Saturday, January 12th 2008

AMD Phenom Quad-Core Processor Update

You may have seen a few online headlines today indicating “AMD Phenom processor delays.” AMD sent Legit Reviews an e-mail as they would like to clarify where things stand with this on-going roll-out of new true quad-core and triple-core processors.
  • AMD launched its highest-volume versions of AMD Phenom quad-core processors in mid-November (models 9500 and 9600), and we shipped hundreds of thousands in Q4 2007. OEMs demonstrated production AMD Phenom processor-based desktops during 2008 International CES this week.
  • For the enthusiast market, AMD then launched a performance tunable “Black Edition” of the 9600 model in December 2007 to address the enthusiast market. This was an additional quad-core product added to our Q4 roadmap and is now available on major e-tailer sites.
  • AMD will now introduce the AMD Phenom 9700 and 9900 models in Q2 2008. This decision was based on OEM input on how AMD should prioritize its next two waves of AMD Phenom processor models. Based on these customer inputs, AMD will continue to prioritize volume-based Phenom products, including the AMD Phenom triple-core processor introduction for consumer and commercial markets this quarter, and now a new energy–efficient 65W AMD Phenom 9000e series processor in this quarter (instead of Q2). AMD Phenom 9700 and 9900 models will immediately follow next quarter.
  • Our OEM customers are placing more priority on our energy-efficient and triple-core processors, where the volumes and ability to differentiate products take precedence over the more prestigious, but much lower volume, higher performance quad-core products.
Source: Legit Reviews
Add your own comment

16 Comments on AMD Phenom Quad-Core Processor Update

#1
tigger
I'm the only one
If they get a higher demand for the tri core phenoms,does that mean they would have to knobble good quads to make them into tri's to meet demand.That would be a bit strange if they did.
Posted on Reply
#2
Silverel
That'd be great for the people wanting tri-core processors if you could unlock the 4th core. Kinda like locked pipelines on video cards :p
Posted on Reply
#3
largon
No reason to expect the 4th core could ever be unlocked...
Posted on Reply
#4
trog100
reading between the lines it means we are gonna be cheap and push the fact 3 uses less leccy than four.. they cant compete with 4 so lets try something different.. energy efficient 3..

3 is less power hungry than 4.. course the same logic could be applied to 2 but nobody wants that..

trog
Posted on Reply
#5
a111087
its good that AMD listens to what OEMs think
Posted on Reply
#6
[I.R.A]_FBi
they have to OEM's make a good chunk of their sales.
Posted on Reply
#7
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Exactly. This plays well into a strategy of going into the black for AMD instead of swimming in a sea of Red. Id like to see this "Black edition" 9600 and hope the L3 bug they got is fixed.
Posted on Reply
#8
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
if AMD prices the tris close to the intel dualies they will sell like hotcakes :D well as long as the TLB bug is gone
Posted on Reply
#9
jpierce55
by: cdawall
if AMD prices the tris close to the intel dualies they will sell like hotcakes :D well as long as the TLB bug is gone
The tri-cores can't possibly have any performance, my x2 is faster than my Phenom 9600 by 300 points in Sciencemark, about 200 points in 3dmark.

The TLB bug only shows in labs, it is not the problem.
Posted on Reply
#10
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: jpierce55
The tri-cores can't possibly have any performance, my x2 is faster than my Phenom 9600 by 300 points in Sciencemark, about 200 points in 3dmark.

The TLB bug only shows in labs, it is not the problem.
and the 9600 is @ stock speeds? seems to make sense to me seeing how your X2 is @3+ghz

also the TLB bug does not only show in labs it will show in anything that using the L3 extensively ie. CAD, inventor, folding@home, and high res video conversion
Posted on Reply
#11
jpierce55
by: cdawall
and the 9600 is @ stock speeds? seems to make sense to me seeing how your X2 is @3+ghz

also the TLB bug does not only show in labs it will show in anything that using the L3 extensively ie. CAD, inventor, folding@home, and high res video conversion
I have read a few articles saying it has never been reported in a real world instance, but no matter...

The Phenom will only clock to 2.46 with my Asus M3A. It is not at stock to be 300 points behind the x2, it is the Phenom's best oc with my board.

I have a write up on the forum about that board iirc.
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: jpierce55
I have read a few articles saying it has never been reported in a real world instance, but no matter...

The Phenom will only clock to 2.46 with my Asus M3A. It is not at stock to be 300 points behind the x2, it is the Phenom's best oc with my board.

I have a write up on the forum about that board iirc.
its still 2.46ghz quad vs 3.15ghz dual kinda going to be a difference there dont you think?
Posted on Reply
#13
jpierce55
by: cdawall
its still 2.46ghz quad vs 3.15ghz dual kinda going to be a difference there dont you think?
Yeah, but that is kind of my point. How well do you think the tri-cores are going to do against a dual? The tri's to be released are off the currently produced cpu's from what I understand, meaning that it will be less of a performer than what I have. The 5000be has been going on sale ~$100, half the price of the Phenom.
Posted on Reply
#14
Mussels
Moderprator
and intels 45nm duals just hit aus, $250 for a 3GHz wolfdale.

AMD may have tri cores, but they need to be fast/cheap to compete.
Posted on Reply
#15
spacejunky
by: trog100
reading between the lines it means we are gonna be cheap and push the fact 3 uses less leccy than four.. they cant compete with 4 so lets try something different.. energy efficient 3..

3 is less power hungry than 4.. course the same logic could be applied to 2 but nobody wants that..

trog
no...reading between the lines means chances are 1 of the cores will not pass after production so lets disable the bad core and sell the chip as a tri-core rather than recycling the whole part. it is no different than the logic behind selling different speed procs.
Posted on Reply
#16
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: spacejunky
no...reading between the lines means chances are 1 of the cores will not pass after production so lets disable the bad core and sell the chip as a tri-core rather than recycling the whole part. it is no different than the logic behind selling different speed procs.
it also happen to be the exact thing intel does to create its conroe-L chips
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment