad core CPU's. Make a bunch of duals that work at high speeds, slap them together and package them for LGA775.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well I guess the verdict is still out. One of our forum members jurist . Insist that Stepping B3 will have amd engineers dancing in the isles. Like what they did with B2 stepping .

Will it never end. Even now today I here whispers of bulldoozer. It pretty much a given according to jurist I referred to that Intel nehalem will fail miserably . LOL.

 

[bradley]

AMD only has two FABs to Intel's fifteen... 7.5 times more FABs. That's a huge disparity. AMD also doesn't have as much capital to launch many projects concurrently. Therefore, they fashioned native core early, in order to prepare themselves for later designs. The future will make native core a necessity, as Intel has also discovered with Nehalem. AMD just probably didn't realize how tough native quad core design would be to bring to fruition.

Yet, no matter what anyone says, having the first x86 native dual and quad core chips in production is quite an accomplishment.

 

[bradley]

Originally posted by: gOJDO

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003Well, what do you think will happen?

I think... This is a pure "paper launch". AMD will deliver few thousands Phenom 2.2GHz for X-mas, so they'll shut few mouths yelling about unavailability. I don't think AMD are going to reduce the prices enough to make the 2.2GHz worth more than a Q6600, since its much more expensive to produce then the Q6600.
I don't expect Phenom X4 to appear in volume in any stocks until Q2. Meanwhile AMD'll do their best to improve their yields and boost the frequencies.

IMO, they need a new revision which will reduce power consumption, increase the CPU frequency, fix the divider memory issue and increase the NB and L3 frequencies to cores frequency. That way they can improve the IPC up to 10%, while the higher frequency will lead to further performance improvement. 45nm won't come before mid 2009, so thats only what they can do with their 65nm and K10.

I agree with *most* of what you stated. The revision is imperative for lots of different reasons, including the L3, and should theoretically realize greater stability and a fairly substantial speed increase. Anyone who says otherwise is probably just being silly.

EXCEPT, aren't you misusing the term "paper launch" if these chips are available today and shipping? For instance, a good friend of mine has now owned a Phenom since last Friday. I might say that AMD is dumping these chips into the enthusiast market though. I also believe AMD's 45nm process will be ramped up and available by Q3 2008.

 

[Nemesis 1]

It would seem Dell is upset with AMD along with other system builders.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techt...e-emphasize-amd-in-08/

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20071122PD214.html



To bad AMD didn't take care of buisiness when they were performance leader. AMDs lawsuite is looking worse and worse with each passing month. Now if Dell Drops AMD altogether that would be the clincher.

 

[bradley]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
It would seem Dell is upset with AMD along with other system builders.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techt...e-emphasize-amd-in-08/

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20071122PD214.html



To bad AMD didn't take care of buisiness when they were performance leader. AMDs lawsuite is looking worse and worse with each passing month. Now if Dell Drops AMD altogether that would be the clincher.

I wouldn't have been surprised if Dell imposed a moritorium on Phenom sales and waited for B3. Anything more than that action would appear pretty harsh. However, it seems as if AMD and Dell shareholders have many billions of reasons to be angry at Dell and Intel.

http://www.out-law.com/page-7730

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well than what about

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20071122PD214.html

or even more system builders doing the same thing?

Intel seem intent on allowing AMD 10% of the market. Now 10% is rather good if you look at the 2 companies sizes. 10% of the world market . If AMD can't make money at 10% they can't make money.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: taltamir
How about a phenom with an nvidia ultra instead? Or a QX9650 with two GT in SLI? I mean once you start comparing unrelated things like that just because "they were made by the same company" there is simply no end... I mean, M284

Originally posted by: taltamir
apples to apples is 200$ vs 200$.... apples to gold plated apples with spinning rims and diamond studs is "my best vs your best".

Nobody but you thinks comparing a 1000$ cpu to a 250$ cpu is a good benchmark, because everyone assumes that the 1000$ cpu is gonna perform better. They compare the 200$ to 200$ from each company because that is what people are gonna buy, they set a price and get the most for that price.

You really shouldn't contradict yourself in the same thread.

Repeat after me... Sar-Ca-Sam!

My second post is laden with sarcasm... and thus does not contradict the first one, instead driving the point home... And counters the new ideas of comparing an intel chip with nvidia video cards to an amd chip with amd video CARDS in crossfire... which is even more stupid then the original premise of comparing 1000$ cpu to a 200$ one...

 

[SolMiester]

Wow, i thought apples to apples = like to like = clock v clock. To me $ v $ is retail related, not manufacturer!

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Wow, i thought apples to apples = like to like = clock v clock. To me $ v $ is retail related, not manufacturer!

Are you a microprocessor engineer or a consumer? Retail IS what matters.
apples to apples = like to like = $ vs $....
Clock for Clock is engineering related and has absolutely nothing to do with consumers. (are you also comparing a p4 at 2ghz to a core2 at 2ghz?)

Everyone on these forums is a consumer, some of us are also reviewers... none of us are engineers.. so why would we say that money is completely unrelated?

Even if you were an engineer I wouldn't say money is unrelated... You keep repeating over and over that money doesn't matter. It does.

And any sane individual who lives in reality and not some fantasy world would realize that money matters. I don't think you are insane though, I think you are just fanning for a flame war and intentionally saying such things... I seriously don't believe that you would buy a worse product from company A because "lol company A has a 1000$ part that is the bestest, better then the 200$ part from company B, so I will pay 300$ for a part made by company A that is the exact same as a 200$ part from company B... roflmaololercopter"...

