PVTCaboose1337+1

+2 along with forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=43690

panchomanor a multi cpu system. wonder if anyone has tried dropping 4 barcelonas in one of these:
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813151089

will phenoms work on socket am2? www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813151008 could be looking at 16 cored system.

the first one will work with barclona cpus
the secound is socket 940 and will not

AMD Phenom will work in AM2 and AM2+ Motherboards
AMD Athlon & Sempron will work in AM2 and AM2+ Motherboards

AMD DDR3 CPU will work in AM2, AM2+ and AM3 Motherboards
AMD Phenom, Athlon & Sempron will not work in AM3 Motherboards

talk about a easy upgrade path :D
AMD Athlon DDR2 Dual COre > AMD Phenom X4 Quad Core > AMD DDR3 CPU

Very nice. I do know for a fact, or from press releases, they are gonna have Phenom X2 chips...and regular Athlon chips. These should spar well, but obviously not overtake Intel. Not with these batches of chips. these are very reasonable in price and Im all warm and fuzzy waiting for them to be released.

OK, kiddies. Here's a tiny sample lesson on TDP! Intel lies, AMD exaggerates power usage. There, I said it, now shut up and sit down.
Intel gives an "average" of what the cpu might use. AMD gives an absolute, theoretical MAXIMUM of what it can use. See the difference.
If you still haven't figured it out yet - Intel means that you need to add probably 15 watts. AMD means take away about 10 or more watts. AND AMD also has the IMC adding w/e wattage (we have no clue, but I think the rough estimate is 5 watts, maybe a lil more).

/rant

P.S. Anymore complaining and the next one is gonna end with /kicking your ass

TheGuruStudOK, kiddies. Here's a tiny sample lesson on TDP! Intel lies, AMD exaggerates power usage. There, I said it, now shut up and sit down.
Intel gives an "average" of what the cpu might use. AMD gives an absolute, theoretical MAXIMUM of what it can use. See the difference.
If you still haven't figured it out yet - Intel means that you need to add probably 15 watts. AMD means take away about 10 or more watts. AND AMD also has the IMC adding w/e wattage (we have no clue, but I think the rough estimate is 5 watts, maybe a lil more).

/rant

P.S. Anymore complaining and the next one is gonna end with /kicking your ass

:roll:

*loooks and finds alot of peeps now sitting on the floor

Its true tho I believe, AMD uses a differnt thermal envelope classification system, they try to make it as comparable to Intels for obvious reasons, but I think uising the absolute max for its TDP is more sinsible, It means you can go get an appropriate cooler that will handle this load.

It did look a tad worrying jumping from the 9600 95W to the 9700 125W tho, and this worries me about potential overclocking. BUT, I would believe 125W would be at 4x100% core useage? and that normally never happens during gaming.

(I better be bleedin able to overclock the 08 Q1 FX's or im not gonna b happy)

Just gonna get an X2 4000+ or sommit to see me on the M3A32 till Q1 of 08

Edit: **On a very diff side note:

you think its the lack of an IMC that allows intel chips to clock so high? Ive always wondered that tbh

Ben ClarkeBut I wanted to live on Mars :( :cry:

Space friggin cadets the lot of you!

von kainehmmm guys 1 question who i have to kill to get one???



the rest is my job...

You dont need to kill anyone,,,,,,before long they will be giving them away as they all rush for Penryn's........trust me ;)

wiakdont think so, Phenom X4 and intel Core 2 Quad are in the same alley
Phenom X4 2.0ghz scores around the same as a X2 6400+ and thats good, a X4 2.4ghz should be around 20% faster than X2 6400+ on 3dmark,pcmark etc, but where the preformace is is when it comes to encoding video (HD 1080i to 720p using x264 with all cores), there a quadcore phenom x4 will realy hit the jackpot by outpreform X2 6400+ by over 50% i estamate



i bet they just added them as AM2 as they are backwards compatibility

Thats good? The much awaited Phenom can only just about match (if at all) current 65nm C2D's.....if that really is the case thats a catastrophie because all it does is confirm what all us AMD lovers fear most......and thats that we will be playing "2nd fiddle" yet again to Intel. So we live in hope that the price difference will make the AMD the smart move..........and that wont last long because as Intel continue to take 70% of the sales they will be in the financial position to lower their prices in 6 months time, reap huge profits and break the back finally of AMD.......sorry was having a grim reaper moment then :ohwell:

The other problem of course is that because of the success of C2D, 65% of anyone who has either bought a PC or done a major upgrade to a PC in the last year now has a S775 motherboard, the Phenom prices wont look so inviting if they dont come with the performance if current Intel owners have to pay for the new motherboard as well (me) :(

Price difference ALWAYS makes AMD the smart move. You're gettin a quad=core, for Intel's dual-core price.

Intel's greed will always make me shy away from buying, even though I know deep down that they are faster and overclock better. If there were no laws on monopolies I'm sure Intel would have cut AMD's throat back in 1998.

such ignorance in this post ...

BasardPrice difference ALWAYS makes AMD the smart move. You're gettin a quad=core, for Intel's dual-core price.

Intel's greed will always make me shy away from buying, even though I know deep down that they are faster and overclock better. If there were no laws on monopolies I'm sure Intel would have cut AMD's throat back in 1998.

Greed? It's a company, and it's sole purpose is to contribute to the global market and making money for the stock holders (if they have any stock holders). Also, Intel has been the best move for money the past year anyway.

Another thing: If AMD had Intels position now, would you complain and feel sorry for Intel? I think not.. AMD has just the same amount of greed as Intel, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Fanboism is evil and should be banned, hunted down and then exterminated.

FrickGreed? It's a company, and it's sole purpose is to contribute to the global market and making money for the stock holders (if they have any stock holders). Also, Intel has been the best move for money the past year anyway.

Another thing: If AMD had Intels position now, would you complain and feel sorry for Intel? I think not.. AMD has just the same amount of greed as Intel, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Fanboism is evil and should be banned, hunted down and then exterminated.

exactly .. the spouting of by fanbois in this thread and other phenom threads is absolutely disgusting, sickening even.

[I.R.A]_FBiexactly .. the spouting of by fanbois in this thread and other phenom threads is absolutely disgusting, sickening even.

Agreed....but its ALWAYS fun to pick apart the poorly contructed arguments of said fanboi's

BasardThey are cheaper, the cheapest Intel quad-core is 270 bucks. Or you could pay an extra 750 bucks for .6Ghz more on the QX6850. That doesn't seem fair. At least AMD prices it fairly. Crap, if I had 1000 bucks to drop on a cpu, I would just build TWO AMD systems.

FYI, the Intel Price cuts were JULY 22, 2007, SIX MONTHS AGO...something tells me they can drop them ANYTIME and still make $$ on them...FYI - the 1000 tray re-distributor $$ WAS (in JULY) $266 for a Q6600 (@ 2.4)...and these are showing $247?? For the slowest one? (is that 1.8 or 2.0?)...Then you've got the 'mid' range one @ $278(2.0 or 2.2)...So the AMD is MORE expensive than the intel, clock for clock...Did I mention the Intel's been out for MONTHS?

And Intel could drop the price 10% in a HEARTBEAT and still make $$...

BasardThey are cheaper, the cheapest Intel quad-core is 270 bucks. Or you could pay an extra 750 bucks for .6Ghz more on the QX6850. That doesn't seem fair. At least AMD prices it fairly. Crap, if I had 1000 bucks to drop on a cpu, I would just build TWO AMD systems.

OK so the cheapest Intel quad is $270. The AMD that would compete with that is $278 IN 1,000 PIECE QUANTITIES...


I'm not a fanboi of either. I like competition. Its better for business. Unfortunately, AMD isn't as competitve as they have been. Thats a shame.

If I were AMD I'd release these without too much media fan fair, as Intel can just demo a 45nm quad and SMOKE these...

Its unfortunate, it really is, but thats no excuse to ignore the facts.

end rant;

How many times has AMD been under investigation for anti-competitive practices? And saying that Intel can drop their prices 10% and still make $$ just shows the greed there. AMD keeps their CPUs priced fairly, Intel overcharges for the brand name. If the roles were reversed and AMD was under investigation, and overcharging for their cpus, then yes, I would cry for Intel. But, the roles aren't reversed.

It all depends what type of business practices you want to support when you buy a CPU. Perpetuate the SLOW moving lonely giant. Yes, Intel was crawling along, sucking our wallets dry, with no innovation in site, until the release of the Athlon. I would say that AMD's "greed" is more like an aspiration.

Now I'm an "evil fanboi" because I have a valid opinion about something. Post whores with nothing better to do than cut peoples opinions down by exaggerating the facts, and using big words should be banned, hunted down, and exterminated.

Intel has demonstrated 80 core CPU with tremendous performance a year ago, but they still can't deliver a native 4 core CPU?
I think that Intel will give us it's recently developed CPUs if only Phenom is good enough to compete with 2xC2D from 2005 year on 45nm process (Penrin).

R_1Intel has demonstrated 80 core CPU with tremendous performance a year ago, but they still can't deliver a native 4 core CPU?
I think that Intel will give us it's recently developed CPUs if only Phenom is good enough to compete with 2xC2D from 2005 year on 45nm process (Penrin).

Exactly, just like the demonstrated their "skulltrail" bullcrap or whatever. Good job demoing some technology, now lets see you put it on the shelf. IBM was "demoing" their Ghz chip long before either AMD or Intel were close, but that didn't amount to anything, look at IBM now. Stick some sick air cooling on a Phenom, then oc to 3.5Ghz and see what happens, but who cares its a demo.

BasardPrice difference ALWAYS makes AMD the smart move. You're gettin a quad=core, for Intel's dual-core price.

