| Wednesday, August 27 2008 |
The transition of the K10 architecture by AMD to the 45nm silicon fabrication process is stirring up interesting revelations these days. First, it was about surprisingly low power consumption of the quad-core Phenom parts, and then about the overclocking headroom those 45nm parts provided, at least the engineering samples did so far. And now, news coming in that AMD could be resurrecting the "FX" series of extreme performance products. Over the past three or so years, the performance trail AMD products had over Intel's made it close to impossible for AMD to sell parts that provide performance tuning advantages such as unlocked FSB multiplier settings for a premium, like it did back when K8 reigned the performance segment. "Black Edition" chips made up for that deficit by providing consumers overclocking advantages while not charging a significant premium and at the same time, safeguarding the "FX" title, not letting it dilute.
Come AMD Deneb core and lot seems to be on offer. To begin with, unlike the Windsor core that had a maximum FSB multiplier of 16.0x, initial reports suggest the Deneb to sport a maximum 25.0x multiplier, 200 MHz x 25 = 5.00 GHz, with the FSB left to play with. Considering at 2.30 GHz the Deneb draws in 57.3 W (according to findings), it should still leave enough room for AMD to sell premium products clocked at high frequencies.
From Reviewage's findings, there seem to be two Phenom FX processors in the making. The numbering seems to take off where it last left at the Athlon64 FX 74. The two chips, Phenom FX 80 and Phenom FX 82 could be clocked at 4.00 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively (stock speeds). An interesting statement is that at 4.00 GHz, the Phenom FX 80 should outperform an Intel Kentsfield core clocked at 5.00 GHz, implies it has to be faster than the Kentsfield on a clock-to-clock basis. This opens up an interesting debate on how these parts compare to the succeeding Yorkfield chips. This should also open gates for several models to enter the market at various clock speeds.
Source: Reviewage
Come AMD Deneb core and lot seems to be on offer. To begin with, unlike the Windsor core that had a maximum FSB multiplier of 16.0x, initial reports suggest the Deneb to sport a maximum 25.0x multiplier, 200 MHz x 25 = 5.00 GHz, with the FSB left to play with. Considering at 2.30 GHz the Deneb draws in 57.3 W (according to findings), it should still leave enough room for AMD to sell premium products clocked at high frequencies.
From Reviewage's findings, there seem to be two Phenom FX processors in the making. The numbering seems to take off where it last left at the Athlon64 FX 74. The two chips, Phenom FX 80 and Phenom FX 82 could be clocked at 4.00 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively (stock speeds). An interesting statement is that at 4.00 GHz, the Phenom FX 80 should outperform an Intel Kentsfield core clocked at 5.00 GHz, implies it has to be faster than the Kentsfield on a clock-to-clock basis. This opens up an interesting debate on how these parts compare to the succeeding Yorkfield chips. This should also open gates for several models to enter the market at various clock speeds.
Source: Reviewage
User comments
physx
'nuff said
'nuff said
by: Wile E
I can't unlink my mem, so I'll match as close as I can. If I have to err, I'll err lower than you in mem.
well this is what i got.... hope this help's man
by: hatPhysx disabled, 'nuff said.
physx
'nuff said
by: fullinfusionI can't read the cpu score.
well this is what i got.... hope this help's man
by: Wile E
I can't read the cpu score.
p8658 sorry will re post pix
You got 9905 cpu, mine gets 12174 cpu. Unfortunately, the Phenom is much slower than an Intel quad clock for clock. I wish that wasn't the case, as it would drive stiffer competition in the market, but it is the case.
so what ya think Wile? am i blowing smoke out my azz or not?..... like i said im just telling what i see and no more....:toast:
Mmmmm i like this war goin on between these two^ hehe i like to see the end results , but i have to admit that the Wile E machine should have a advantage because of the amount of Cache the CPU has, 3 times as much right?
Thats the only reason intels are going so well, the amount of Cache they have on there chips, and its very expensive to do this process, but for intel its not, AMD it is.
Bit unfair?
Thats the only reason intels are going so well, the amount of Cache they have on there chips, and its very expensive to do this process, but for intel its not, AMD it is.
