AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 1:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Intel Responds with...really?
Surely Intel wouldn't allow AMD to simply come within the range of being competitive this late in the year. I honestly expected Intel to combat today's launch with something, something serious, something sinister. And indeed it did.
But instead of sampling a Core 2 Quad Q9450, the upcoming Penryn replacement to the Q6600, and instead of even further dropping prices to completely ruin the Phenom launch party Intel responded in a way that actually doesn't make much sense: by sampling a $1000+ Extreme CPU, the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (click here for our review).
The QX9770, 1600MHz FSB and 3.2GHz, just salting the wounds
Running at 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz FSB (up from 3.0GHz/1333MHz of its recently released predecessor, the QX9650), the QX9770 isn't schedule for release until next year and we do know that it'll carry a price tag of over $1000. The timing of Intel's launch is obviously to disrupt AMD's Phenom thunder, but the most important part of Intel sampling QX9770s has nothing to do with the chips themselves, but rather the act.
Almost as soon as we had Phenom samples, Intel made the decision to sample a CPU requiring a FSB that wasn't officially supported by any chipset at the time. No, 1600MHz FSB support won't come until next year with the X48 chipset, but it didn't matter to Intel; we were getting chips now.
Take a moment to understand the gravity of what I just said; Intel, the company that would hardly acknowledge overclocking, was now sampling a CPU that required overclocking to run at stock speeds. Even more telling is that Intel got the approval of upper management to sample these unreleased processors, requiring an unreleased chipset, in a matter of weeks. This is Intel we're talking about here, the larger of the two companies, the Titanic, performing maneuvers with the urgency of a speed boat.
It's scary enough for AMD that Intel has the faster processor, but these days Intel is also the more agile company.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
124 Comments
View All Comments
eye smite - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
Who cares what this goofball said in his review, or all you other haters. AMD is following their roadmap as they've laid it out, they released early samples cause of the noisy minority screaming for a new chip and it didn't turn out right. You think actual production chips will have these issues or not mature over the next few weeks? Good God there's alot of you people out there with unrealistic expectations and some severe perception issues. If you can't say anything worthwhile about the phenom launch, why don't you just quit typing and spare some of us that look forward to seeing this chip actually release and mature and give us a quad core that isn't the intel p3 based quad core.feelingshorter - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Thats how all AMD fans feels. I was hoping at the VERY least that AMD cpus would have a lower idle/max power usage. That would of been a sell point even if Intel CPUs are faster. Too bad AMD's processors are lacking all across the board. But as a college student, if they price it REALLY cheap, i'd be willing to stick with AMD.Regs - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
I was hoping they would of offered 2.4 GHz at around 200 dollars. This...this...is just horrible. Now I have no excuses left to not upgrade to a Intel Q.elfy6x - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
This was a very sobering article. On a slightly brighter note, Toms Hardware was able to get their Phenom to 3.0Ghz stable using air cooling, so perhaps there is some hope just yet. The nice thing is that AM2 motherboards can use this processor so the upgrade ability is theoretically friendlier than some of Intel's boards. As long as AMD prices it accordingly, I think it will do alright. It will be nice when AMD really gets going *someday* and we have another successor with a similar bang that the K8 had at its introduction.erwos - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Hint: the samples they send to reviewers tend to be hand-picked for overclocking. The fact that Tom got a good OC out of it probably means nothing.DrMrLordX - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Tom got the same overclock Anand did. Anand ran a comprehensive suite of stability tests which forced him to step the overclock back to 2.6ghz for stability. Tom ran 3dMark06 once and did not/could not/was not allowed to test for stability.This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid. And yes, I'm looking at you Tom's Hardware.
calyth - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
"This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid. And yes, I'm looking at you Tom's Hardware."Really. What's this Intel Resource Center doing on Anandtech?
IMO it's nothing terribly wrong that review sites getting a bit cosier with manufacturers. Stuff don't comes free. I still read Toms and I still read Anandtech, but I try to make up my own mind.
retrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
"This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid. And yes, I'm looking at you Tom's Hardware."Funny, a decade later and still nothings changed. I stopped soiling my browser with Tom's 10 years ago. LOL
flyck - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
the bug that forced amd to withdraw the higher clocked phenoms is present when the cpu is clocked higher. Thats why stability with the bug on higher clocked phenoms is low.3GHz with stock voltage is not that bad imo. if the bug is removed and it woul run stable i would say it is rather good.
Performance is indeed a bit low. Amd doesn't seem to get alot bennifit out the 128SSE2. wonder how that comes.
DrMrLordX - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
That's what the B3 stepping is supposedly intended to fix (among other things). Word is it will be available in January. More waiting!