Intel's greed will always make me shy away from buying, even though I know deep down that they are faster and overclock better. If there were no laws on monopolies I'm sure Intel would have cut AMD's throat back in 1998.

Your kind of missing the point here, I prefer AMD to Intel, always have done but firstly.....look at the pricing of the lower end Intel 45nm quads, then go back over your statement for accuracy, secondly, it soes not mater if you get 8 cores for the price of the two.....if the 8 dont perform as fast, remember, there are very few genuinly multithredded (as opposed to 2 core optimisation) apps out there at present, although of course there will be more to come but just to put it in a gamers perspective, since the first dual core hit the retail shelves some what?........21 months ago now....roughly, out of all the hundreds and thousands of games released since then probably only 5 - 10% of them use more than one core............and before you say it, yes I know, not everyone is a gamer and of course one of the true benefits of a multi core system is multi tasking not just multi thredding, all I am doing is trying to put things into perspective.

If the Phenom is half decent, can more or less match the Yorkfield quads for a competative price then I am definatly in for one, my fear is, that maybe they wont and without that some people are going to be a little dissapointed.

I'll save you the trouble, $266 for a 1333FSB 45nm quad........Available January, stocks at 2.5Gig, 6MB L2 cache, cheaper than 2 of the 3 phenoms shown in post 1:

www.techpowerup.com/img/07-10-13/intelcpuchart.gif

R_1Intel has demonstrated 80 core CPU with tremendous performance a year ago, but they still can't deliver a native 4 core CPU?
I think that Intel will give us it's recently developed CPUs if only Phenom is good enough to compete with 2xC2D from 2005 year on 45nm process (Penrin).

and what is the benefit of a native quad core?

[I.R.A]_FBiand what is the benefit of a native quad core?

Greater efficiency, less heat, less TDP etc etc

Tatty_OneGreater efficiency, less heat, less TDP etc etc

how comes this doesnt show thru comparing teh TDP?

Plus, considering (most) games barely use 2 cores let alone 4, they'll have use of the entire chips cache, where with a dual dual core layout a core/pair of cores can only use half the cache (though this isnt a problem for intel quads as they have plenty of cache anyway)

GringsPlus, considering (most) games barely use 2 cores let alone 4, they'll have use of the entire chips cache, where with a dual dual core layout a core/pair of cores can only use half the cache (though this isnt a problem for intel quads as they have plenty of cache anyway)

This is most likely the reason Intel's chips need so much more cache. Since a native quad core acts more like a single CPU, it uses its cache more efficiently. Every game I run on my system, Even Diablo II (very old), uses both cores of my X2 4000+ about equally. I'd say most NEW games are multi-threaded, at least the ones worth playing are... and if they aren't multi-threaded, they probably don't need to be.

So AMD isn't the king of performance per watt. But they are the king of performance per cache, it that even exists. I'd like to see how a Core2 performs with 512k cache per core.

People who back Intel disgust me. People who defend any large souless corporation disgust me. AMD disgusts me. I... am disgusted.

BasardThis is most likely the reason Intel's chips need so much more cache. Since a native quad core acts more like a single CPU, it uses its cache more efficiently. Every game I run on my system, Even Diablo II (very old), uses both cores of my X2 4000+ about equally. I'd say most NEW games are multi-threaded, at least the ones worth playing are... and if they aren't multi-threaded, they probably don't need to be.

So AMD isn't the king of performance per watt. But they are the king of performance per cache, it that even exists. I'd like to see how a Core2 performs with 512k cache per core.

First Intel needs more cache not because it's not native but because they're memory subsystem SUCKS compared to AMD. Idc if your an Intel or AMD fanboy, but it's flat out true. Second, Intel likes lots of cache because the core microarchitecture was built to access memory less and more cache helps that (check Tom's hardware's report on penryn). Diablo II...I really honest to God doubt that was the game's programming. Perhaps they just used two threads cause it was easier for them to design..but to build it for multi-core highly doubt that. Probably between the different threads and WINDOWS using some of the cpu.

People may say that native quads are better, but in terms of buisness Intel's multi die on a single package is actually better because they can throw out bad ones whereas AMD has to cut one core if it doesn't clock high enough, Intel can take that die throw it into one it's pentium dual core or allendale or slower conroe bins. Oh and native quad core, the benefit is you have less latency because you don't have to communicate across an external bus BUT since AMD uses L3 to connect all the cores you have worse latency than if they used L2, so Intel's quads still do better in a program meant for two cores.

I highly doubt Diablo II was designed for a dual core system, being as it came out when systems were at 400Mhz. I'm just saying that it uses both cores almost equally on my 4000+. splits it about 60/40%, so that tells me that the AMD dual core pretty much splits up the load between the core--meaning native dual core, right? So, in theory, the native quad core will split it up amongst the 4 cores, equally, if the program is multi-threaded or not, unless I'm just plain wrong about that.