Reconsidering Phenom?

[HannibalX]

I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

 

[Extelleron]

The problem with Phenom is that it costs much more than a Core 2 based system and is slower. To get 3.5GHz out of a Phenom you need:

-To get a good X4 9950, which of course is luck of the draw ; $235
-To spend $150-200 on a 790FX/SB750 board
-To potentially spend more on a PSU because of the power consumption

Meanwhile with an E8400...

-Virtually every E8400 will hit 4GHz, even a crappy one like mine ; $170~
-You can get any P35 board that is a good oc'er; many are available for under $100
-Power consumption is extremely low, as long as you have a modern PSU you are fine

The only way I would consider Phenom again is if Deneb at least matches Yorkfield in per clock performance. And even then it would be an ill advised move made purely out of my favoritism for AMD and not logic. Logic would tell me to buy the $284 Nehalem and forget about AMD.

The ultimate problem with considering Phenom as a value purchase is, as I highlighted above, it is anything but a value when compared to an Intel-based system. Phenom costs more than Q6600 yet performs worse on average, and the motherboard cost is much higher. If Phenom were cheaper + quality motherboards were available for a low price that could overclock Phenom well, then I probably would still be using a Phenom.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The problem with Phenom is that it costs much more than a Core 2 based system and is slower. To get 3.5GHz out of a Phenom you need:

-To get a good X4 9950, which of course is luck of the draw ; $235
-To spend $150-200 on a 790FX/SB750 board
-To potentially spend more on a PSU because of the power consumption

Meanwhile with an E8400...

-Virtually every E8400 will hit 4GHz, even a crappy one like mine ; $170~
-You can get any P35 board that is a good oc'er; many are available for under $100
-Power consumption is extremely low, as long as you have a modern PSU you are fine

The only way I would consider Phenom again is if Deneb at least matches Yorkfield in per clock performance. And even then it would be an ill advised move made purely out of my favoritism for AMD and not logic. Logic would tell me to buy the $284 Nehalem and forget about AMD.

The ultimate problem with considering Phenom as a value purchase is, as I highlighted above, it is anything but a value when compared to an Intel-based system. Phenom costs more than Q6600 yet performs worse on average, and the motherboard cost is much higher. If Phenom were cheaper + quality motherboards were available for a low price that could overclock Phenom well, then I probably would still be using a Phenom.

your comparing a dualcore chip to a quadcore, thats not a fair comparison, the correct comparison would be the q6600 which still comes out ahead but not by as much

 

[Idontcare]

My guess would be that of the number of people who are re-considering an upgrade to Phenom thanks in part to the recent SB750 observations, a large majority of them would just as soon hold off another 3 months or so and "step-up" to Deneb for their Phenom experience.

 

[Soulkeeper]

once they release 45nm it'll definately be worth reconsidering, but right now the price/performance and watts/performance ratios aren't there imo
of course it's different for everyone

if someone says they can get 3.4 or 3.5 on air, then that likely means i can get maybe 3 on air at most because it is always 30c where i live

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

my Intel Quad X6800 has been running @ 3.5Ghz for a while now... (dunno)

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The problem with Phenom is that it costs much more than a Core 2 based system and is slower. To get 3.5GHz out of a Phenom you need:

-To get a good X4 9950, which of course is luck of the draw ; $235
-To spend $150-200 on a 790FX/SB750 board
-To potentially spend more on a PSU because of the power consumption

Meanwhile with an E8400...

-Virtually every E8400 will hit 4GHz, even a crappy one like mine ; $170~
-You can get any P35 board that is a good oc'er; many are available for under $100
-Power consumption is extremely low, as long as you have a modern PSU you are fine

The only way I would consider Phenom again is if Deneb at least matches Yorkfield in per clock performance. And even then it would be an ill advised move made purely out of my favoritism for AMD and not logic. Logic would tell me to buy the $284 Nehalem and forget about AMD.

The ultimate problem with considering Phenom as a value purchase is, as I highlighted above, it is anything but a value when compared to an Intel-based system. Phenom costs more than Q6600 yet performs worse on average, and the motherboard cost is much higher. If Phenom were cheaper + quality motherboards were available for a low price that could overclock Phenom well, then I probably would still be using a Phenom.

your comparing a dualcore chip to a quadcore, thats not a fair comparison, the correct comparison would be the q6600 which still comes out ahead but not by as much

When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison. My E8400 beats the Phenom 9500 I had before, even in Cinebench rendering, when both are overclocked.

You can insert the Q6600 there if you want, Phenom still ends up slower and more expensive. And what bothers me is that you can't run Vista x64 with a Phenom unless you want to sacrifice overclocking potential.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
My guess would be that of the number of people who are re-considering an upgrade to Phenom thanks in part to the recent SB750 observations, a large majority of them would just as soon hold off another 3 months or so and "step-up" to Deneb for their Phenom experience.

