[MTd2]

Phenom rumored to launch at top speed of 2.4GHz

When we covered the upcoming launch of Phenom last month, we reported that AMD's new CPU platform was rumored to launch at speeds of 2.2 and 2.4GHz at 89W TDP, with a 2.6GHz, 125W chip coming in December. Now, according to The Inquirer, AMD has scaled those plans back further, and is planning to launch CPUs at 2.2GHz (Phenom 9500), 2.3GHz (Phenom 9600), and 2.4GHz (Phenom 9700). TDP has also been increased, to 89W, 125W, and 125W, respectively. (The Inq's take on the scale-back is different from ours, as it initially reported a 2.6GHz part launching in November, with 2.8GHz in December).

Although the TDP jump is less than ideal, it doesn't strike me as indicative of all that much. AMD's published TDP numbers have always been based on the maximum theoretical draw of a given chip, not the amount of power the CPU is consumes running at full load. This one could come back to bite me, given that AMD obviously raised Phenom's TDP for a reason, but I'd still bet on the 9600 and 9700 coming in well under their 125W TDP.

As I've said before, the most important thing AMD needs to do with Phenom's launch is demonstrate that the CPU is available for purchase in OEM machines, even if it's not widely available in channel. Additional speed grades are also going to be a necessity, but given the pointlessness of paper launching higher-speed CPUs that no one can buy, I'd still put availability over clockspeed when evaluating the issues that AMD needs to address first.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/hard...peed-of-2-4ghz

I guess phenon is not a great deal compared to Athlon after all.

[Geeforcer]

Call me cynical, but all those aspects of Phenom launch at least in part answer all the "Why in the world would Henri leave just before the K10 rollout?" questions.

[The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy]

Originally Posted by MTd2

Phenom loses to Athlon

http://myevilprocessor.blogspot.com/...4-x2-6400.html

Why even bother running game tests on systems set up with 8600GTS's to demonstrate CPU performance.?

[MTd2]

Originally Posted by The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy

Why even bother running game tests on systems set up with 8600GTS's to demonstrate CPU performance.?

What would you sugest?

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by MTd2

Phenom rumored to launch at top speed of 2.4GHz

<snip>

I guess phenon is not a great deal compared to Athlon after all.

Why link to ars when all they've done is reference the Inq? That doesn't add any credibility to the rumor. As for Phenom not being a "great deal" compared to Athlon 64 X2 - where are the benchmarks that show this and the costs of each processor to perform a price: performance ratio analysis? The benches you linked earlier have already been debunked (in terms of meaningfulness anyway).

[MTd2]

Originally Posted by ShaidarHaran

where are the benchmarks that show this and the costs of each processor to perform a
priceerformance ratio analysis?

Maybe the production costs for each phenon is higher? That will keep the high losses because of even lower margins.

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by MTd2

Maybe the production costs for each phenon is higher? That will keep the high losses because of even lower margins.

What does this have to do with Phenom being a good value to consumers?

[MTd2]

Originally Posted by ShaidarHaran

What does this have to do with Phenom being a good value to consumers?

Nothing. It's just that this is the AMD excecution thread.

[The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy]

Originally Posted by MTd2

What would you sugest?

Most fitting would be crossfired HD3870's or at least a 8800GTX, something which is not going to be GPU bound and so invalidate the test.

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by MTd2

Nothing. It's just that this is the AMD excecution thread.

Just trying to bring some light into the gloom

It would be bad for everyone (but Intel) if Phenom were to flop and immediately slip to the value market.

[MTd2]

Originally Posted by The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy

Most fitting would be crossfired HD3870's or at least a 8800GTX, something which is not going to be GPU bound and so invalidate the test.

Wouldn't that like adding the same quantity to both sides of the equation?

[MTd2]

AMD Phenom 9500 2.2GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9500WCGDBOX $279.99

AMD Phenom 9600 2.3GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9600WCGDBOX $319.99

AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz Quad Core 4MB Processor Socket AM2 HD9700XAGDBOX $329.99


http://www.isorm.com/index.php?cPath...b201a0bfd5bbf6


AND

Lowest priced Yorkfield, Q9300 to sell for $270



Q9300, 2.50GHz with 6MB of memory

Last Friday we mentioned that the lowest priced Core 2 Quad Q9450, 12MB quad core processor will sell for $319. Core 2 Quad Q9450 works at 4x2.66 and Intel plans to sell its Core 2 Quad Q9300 clocked at 2.50GHz with memory cut down to 6MB for $270.

This is the CPU that should replace Q6600 with its 2.40GHz clock and 8MB cache memory, with FSB 1066MHz that is currently priced at about $270. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is a 45nanometre CPU and will have the memory size cut down from 12MB to 6MB but this should not affect most of the task CPU does.

The Core 2 Quad Q9300 processor also comes with faster FSB 1333MHz and we believe that it should end up significantly faster than the current sweet spot Q6600.

Intel will launch Q9300 and Q9450 in January.


http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...4025&Itemid=35

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

[Arun]

Originally Posted by MTd2

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

That's a bit excessive, isn't it? Phenom comes out on Nov 19th, so for nearly two months its competitor is the Q6600, not the Q9300.

