Higher Clock Speeds, No TLB Issues and Better Pricing: The New Phenom
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 27, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
3.0GHz: Where Are You?
AMD ran a controversial demo of a quad core Phenom in July of last year:
The demo ran at 3.0GHz and was designed to set expectations for Phenom. The problem is that when Phenom launched, it did so at 2.3GHz. Even today we're only at 2.5GHz. Allow me to quote, um, myself:
"In a demonstration designed to prove that Phenom isn't broken, AMD featured a quad core Phenom X4 processor, with standard cooling, running at 3.0GHz. While Phenom won't be anywhere near that clock speed when it launches at the end of this year, AMD expects to be at 3GHz within the first half of 2008. "
AMD told some members of the press that there was nothing special about these 3.0GHz Phenoms that were demoed, which begs the question - what happened?
There's nothing particularly magical about the 3.0GHz number, but the problem is this: Intel gives you two options at $266, you can purchase a Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz, dual core) or you can purchase a Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz, quad core). The difference in clock frequency is 600MHz but you get two more cores, for the same price.
With AMD, the decision isn't as simple. At $178 you can purchase an Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition (3.2GHz, dual core), or at $195 you can buy a Phenom X4 9550 (2.2GHz, quad core). Not only do you have to spend a little more to get four cores, but you give up 1000MHz in clock frequency. Thankfully Phenom has some architectural enhancements that help narrow the performance gap, but it still does make AMD's job of competing much more difficult - forcing it to dramatically reduce prices.
Phenom could scale much higher, after all the individual cores aren't all that more complex than those in an Athlon 64 X2. We get the impression that there are some speed paths that could be optimized on the current B2 and B3 Phenoms that simply aren't because of a very sensible thought process. AMD is still on track to begin shipping its first 45nm Phenom processors (Deneb core) by the end of this year and it doesn't make sense to waste time and resources respinning a 65nm Phenom, when presumably these clock speed issues are addressed at 45nm.
AMD is expecting, clock for clock, 45nm Deneb based Phenom cores to offer up to 15% more performance (we're skeptical of that number). AMD also committed to matching clock speeds of 65nm Phenom processors when the 45nm parts launch. If Phenom is at 2.7GHz when 45nm launches, the first 45nm parts will come in at 2.7GHz (as well as models lower/higher obviously, but the point is that there will be clock speed parity with the move to 45nm).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
aju - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Ok, the fastest Phenom is still not quite as fast as the Q6600. The problem is that the cost issues is really much larger than it is made to seem in the article. The review does not really figure the total system price into the equation. The exact parts listed in the review for the test AMD system with an Phenom X4 9850 would cost $864.97. The exact parts listed for the Intel system with a Core2Quad Q6600 would cost $1273.96. Were talking about a difference of $405.99 here. For that price difference, you could forgo the 8800GT and put in 4 Radeon HD 3870s in its place and have quad CrossFire for a total of $1314.94. That MSI board supports 4 PCI Express 2.0 slots. Then we would be comparing systems at a similar price point. I wonder if the Intel system could keep up on the games then.coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
The situation would not change dramatically if Intel was changed back to DDR2-800. Intel processors don't benefit significantly if at all from the extra memroy bandwidth.This is a performance of the processor without limitation of other components, not a price/performance article.
IvanAndreevich - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Can we have a bench with the Q6600 running the same FSB and clockspeed as the Q9300? Would be an interesting comparison.Schugy - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Seems like q'n'q 2.0 still isn't working as good as the specs on paper tell us.Nihility - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I'm really disappointed by Intel's 45 nm Q9300.Doesn't overclock as well, less cache and only marginally better performance over the Q6600.
Intel is obviously holding back because AMD can't deliver. I am not amused.
The updated phenoms are nice and all but as an overclocker I'll have to pass on this entire generation from BOTH manufacturers. That and WOW does AMD get owned at the gaming benchmarks.
coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
From an overclockers perspective yes, but what's not to like if your buying this product for stock performance, faster then the Q6600 with less cache, and much more efficient energy wise.The only chips that AMD and Intel sell that are geared toward overclocking in mind are AMD's Black Series, and Intel's Extreme Series..
They have no obligation to sell you cheap overclockable processors. If they do it's just very well a bonus.
Nihility - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link
From a stock perspective, it's more expensive than a Q9300 but offers marginal performance gains.I don't like marginal processor upgrades. It's a bad sign when a year later you get sold the same speed processors instead of something that is 50% faster. They could obviously be releasing these processors with much higher clock rates but they choose not to so they have that option to crank performance up another useless 5% if they feel like it.
I don't like being toyed with, can you blame me?
nubie - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Hot Damn! Now I am torn between a 45nm Intel and a Tri/Quad AMD.I guess I can afford to sit back and wait, but this is just awesome news, it seems for professional apps the AMD is actually a better value (well duh), I think the Opteron line will be in high demand, and it will probably be very competitive.
Finally, something that is nearly clock-for-clock competitive with Intel. Now if AMD can only get Dual-core models out in 45nm, then they might be able to compete on level ground in the mainstream segment.
I just don't know which to buy, I hope that the promised AM2 compatibility will finally be here, if not there will be a lot of unhappy motherboard owners (my DFI Infinity M2 sorely needs one of these.)
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
umm, they aren't really clock-for-clock competitive, and no one said they were. Depending on pricing they may be price competitive, but the Q9300 seems to hold a decent performance advantage over the 9850 in most tests shown.mczak - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What was the stepping of the Q6600 core used here? IIRC G0 had significantly lower idle power consumption, and somewhat lower load power consumption than B3.