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
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What!!!! How darest though speak such blasphemy!AMD is your king! Bow to PHENOM!!! :) LOL
sorry feeling a little silly today.
hvypetals - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Why are the Intel core 2 duo's outperforming the intel quad core cpus?Is it because the games cant see beyond a dual core?
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Thats why I got the E8400 and clocked it to 3.6 ghz, it was cheap and it does very well for gamers....ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Oh wait I could have saved 20 bucks and got a much slower AMD. Crap...ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Then I would have had an AWESOME slow CPU instead of a CRAPPY much faster CPU....Roy2001 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
Wow, that's superb logic!fitten - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Most games can't "see beyond" one core, much less two, three, or four.nycromes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
This is what I expected from AMD and from all of you here making comments. It has always astounded me that people will act like these chips are the equivalent of a 500mhz chip compared to Intel's chips. Its like saying my car has 375hp and yours only has 370, my car is soo much better than yours. The difference is there, but for most people, the difference is quite negligable.The differences amount to almost nothing depending on application. Sure there are better parts out there, but competition drives markets to innovate and will bring down prices. Oh how awful. The intel fanboys can ride their high horses still, but AMD releasing better products benefits us all. Try taking your heads out of that little box and looking at the big picture.
I like to see AMD working on new products and hopefully they can get more competitive. We all need to be hoping for this so we don't see slowdowns in development and skyrocketing chip prices. I mean, look at the GPU industry compared to a few years ago and tell me that the situation is great for consumers. More competition = happier consumers. nuf said.
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
you are right, and you obviously dont game. Intel=FPS=FTWmark3450 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What a complete strawman. Look at the data, the best Phenom chip is getting beated by the q6600 by 20% in real world performance, not the 1% in your idotic horsepower strawman attack.Yes everyone understands that the lack of competion isn't good. The reason people bitch at AMD is that they want AMD to have a competative offereing, but that data clear says they don't. They know because of that there isn't going to be any competition in the CPU market for a long time. Yes that isn't good, but sticking your head in the sand and denying the reality of the situation doesn't help.