+1


Deneb!

OR

wait til neha launches and re evaluate. :T

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Falloutboy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The problem with Phenom is that it costs much more than a Core 2 based system and is slower. To get 3.5GHz out of a Phenom you need:

-To get a good X4 9950, which of course is luck of the draw ; $235
-To spend $150-200 on a 790FX/SB750 board
-To potentially spend more on a PSU because of the power consumption

Meanwhile with an E8400...

-Virtually every E8400 will hit 4GHz, even a crappy one like mine ; $170~
-You can get any P35 board that is a good oc'er; many are available for under $100
-Power consumption is extremely low, as long as you have a modern PSU you are fine

The only way I would consider Phenom again is if Deneb at least matches Yorkfield in per clock performance. And even then it would be an ill advised move made purely out of my favoritism for AMD and not logic. Logic would tell me to buy the $284 Nehalem and forget about AMD.

The ultimate problem with considering Phenom as a value purchase is, as I highlighted above, it is anything but a value when compared to an Intel-based system. Phenom costs more than Q6600 yet performs worse on average, and the motherboard cost is much higher. If Phenom were cheaper + quality motherboards were available for a low price that could overclock Phenom well, then I probably would still be using a Phenom.

your comparing a dualcore chip to a quadcore, thats not a fair comparison, the correct comparison would be the q6600 which still comes out ahead but not by as much

When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison.

Compare programs that utilize a quad core to full potential and then compare the dual core in the same program.

Our C2D 3.0's are faster than our Quad 2.33 Xeons in some apps, by your statement it would be worthwhile to replace our quad servers with dual cores.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Falloutboy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The problem with Phenom is that it costs much more than a Core 2 based system and is slower. To get 3.5GHz out of a Phenom you need:

-To get a good X4 9950, which of course is luck of the draw ; $235
-To spend $150-200 on a 790FX/SB750 board
-To potentially spend more on a PSU because of the power consumption

Meanwhile with an E8400...

-Virtually every E8400 will hit 4GHz, even a crappy one like mine ; $170~
-You can get any P35 board that is a good oc'er; many are available for under $100
-Power consumption is extremely low, as long as you have a modern PSU you are fine

The only way I would consider Phenom again is if Deneb at least matches Yorkfield in per clock performance. And even then it would be an ill advised move made purely out of my favoritism for AMD and not logic. Logic would tell me to buy the $284 Nehalem and forget about AMD.

The ultimate problem with considering Phenom as a value purchase is, as I highlighted above, it is anything but a value when compared to an Intel-based system. Phenom costs more than Q6600 yet performs worse on average, and the motherboard cost is much higher. If Phenom were cheaper + quality motherboards were available for a low price that could overclock Phenom well, then I probably would still be using a Phenom.

your comparing a dualcore chip to a quadcore, thats not a fair comparison, the correct comparison would be the q6600 which still comes out ahead but not by as much

When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison.

Compare programs that utilize a quad core to full potential and then compare the dual core in the same program.

Our C2D 3.0's are faster than our Quad 2.33 Xeons in some apps, by your statement it would be worthwhile to replace our quad servers with dual cores.

If you read my post I did just that.

My E8400 @ 4.0GHz > My Phenom 9500 @ 2.5GHz in Cinebench R10, both 32-bit. Since I can actually use 64-bit on my E8400, the difference is more like +15-20% over the quad-core CPU.

 

[aigomorla]

Keep intel outside of AMD threads unless the OP is asking for choices between the Two please.


The fire that lights up from both parties is enough to destory the Post.

So if the title doesnt mention. Intel, please keep out of it.

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

That is because none of them are stable at that overclock to run a performance benchmark. All those numbers are good for is windows bootup. :T

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

Nope - If Phenom was released on time and didn't have the bug, then maybe I would have built another AMD box. But it wasn't, so I didn't. In this case, that particular boat sailed a year and a half ago.

If I had to build a new computer now, I might look. But since the next build is next year, then it's a question of Nehalem versus Deneb. That is, if Deneb gets off the ground in time for when I'm ready to build. If not, then at this juncture I see little reason not to go Intel again.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Keep intel outside of AMD threads unless the OP is asking for choices between the Two please.


The fire that lights up from both parties is enough to destory the Post.

So if the title doesnt mention. Intel, please keep out of it.