I agree this doesn't seem to be massively competitive pricing if true, however. On the plus side of things, it can still change, and Intel doesn't seem very aggressive with Penryn pricing either: I doubt the Q9300 will be significantly faster than the Q6600, so the improvement in perf/$ is minimal IMO.

[hoho]

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...-pricing-outed

Moles at our German research division have pointed us to IT4Profit.com, specifically this page, which lists Phenom X4s at $247, $278 and $288 respectively.

That seems to show much lower prices compared to Isorm.

Though I do wonder what need there is for three CPUs with 100MHz speed differences between them. That is less than 4.5%. I can somewhat understand low-clocked Barcelonas as there 100MHz makes a bigger difference.

[MTd2]

Originally Posted by hoho

Though I do wonder what need there is for three CPUs with 100MHz speed differences between them. That is less than 4.5%.

Given the large overclock capacity of Phenons, why just give 0.1 GHZ of difference between them? Anyone dare to explain that?

[hoho]

Originally Posted by MTd2

Given the large overclock capacity of Phenons

Any information about that? All I know is AMD showed couple of 3GHz CPUs months ago but cannot release anything near that speed for quite some time. Kind of makes me doubt the OC capacity.

[_xxx_]

Those pricings are meaningless right now. It can all change last-minute and you can bet that Intel will go as low as needed to win the price/sales wars. We'll have to wait and see.

[Fox5]

Originally Posted by Accord1999

It's unlikely, 3DMark06 CPU is virtually unaffected by memory bandwidth or latency.

You sure? Back in the day I had an AXP with a maxed out FSB and low latency memory and it was beating s754 A64's clock for clock in 3dmark06's cpu test. (and that was about the only test it would win in) Then again, that could be an atypical example as the axps were unusually bandwidth limited and latency dependent, probably the reason for a lot of the changes made to the a64.

[MTd2]

Originally Posted by hoho

Any information about that? All I know is AMD showed couple of 3GHz CPUs months ago but cannot release anything near that speed for quite some time. Kind of makes me doubt the OC capacity.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...3998&Itemid=35

What do you think? It´s not a rummor, screencaps with an overclocker program were already taken.

[Accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fox5

You sure? Back in the day I had an AXP with a maxed out FSB and low latency memory and it was beating s754 A64's clock for clock in 3dmark06's cpu test. (and that was about the only test it would win in) Then again, that could be an atypical example as the axps were unusually bandwidth limited and latency dependent, probably the reason for a lot of the changes made to the a64.

For 3DMark06, the CPU tests have changed. Here, a single 3GHz Clovertown beats a 2.93GHz Kentsfield, despite running on a workstation board and paired with slower FB-DIMMs:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/i...8/3dmark-2.png

[Geeforcer]

You know, here is one aspect of AMD that I find fascinating. The company has been in business for 38 years. Through almost 4 decades of existence, their lifetime cumulative net profit is ... -$1.3 Billion dollars as of last quarter. If you take out the brutal last year when they lost over $2B, their lifetime commutative profits will be $863 million. That's about a bad quarter's worth of profits for Intel. To put it in another perspective, they lost over two times more money over the last 4 quarters then they made over the preceding 145+. During their "best ever" stretch of four consecutive quarters (which incidently more then doubled their lifetime net profits up to that point), AMD made $505 million. Over the last 4 quarters, Nvidia made $576 million.

[MTd2]

Barcelona BA hits retail
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...4046&Itemid=35

Next week, Phan(t)om console.

What is the meaning of this?

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...eyer-joins-mob

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by Geeforcer

You know, here is one aspect of AMD that I find fascinating. The company has been in business for 38 years. Through almost 4 decades of existence, their lifetime cumulative net profit is ... -$1.3 Billion dollars as of last quarter. If you take out the brutal last year when they lost over $2B, their lifetime commutative profits will be $863 million. That's about a bad quarter's worth of profits for Intel. To put it in another perspective, they lost over two times more money over the last 4 quarters then they made over the preceding 145+. During their "best ever" stretch of four consecutive quarters (which incidently more then doubled their lifetime net profits up to that point), AMD made $505 million. Over the last 4 quarters, Nvidia made $576 million.

That's what happens when you compete against a monopolistic 800 lb gorilla.

[hoho]

It certainly is hard to compete against someone much bigger than yourself. Things went quite well for as long as Intel was still doing its old Netbursts. Too bad that AMD not-that-good 65nm K8, late and mediocre K10 and big spending fell to the same time when Intel finally managed to produce something good. I'm not sure if I'd say that monopoly caused the happenings of the past year and a half.

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by hoho

It certainly is hard to compete against someone much bigger than yourself. Things went quite well for as long as Intel was still doing its old Netbursts. Too bad that AMD not-that-good 65nm K8, late and mediocre K10 and big spending fell to the same time when Intel finally managed to produce something good. I'm not sure if I'd say that monopoly caused the happenings of the past year and a half.

Geeforcer was discussing earnings over the entire history of AMD. My response was that the low earnings (net negative) are pretty much par-for-the-course considering Intel's monopoly and anti-competitive practices. Recent history (the last 18 months) don't really account for much over the entire life of the company (purely from a cumulative earnings perspective), although they may lead to the demise of AMD.