Wednesday, September 10th 2008

Phenom X2 Churns out Roughly 15% Increments with Super Pi

Phenom X2 is intended to be the latest dual-core processor from AMD. It is based on the newer K10 architecture. The 65nm Kuma core is what sits inside the first to release models of the Phenom X2. Although based on K10 architecture and Kuma core, the initial batch being 65nm, AMD for some reason chooses to call it Athlon X2 saving the Phenom brand name perhaps for the 45nm batches? At least the sample Expreview got had the Athlon X2 etching on it. The chip carried the "AD6500" label and came with a 2.30 GHz clock speed.

Here's something to ponder: 6500 isn't a performance rating, it is just a model number. The Athlon 64 X2 6400+ had a 3.20 GHz clock speed. As performance evaluations will soon show, the Phenom/Athlon 6500 isn't anywhere close to the performance of the X2 6400+. However, architectural improvements meant that Kuma outperforms Brisbane (K8, 65nm) on a clock to clock basis. To ascertain this, Expreview used a Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition (Brisbane) that was underclocked to 2.30 GHz, the clock speed which AD6500 comes with. Super Pi 1M benchmark was run. While the Brisbane chip crunched it in 39.374 s, Kuma did it in 33.43 s indicating a performance increment of roughly 15%. The test-bed consisted of a NVIDIA nForce 750a SLI motherboard and GEIL 1GB DDR2-800 memory. Kuma AD6500 comes with a shared L3 cache of 2 MB apart from dedicated L2 caches of 512 KB per core. It uses a broader HyperTransport 3.0 system interface at 3600 MT/s. It supports DDR2-1066.

Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

39 Comments on Phenom X2 Churns out Roughly 15% Increments with Super Pi

#1
PP Mguire
my old E6600 churns out 15s on Super Pi 1M. how is this acceptable for them to even be manufacturing CPU's.
Considering the fact that Intel cpus are always ontop with SuperPI you cant even bring this into discussion. Besides all benchmarks are is #s. So if AMD brings out a CPU that can crunch SuperPI faster than Nehalem (hypotheticaly) it still means it could suck donkey balls at games. Really no comparison here. The only thing they are using this for is to prove how much better the K10 is than the K8 clock for clock. If this thing is really unlocked an can OC like the Denebs FX then we should have a beast for DC.

This is awesome for me, since A i dont want quad and B i love AMD. I might just get one of these things.

Oh BTW who was telling me they wouldnt produce dual core Phenoms? Candle i believe? In yo face.
Posted on Reply
#2
Wile E
Power User
mdm-adph said:
I still don't believe that those were actually supposed to be CPU's. I'm sure Intel was trying to branch out into some kind of space-heater line, and just wanted to be subtle about it.
:roll: I have absolutely no way to counter that. lol.
Posted on Reply
#3
eidairaman1
PP Mguire said:
Considering the fact that Intel cpus are always ontop with SuperPI you cant even bring this into discussion. Besides all benchmarks are is #s. So if AMD brings out a CPU that can crunch SuperPI faster than Nehalem (hypotheticaly) it still means it could suck donkey balls at games. Really no comparison here. The only thing they are using this for is to prove how much better the K10 is than the K8 clock for clock. If this thing is really unlocked an can OC like the Denebs FX then we should have a beast for DC.

This is awesome for me, since A i dont want quad and B i love AMD. I might just get one of these things.