And before you get on my case about intel vs amd... I intentionally used the "company a" example because right now the 200$ from Intel IS better then the 250$ part from AMD... That is not the issue. The issue is the insistence of comparing the 1000$ part to the 250$ one.
You know damn well it is not apples to apples, you are just being a troll.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Wow, i thought apples to apples = like to like = clock v clock. To me $ v $ is retail related, not manufacturer!

Hypothetical scenario: octo-core chip at 20 GHz versus quad-core at 40 GHz.

You going to tell me comparing "clock v clock" is the apples-to-apples comparison you are interested in when evaluating two hypothetical processors such as these?

In a mult-core multi-socket world, clock/clock comparisons take on smaller and smaller meaning, less and less utility.

Scaling of performance across cores will mean more and more. This has always been true, even in the days of single-core dual-socket (dual celeron 333A's anyone?).

Look where FASN8 ended up...in a little place I like to call "performance per dollar'ville".

You could look to the GPU world for more analogy. AMD still sells plenty of video cards, at the right price, and I'll be damned if I have ever read a critical review where someone tried to compare ATi versus Nvidia GPUs on a "clock v clock" basis.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Wow, i thought apples to apples = like to like = clock v clock. To me $ v $ is retail related, not manufacturer!

Are you a microprocessor engineer or a consumer? Retail IS what matters.
apples to apples = like to like = $ vs $....
Clock for Clock is engineering related and has absolutely nothing to do with consumers. (are you also comparing a p4 at 2ghz to a core2 at 2ghz?)

Everyone on these forums is a consumer, some of us are also reviewers... none of us are engineers.. so why would we say that money is completely unrelated?

Even if you were an engineer I wouldn't say money is unrelated... You keep repeating over and over that money doesn't matter. It does.

And any sane individual who lives in reality and not some fantasy world would realize that money matters. I don't think you are insane though, I think you are just fanning for a flame war and intentionally saying such things... I seriously don't believe that you would buy a worse product from company A because "lol company A has a 1000$ part that is the bestest, better then the 200$ part from company B, so I will pay 300$ for a part made by company A that is the exact same as a 200$ part from company B... roflmaololercopter"...

And before you get on my case about intel vs amd... I intentionally used the "company a" example because right now the 200$ from Intel IS better then the 250$ part from AMD... That is not the issue. The issue is the insistence of comparing the 1000$ part to the 250$ one.
You know damn well it is not apples to apples, you are just being a troll.

Or like some reviews they do clock to clock show the difference then say even though this one performed 10% better it costs 40% more. It's all relative.

 

[taltamir]

and you know what, since when is "1000$ 3Ghz, fastest by company A vs 250$ 2.4ghz fastest by company B" a clock v clock comparison? they have completely different clocks!

 

[Nemesis 1]

OK. I have heard apples to apples = Ghz vs Ghz/ $vs$ / Best vs Best ect. ect. .

OK apples to apples how do we compare Nehalem to Bulldoozer?

GHZ/ $$$ / Performance / Threads.

SO a 4 core nehalem should go against a 8core bulldozer. Which could get AMD close to Nehalem. So what does an 8core Nehalem go against. AMD won't have anything that can do 16 threads.
SO how are these going to be compared Apples to Apples? Cost? 8 thread vs 4 or 16 vs 8/ Performance again 8/16vs 4/8 threads/ GHz. Again 8/16 vs 4/8 . SO tell me how your going to do apples to apples. Intel has said the jump from Netburst to C2D will be less performance than the jump from C2D to Nehalem . The way intel has delievered I am not going to say it can't be done.

NO I don't think AMD bulldoozer can match Nehalem. Maybe if intel did the work. I also believe if amd tries ssoi on 45nm it will be a disaster for them. If they don't go SSOI they can't be ready in 1h 08 with 45nm.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Wow, i thought apples to apples = like to like = clock v clock. To me $ v $ is retail related, not manufacturer!

Are you a microprocessor engineer or a consumer? Retail IS what matters.
apples to apples = like to like = $ vs $....
Clock for Clock is engineering related and has absolutely nothing to do with consumers. (are you also comparing a p4 at 2ghz to a core2 at 2ghz?)

Everyone on these forums is a consumer, some of us are also reviewers... none of us are engineers.. so why would we say that money is completely unrelated?

Even if you were an engineer I wouldn't say money is unrelated... You keep repeating over and over that money doesn't matter. It does.

And any sane individual who lives in reality and not some fantasy world would realize that money matters. I don't think you are insane though, I think you are just fanning for a flame war and intentionally saying such things... I seriously don't believe that you would buy a worse product from company A because "lol company A has a 1000$ part that is the bestest, better then the 200$ part from company B, so I will pay 300$ for a part made by company A that is the exact same as a 200$ part from company B... roflmaololercopter"...

And before you get on my case about intel vs amd... I intentionally used the "company a" example because right now the 200$ from Intel IS better then the 250$ part from AMD... That is not the issue. The issue is the insistence of comparing the 1000$ part to the 250$ one.
You know damn well it is not apples to apples, you are just being a troll.

Taltamir, I think you should just chill out abit, where you get flaming and trolling in 1 sentence is anybodies guess...

If you were to race 2 cars together to see which was faster, would you use motors that cost the same to buy or had the same cc rating....I doubt ford sells there V8 at the same price as Chevy, would you then compare it to a V6?. I dont think so.

Most people relate cpu power via clock speed, are you going to tell me differently?, apples to apples does NOT relate to cost of purchase silly boy, it relates to power output or return.

Well thats my understanding, that fact of the matter is they have different IPC's and architecture, but have the same rated cycles. To compare Intel against AMD on cost is unfair to AMD as they do not have the FAB resourses behaind them, so they costs to manufacture will be more expensive.