Bit unfair?
well that may be the case so let me run 3.01 @ 892mhz on the memory 4.4.4.12.20
thats if i can after my trial run.... and where ya see the cpu mark?.... please point it out so i know.... thanx
thats if i can after my trial run.... and where ya see the cpu mark?.... please point it out so i know.... thanx
by: Melvis
Mmmmm i like this war goin on between these two^ hehe i like to see the end results , but i have to admit that the Wile E machine should have a advantage because of the amount of Cache the CPU has, 3 times as much right?
Thats the only reason intels are going so well, the amount of Cache they have on there chips, and its very expensive to do this process, but for intel its not, AMD it is.
Bit unfair?
na i just like to show what im running even though it may be a tad slower...... just posting to give all a heads up.... no comp here just showing... thats all my friend:toast:
by: fullinfusion
well that may be the case so let me run 3.01 @ 892mhz on the memory 4.4.4.12.20
thats if i can after my trial run.... and where ya see the cpu mark?.... please point it out so i know.... thanx
Now let me add that, in gaming, there is no difference between a Phenom and an Intel Quad, all else being equal. Phenom is not a bad chip or anything. But there is a big difference in most cpu bound apps, and in Ocing between Phenom and Intel.
by: fullinfusionYea fair enough, your machine does do very well, if you had the same amount of Cache as the intel did, you would win easy id say. For a CPU that is a bit deprived of the Cache sizes compared to a Intel they still do very well, and not a Huge amount of difference realy, just shows you how well a AMD realy does? get a intel with that much takin out of the CPU and then see how it runs? bet it looses? All you have to do is look back at the P4 days, end of story. Even tho the bench tests that 3dmark use i find them not very good testers, more so just a guide line. I like to see a CPU running wen its in a game or something, and its % then? thats more like a real test, or how long it takes to convert a AVi file to VOB or something? thats a real test. Try and do a Memory test see who wins then? or even bandwidth? , i think the AMD will win there easy ;)
na i just like to show what im running even though it may be a tad slower...... just posting to give all a heads up.... no comp here just showing... thats all my friend:toast:
Have fun you to
by: Wile Eyea to true there, i agree with that statement. both have there areas they are good and bad at.
Now let me add that, in gaming, there is no difference between a Phenom and an Intel Quad, all else being equal. Phenom is not a bad chip or anything. But there is a big difference in most cpu bound apps, and in Ocing between Phenom and Intel.
by: Melvis
Yea fair enough, your machine does do very well, if you had the same amount of Cache as the intel did, you would win easy id say. For a CPU that is a bit deprived of the Cache sizes compared to a Intel they still do very well, and not a Huge amount of difference realy, just shows you how well a AMD realy does? get a intel with that much takin out of the CPU and then see how it runs? bet it looses? All you have to do is look back at the P4 days, end of story. Even tho the bench tests that 3dmark use i find them not very good testers, more so just a guide line. I like to see a CPU running wen its in a game or something, and its % then? thats more like a real test, or how long it takes to convert a AVi file to VOB or something? thats a real test. Try and do a Memory test see who wins then? or even bandwidth? , i think the AMD will win there easy ;)
Have fun you to
But synthetic memory and bandwidth test do not translate into real world performance.
And given the vast architectural differences, it's gonna take a lot more than cache for Phenom to catch up.
Phenom does 3 instruction per cycle, whereas the intel does 4, amongst many other things like different branch prediction routines, different ways of handling cache misses, etc.. If AMD would update to a 4 per cycle design, I have a feeling they would be ahead of Intel again, even with all else being equal.
by: Wile E
Now let me add that, in gaming, there is no difference between a Phenom and an Intel Quad, all else being equal. Phenom is not a bad chip or anything. But there is a big difference in most cpu bound apps, and in Ocing between Phenom and Intel.
i totally agree Wile
well i ran another vantage... but i cant post a result as i only had one shot.... the trial expired.... i however can up the l2 cashe to better my science mark or everest score.... i find playing with the memory timings yield better scores and also lowers the latencies mark...i however convert a full dvd unganged memory (Day's of Thunder) in just under 30min thou... i have no idea if thats good or bad as i have no reference by others to go by.... hope this shows what im running Wile?
by: fullinfusion
well i ran another vantage... but i cant post a result as i only had one shot.... the trial expired.... i however can up the l2 cashe to better my science mark or everest score.... i find playing with the memory timings yield better scores and also lowers the latencies mark...i however convert a full dvd unganged memory (Day's of Thunder) in just under 30min thou... i have no idea if thats good or bad as i have no reference by others to go by.... hope this shows what im running Wile?