Oh BTW who was telling me they wouldnt produce dual core Phenoms? Candle i believe? In yo face.
dont initiate flamewars, we already have enough of them, dont need anymore k.
Posted on Reply
#4
$ReaPeR$
imo we should wait for some realworld tests unless everybody in here do nothing else than running pi all day long. AMD has proven in the past that can beat intel and i hope they do it again because i could use a cheaper and more powerful cpu.
Posted on Reply
#5
blueskynis
Nothing new here, we already knew K10 has better performance than K8, clock for clock.
Posted on Reply
#6
Widjaja
$ReaPeR$ said:
imo we should wait for some realworld tests unless everybody in here do nothing else than running pi all day long. AMD has proven in the past that can beat intel and i hope they do it again because i could use a cheaper and more powerful cpu.
Yes I suppose we should wat til they are out and see how they perform in gaming vs compariable C2Ds even though AMD have lost credibilty after the Phenom X4.
Posted on Reply
#7
PCpraiser100
Widjaja said:
Yes I suppose we should wat til they are out and see how they perform in gaming vs compariable C2Ds even though AMD have lost credibilty after the Phenom X4.
Either way, I'm still trying to keep my rig in the game as I need to OC to get the framerates that I'm comfortable with in CPU-demanding titles like Supreme Commander or World in Conflict. It sucks for me right now. In the mean time, I'm waiting to see HT 3.1 results and 45nm Phenoms, hoping that there will finally be some peace in this PC gaming world by balancing both worlds for customer satisfaction. AMD and Intel need to stop fighting like 3 year olds in a sandbox and get a f**king grip in the name of customer convenience by letting devs release game titles that have 100% multi-core and single support instead of making Core2Duo live a lie thinking it has two cores when its just 2 cores on a die instead of a silicon piece like AMD so there won't be any difficulty achieving the fence-sitter's interest when buying their CPUs. Craigslist and Ebay is alway on steroids selling CPUs to each other like hundreds of beach balls at a live concert thanks to the same thing being sold over and over again due to better CPUs coming out.
Posted on Reply
#8
Wile E
Power User
PCpraiser100 said:
Either way, I'm still trying to keep my rig in the game as I need to OC to get the framerates that I'm comfortable with in CPU-demanding titles like Supreme Commander or World in Conflict. It sucks for me right now. In the mean time, I'm waiting to see HT 3.1 results and 45nm Phenoms, hoping that there will finally be some peace in this PC gaming world by balancing both worlds for customer satisfaction. AMD and Intel need to stop fighting like 3 year olds in a sandbox and get a f**king grip in the name of customer convenience by letting devs release game titles that have 100% multi-core and single support instead of making Core2Duo live a lie thinking it has two cores when its just 2 cores on a die instead of a silicon piece like AMD so there won't be any difficulty achieving the fence-sitter's interest when buying their CPUs. Craigslist and Ebay is alway on steroids selling CPUs to each other like hundreds of beach balls at a live concert thanks to the same thing being sold over and over again due to better CPUs coming out.
First off, Core2 dual cores are a single die, not 2 dies on a chip like pD was. Besides, that doesn't mean squat anyway. All that matters is performance. Phenom is 4 cores on 1 die, yet the intel quad, which is 2 dual cores pasted to a chip, stomps all over it.

Secondly, Intel and AMD have nothing to do with devs not releasing more multi threaded/scalable software. Nothing they do prevents it. The only thing preventing it is developer laziness and/or cost for having to buy different development tools.

Third, HT 3.1 isn't going to make a damn bit of difference in a desktop. We haven't even gotten close to the limits of the current HT. It is not a bottleneck in anything (except multi-socketed servers). Increasing the speed of something that isn't a bottleneck to begin with, wont show any significant performance gains.
Posted on Reply
#9
hat
Enthusiast
Phenomx2 may be in my future since InHell allegedly plains to cut overclockers down.
Posted on Reply
#10
Wile E
Power User
hat said:
Phenomx2 may be in my future since InHell allegedly plains to cut overclockers down.
It's all still FUD at this point I believe. I somehow doubt overclocking will be the problem it's made out to be.

Even still, you'd be better off buying a Core2 on S775 than a Phenom X2 if overclocking is what you are after.
Posted on Reply
#11
KBD
Wile E said:
It's all still FUD at this point I believe. I somehow doubt overclocking will be the problem it's made out to be.
That rumor about linking nehalem vcore and vdimm could be false, but i think that putting the IMC on the CPU will limit nehalem's ocing potential like it did for AMD.
Posted on Reply
#12
Wile E
Power User
KBD said:
but i think that putting the IMC on the CPU will limit nehalem's ocing potential like it did for AMD.
That is one possible issue I am worried about. DaMulta and I have discussed that before. If that ends up being the case, I guess I'll stick with my QX9650.
Posted on Reply
#13
PP Mguire
I will probably wind up with a Phenom X2 :)
Posted on Reply
#14
KBD
Wile E said:
That is one possible issue I am worried about. DaMulta and I have discussed that before. If that ends up being the case, I guess I'll stick with my QX9650.
Well, we shall see. Nehalem may wind up to be a better ocer than the Athlon and Phenom series or vice versa. I think it will be a good test for both sides and the playing field will be level in terms of both having an onboard IMC and then we'll see who's the better ocer.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment