AMD Extends Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65W Processor

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Mussels

if you're talking voltage, CPUZ just might not be reading it right.

from the charts it seems AMD is still behind clock for clock... YES, its 3GHz < 200USD where intel costs a lot more for a quad there, compared to say... intels 9300 at its current 350-$400 pricing.
However, if you compare it to an overclocked intel (anything with a multi above 8.0) then intel is going to own it.
AMD has made the right choice with the low prices, i just hope these things OC somewhat decently (especially the unlocked multi ones)

Intels 65nm are faster clock vs clock, and the 45's only widen the lead... so MHz and price are what matters.

actually i was going on the fact that he only changed the multi and did NOTHING with the bus speeds wtf? thats the most common way of oc'ing and he completely left it out?

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by cdawall

actually i was going on the fact that he only changed the multi and did NOTHING with the bus speeds wtf? thats the most common way of oc'ing and he completely left it out?

why is it needed on an unlocked chip? he found out the CPU's max speeds (well ok, he didnt try hard) without worrying about ram or mobo limitations. you've never used an unlocked chip before?

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Mussels

why is it needed on an unlocked chip? he found out the CPU's max speeds (well ok, he didnt try hard) without worrying about ram or mobo limitations. you've never used an unlocked chip before?

i have and first you push the multi then you push the bus speeds. thats how it works cause your going to run out of multis pretty quick. you need to push that before you can even attempt to say you have the chip maxed out. hence why the 5000BE WRs are not set @ 200*whatever but 258*17 wow he pushed both? why would you leave one method of oc'ing completely untouched


you always push bus speeds unlocked chip or not

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Originally Posted by cdawall

you always push bus speeds unlocked chip or not

i cosign that. makes absolutely no sense

[Mussels]

what if the guy had one day to do the review - i used to review so maybe its obvious to me. If you have multis and FSB, yes FSB will have higher performance... but you will find the max area of the CPU from multis alone.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Mussels

what if the guy had one day to do the review - i used to review so maybe its obvious to me. If you have multis and FSB, yes FSB will have higher performance... but you will find the max area of the CPU from multis alone.

no no you wont thats why the bus speeds is adjustable hell you wont even get a ballpark estimate of a chips max from multis alone.

[Grings]

Phenoms just dont overclock via fsb very well at all, all the pre release ones that hit 3ghz only did so via multiplier

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Grings

Phenoms just dont overclock via fsb very well at all, all the pre release ones that hit 3ghz only did so via multiplier

they can still hit a 230 bus speed and 230*15 is way more than 200*15

[ryboto]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

you would think that, but they dont in reality.

NO a q6600 is 95W (EDIT), but it uses less power than a similarly clocked phenom. Assuming that this phenom at 65W is just a clocked down version of the same thing... then this is really a pretty bad marketing scam.

Here you go... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117158

Intel Xeon L5320 Clovertown 1.86GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 771 50W Quad-Core Processor.

"AMD Extends Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65W Processor" when intel has had a 50W Quad for some time (non-mobile).

How else should they market this? It's a low power quad core system for maybe a low power HTPC, or desktop. They can claim this all they want, because technically that Xeon isn't a desktop processor, and it isn't monolithic like the Phenom die, it's 2xC2D. I like the option to buy a cheap quad, and bump it up to speed, or, keep it at stock and undervolt it, probably get it down below 50W load at the stock 1.8ghz. It's not a "marketing scam" it's positive spin, and they're technically correct in their claims.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by ryboto

They can claim this all they want, because technically that Xeon isn't a desktop processor, and it isn't monolithic like the Phenom die, it's 2xC2D.

Firstly, 4 cores is 4 cores... you can count them 1,2,3,4! all there.. hence "quad core." No not a "monolithic" quad core, but the 'monolithic' ones are much slower and less effective performance/watt ATM, so personally i dont see the benefit of having a "true" quad core (show me one positive).

Be that as it may, claiming that you "Extend(ed) Energy-Efficient Processing Leadership with World’s First 65-Watt Quad-Core Desktop Processor" is misleading.

Same as Intel going "WE HAVE BROKEN PROCESSOR SPEED RECORD WITH THE FASTEST FREQUENCY PROCESSOR, THE 3.6GHz POOPIUM 4!!!" well, yes... but no.

Notice how Intel never said anything about performance/HZ and now AMD never said anything about performance/watt. That's why I thought tkpenalty's first post was dead on.

You can get one, im not knocking the product... its good to find new niches in the same market, thats awesome. But putting so much spin on the product, claiming that it took some sort of leadership, and that its somehow earth-shattering quad core is a bit of smoke and mirrors. Its just bad form because theyre trying to make more money through misdirection.

If you dont think so, then i can sell you "THE FASTEST BICYCLE IN THE WORLD, FASTER THAN ALL OTHER BICYCLES!!!" for $500.

[ryboto]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

Firstly, 4 cores is 4 cores... you can count them 1,2,3,4! all there.. hence "quad core." No not a "monolithic" quad core, but the 'monolithic' ones are much slower and less effective performance/watt ATM, so personally i dont see the benefit of having a "true" quad core (show me one positive).

You can get one, im not knocking the product... its good to find new niches in the same market, thats awesome. But putting so much spin on the product, claiming that it took some sort of leadership, and that its somehow earth-shattering quad core is a bit of smoke and mirrors. Its just bad form because theyre trying to make more money through misdirection.

If you dont think so, then i can sell you "THE FASTEST BICYCLE IN THE WORLD, FASTER THAN ALL OTHER BICYCLES!!!" for $500.

Monolithic doesn't have to mean slower, just because K10 isn't a huge leap doesn't mean 4 cores on 1 die is inherently slower. But, like I said, they're not going to NOT put positive spin on it. They'll use technicalities like that. You and I and the rest of the tech forum users know 4 cores makes a quad core, but AMD will use there monolithic design as a marketing advantage, and I'm sick of people getting upset when they do. Every company in the history of business will speak positively about their products. They'll say anything and everything that walks the line between truth and lies just to get sales. It's not misdirection, it's slightly misleading, because it isn't the first quad core processor to hit below 65W, but it is the first available for the desktop to be rated 65W. I'm not defending their spin, I'm accepting it and moving on. But people still dwell on it as if it never happens!

[Mussels]

"AMD turns up the heat on intel with words first 200W quad core CPU!"

Due to its monolithic* design, this CPU has centuries of development behind it!




*CPU was carved by hand from centuries old monolith.

[cdawall]

oh and for all of you wondering if this will oc well its a B2