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

That is because none of them are stable at that overclock to run a performance benchmark. All those numbers are good for is windows bootup. :T

Anandtech isn't just booting into Windows.... they are running performance tests on these CPUs. So that X4 9950 is good for 3.5GHz. Seeing the performance at that clock would be interesting, particularly with the NB at the highest speed possible as well (2.4GHz for the X4 9950 tested). Sadly nobody has done proper performance testing with Phenom @ 3GHz+ with an overclocked NB. Given the flexibility of the Black Edition CPUs and how easy it is to change CPU/NB speeds with the unlocked multiplier, there is really no excuse for that.

The purpose of this thread is to see whether or not the enhanced overclocking capabilities of Phenom available with SB750 boards improves Phenom's market position enough that it would be a more viable alternative to Intel's offerings. So certainly comparisons to Intel CPUs are valid in this thread. It's hard to answer whether or not one would consider Phenom without comparing Phenom to the other alternatives on the market. This is an open forum and no where does it say that discussions must be either Intel-only or AMD-only in any thread. Blatant fanboyism is one thing, but nobody has displayed that here.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Anandtech isn't just booting into Windows.... they are running performance tests on these CPUs. So that X4 9950 is good for 3.5GHz.

you have a link for this?

i havent seen any benchies of 3.5ghz yet.

i would like to see them however.


And this would allow this thread to be finished if you do have a link.


This is all i can find on AT with the SB750
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3360&p=4

it shows no perfomance benchmark tho.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Anandtech isn't just booting into Windows.... they are running performance tests on these CPUs. So that X4 9950 is good for 3.5GHz.

you have a link for this?

i havent seen any benchies of 3.5ghz yet.

i would like to see them however.


And this would allow this thread to be finished if you do have a link.


This is all i can find on AT with the SB750
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3360&p=5

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3360&p=4

I meant that Anandtech is running stability / performance tests to see if the CPU is stable at that speed. They don't provide any numbers though. Anandtech doesn't specify exactly what they are running to test stability though.... I highly doubt they are running Prime for 24hrs.

The only benchmarks I remember seeing of an overclocked 9850 is Techreport, but that was at 3GHz only and with the NB still @ 2GHz.... scaling is pretty good though:

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14424/16

These are Techreport benches with a 9600 BE including testing w/ NB speeds of 2.2GHz vs stock 1.8GHz with the cores @ 2.5GHz:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14093/2

So there certainly is potential for Phenom to excel @ high clockspeeds + higher NB clocks. It's just too bad that no site seems to want to devote any time to testing how these variables affect Phenom performance.

 

[aigomorla]

yeah this is what i thought too extell,

However i learned without real numbers @ clock, you cant base anything.

The only assumption one can say is that its not stable that clock. :\

Or something wierd happens on long load at that clock.



I do want to see numbers tho. I love numbers. If deneb does prove nice, doesnt have to be TOP, i will be picking one up for giggles. This is the kind of person i am.

 

[Pederv]

I'm not reconsidering a Phenom because of the SB750. I've been waiting for the 790 / 750 chipset to come out before getting a Phenom.
Now it's a matter of waiting for a selection of motherboards and the elusive HD AIW.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
My E8400 @ 4.0GHz > My Phenom 9500 @ 2.5GHz in Cinebench R10, both 32-bit. Since I can actually use 64-bit on my E8400, the difference is more like +15-20% over the quad-core CPU.

We're talking about a Phenom @ 3.5GHz, not 2.5GHz! At 3.5GHz it sure will beat an E8400 @ 4GHz in pretty much any heavily threaded bench. A more accurate comparison would be against the Q6600, which would still come out on top in every measurable facet - performance, price, power and overclocking.

I like the direction AMD is going in, anything extra they can squeeze out of Phenom is a positive step, but the bottom line is that a sub $200 Q6600 on a sub $100 P35 mobo can typically overclock to ~3.6GHz on air. I don't foresee a mass exodus of enthusiasts towards the Phenom platform.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Extelleron
My E8400 @ 4.0GHz > My Phenom 9500 @ 2.5GHz in Cinebench R10, both 32-bit. Since I can actually use 64-bit on my E8400, the difference is more like +15-20% over the quad-core CPU.

We're talking about a Phenom @ 3.5GHz, not 2.5GHz! At 3.5GHz it sure will beat an E8400 @ 4GHz in pretty much any heavily threaded bench. A more accurate comparison would be against the Q6600, which would still come out on top in every measurable facet - performance, price, power and overclocking.

I like the direction AMD is going in, anything extra they can squeeze out of Phenom is a positive step, but the bottom line is that a sub $200 Q6600 on a sub $100 P35 mobo can typically overclock to ~3.6GHz on air. I don't foresee a mass exodus of enthusiasts towards the Phenom platform.