I never doubted that the Phenom was capable, you just made the claim it takes a 3.6Ghz intel to keep up. That was incorrect, if anything, it would take a 3.2 or 3.3 Ghz Phenom to keep up with a 3GHz intel.
And I can't help you with the encode time thing, I don't own Days of Thunder to test. lol.
You can try the bench in this thread tho. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=39376&highlight=Encoding+benchmark
That's one that the Phenom may have an edge in.
by: Wile EDepends on what you are doing realy? Some apps might need alot of bandwith or memory etc, some dont, all depends.
But synthetic memory and bandwidth test do not translate into real world performance.
And given the vast architectural differences, it's gonna take a lot more than cache for Phenom to catch up.
Phenom does 3 instruction per cycle, whereas the intel does 4, amongst many other things like different branch prediction routines, different ways of handling cache misses, etc.. If AMD would update to a 4 per cycle design, I have a feeling they would be ahead of Intel again, even with all else being equal.
Idk about that, AMD architecture has always been infront of intels, even intel its self admitted this, why you think they are goin the same architecture to AMD's? I think once the Cache sizes are equal to a intel at this time, not including the new 32nm CPU's that intel will bring out, that you will see that the performance will be as good if not better, and yea maybe 4 cycles included, not sure tho.
All we both can say is, it might or might not, in the end we will just have to wait, all im goin on is past tests and how it used to be.
by: fullinfusion30mins? :eek: dam thats very good, takes me a average 90min movie, from a AVI file to a VOB file around 1.5hrs, and burnt it as well, 30mins is good ;)
well i ran another vantage... but i cant post a result as i only had one shot.... the trial expired.... i however can up the l2 cashe to better my science mark or everest score.... i find playing with the memory timings yield better scores and also lowers the latencies mark...i however convert a full dvd unganged memory (Day's of Thunder) in just under 30min thou... i have no idea if thats good or bad as i have no reference by others to go by.... hope this shows what im running Wile?
by: Wile E
I never doubted that the Phenom was capable, you just made the claim it takes a 3.6Ghz intel to keep up. That was incorrect, if anything, it would take a 3.2 or 3.3 Ghz Phenom to keep up with a 3GHz intel.
And I can't help you with the encode time thing, I don't own Days of Thunder to test. lol.
You can try the bench in this thread tho. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=39376&highlight=Encoding+benchmark
That's one that the Phenom may have an edge in.
na like i was saying whil running msn in video and audio a friend running 3.6 to my 3.01 was so close with the both of us running the same program at the same time.... he even said( you @ 3ghz to my 3.6 gives the intel a good run for it's money)..... im off to bed guy's.... i'll come back on with weird mem timings and fsb to up the points a bit.... lol.... it's all good.... but Wile...... I do have a 750sb mobo on the way..... the bottle neck is now looser.... lets play when it comes... ok.... lets just see what becomes of the Phenom then.... may not be as good but i bet ya it's real tight! :respect: night guys
by: Melvis
30mins? :eek: dam thats very good, takes me a average 90min movie, from a AVI file to a VOB file around 1.5hrs, and burnt it as well, 30mins is good ;)
well only time after the movie is done burning.... after that i ungang the memory and she smokes rite along utilizing all four cores converting.... so all in all around the time i pop the dvd in to burn till the end to watch on the xbox 360 through the media extender it's 45min
by: Melvis
Depends on what you are doing realy? Some apps might need alot of bandwith or memory etc, some dont, all depends.
Idk about that, AMD architecture has always been infront of intels, even intel its self admitted this, why you think they are goin the same architecture to AMD's? I think once the Cache sizes are equal to a intel at this time, not including the new 32nm CPU's that intel will bring out, that you will see that the performance will be as good if not better, and yea maybe 4 cycles included, not sure tho.
All we both can say is, it might or might not, in the end we will just have to wait, all im goin on is past tests and how it used to be.
Thanks Melvis.... i appreciate that man... AMD all the way.... sorry i just hate to see them loose in the cpu department.... god only knows they pulled there sh^t together with there new GPU's against Nvidia:D