The difference is that you can 99% expect that an E8400 will hit 4GHz at reasonable voltage on air cooling, meanwhile a Phenom hitting 3.5GHz is still a rare occurence right now. If you look on xtremesystems there are plenty of people who can't hit 3GHz with a 9850, especially under Vista x64. The bottom line is that with Phenom, you cannot expect anything. Whether or not SB750 is going to perform a miracle for all these chips.... based on Anandtech's results that is a bit inconclusive at this point. It does seem like there is a significant improvement but not enough that you will see 2.8GHz overclocks turning into 3.5GHz. And I'm not so sure I'd be happy keeping a Phenom @ 1.475V 24/7. From my experience a 2.5GHz Phenom @ 1.344V gets plenty hot enough.... I don't want to imagine a 3.5GHz Phenom @ 1.475V. So the difference between an overclocked Phenom and an overclocked E8400 may not be as big as you think. Certainly not when considering single threaded performance, power consumption, accessory costs (expensive cooler, expensive mobo with PWM capable of handling 150W+, potentially more expensive PSU), and the overall cost of the CPU.

A Q6600 is a better comparison if you are talking about mostly multithreaded workloads though.

The final word IMO: Right now Phenom is not worth considering over an Intel platform unless you simply won't consider buying an Intel CPU or you want a second system to play around with (Phenom BE would certainly be interesting to OC). When 45nm Deneb is available, this may change and then a Phenom system may be worth considering over an Intel platform.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Intel quads are still better but SB750 is def a step in the right direction, it proves once again the importance of a good motherboard. There are people with Q6600 that cannot get to 3ghz so it's not a guaranteed thing in either side.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
Intel quads are still better but SB750 is def a step in the right direction, it proves once again the importance of a good motherboard. There are people with Q6600 that cannot get to 3ghz so it's not a guaranteed thing in either side.

the only gaurentee you have is that it will run stock at what it was designed for.

Anything after is a matter of luck.


EDIT:

This APPLIES to BOTH AMD and INTEL and ANY OTHER CPU you can find on the market.

 

[Acanthus]

More IPC, same OC, cheaper mobo, lower power consumption

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
More IPC, same OC, cheaper mobo, lower power consumption

You know there must be some major high-volume buyers when Newegg starts offering volume-discount pricing on Q6600's. I've never seen that before :shocked:

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

I'm reconsidering Phenom for a few reasons:

Per mhz performance is close enough to Intel's chips
Better scaling beyond 2 cores (reduces the Intel advantage)
Better performance in memory limited situations (not a big deal)
Can get a triple core for the price of an Intel dual core, and Phenom will overclock to close enough to the Intel performance
Don't know if it still holds, but the initially core 2 duos suffered a slight performance decrease on average in 64 bit, compared to the slight performance increase athlon 64s always had
Assuming TLB bug has been fixed in current revisions?

In short, 3 cores versus 2, and per mhz performance is a wash. At the 4 core range, I'd be interested to see how they compare with a game that uses all 4 cores, but the Phenom would have unacceptable power usage, and thus isn't really an option.
Also, AMD platforms, even for phenom, are still a bit cheaper.

The major downside would be that phenom quad cores run too hot, but at least they're capable of independently disabling a core.

Of course, Nehalem in the fall will invalidate any current system as a performance or efficient system.

When I built my system, the option was overpriced X2s versus Core 2 Duos. At the time it was a no brainer. Even when phenom came out, there was a clear cut choice. Now, AMD has increased performance and slashed prices enough to make them a good choice, and their relative advantages in core coherency, 64 bit, and asynchronous/slow memory make the performance picture look a bit better even (ie, makes up for them not clocking as high even with the newest mobos). At least until the fall.
Oh, but power consumption is a big reason to avoid them, at least until 45nm.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Oh, but power consumption is a big reason to avoid them, at least until 45nm.

It's true, the prices have been smartly reduced such that performance/price for the initial purchase is pretty close to parity for the lower-end of the performance spectrum where Phenom and C2Q performances overlap (or where X3 and C2D performances overlap) but the performance/watt battle is decisively an Intel victory at the moment so when you add in the TCO (total cost of ownership) of that X3 or Phenom rig over the course of a year or two years you find out you are likely spending an extra $70-$100 on that AMD rig versus having owned the performance equivalent Intel rig for the same period of time.

Were I simply to own a single system then I probably wouldn't be so concerned with performance/watt...but having six quad rigs it definitely requires me to be a little bit selective with my performance/watt selections. Obviously I am a corner case so I do not attempt to extrapolate my viewpoint to that of the typical desktop segment consumer. But if you are a business buying 100's of desktops for your employees to use for email/powerpoint/word/etc then the low-power Intel dual-cores become a pretty attractive commodity for these reasons.