Slashdot Log In
45nm Phenom II Matches Core 2 Quad, Trails Core i7
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:24 AM
from the still-in-the-game dept.
from the still-in-the-game dept.
An anonymous reader writes "AMD recently debuted its 45nm Phenom II processors, and The Tech Report has already run them through a complete suite of benchmarks to see how they perform compared to Intel's latest and greatest. The new 2.8GHz and 3GHz Phenom IIs are in a dead heat with like-priced Core 2 Quads, but they generally fall well behind Intel's new Core i7 chips. TR concludes that AMD's future doesn't look as bleak as some say, and future Phenom IIs could compete favorably with more affordable Core i7 derivatives."
Related Stories
Submission: 45nm Phenom II matches Core 2 Quad, trails Core i7 by Anonymous Coward
[+]
AMD Launches New Processor Socket Despite Poor Economy 215 comments
arcticstoat writes to tell us that despite a poor economic climate, AMD is moving forward with a new processor socket launch, although they are trying to make it as upgrade-friendly as possible. "As you probably already know from the AM3 motherboards that have already been announced, AM3 is AMD's first foray into DDR3 memory support. As Phenom CPUs have integrated memory controllers, it's more accurate to say that it's the new range of Phenom II CPUs (see below) that are DDR3-compatible. However, the new DDR3-compatible Phenom II range is also compatible with DDR2 memory. As the new CPUs and the new AM3 socket are pin-compatible with the current AM2+ socket, you can put a new AM3-compatible CPU into an existing AM2+ motherboard. This means that you can upgrade your CPU now without needing to change your motherboard or buy pricey new DDR3 memory."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not first post. (Score:4, Funny)
But it could have been if I had a Core i7!
Good... but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problem is that AMD is doing the exact same thing Intel did when the P4 was out: they went to a smaller litho process, slapped on cache, and cranked up the clockspeed. If you read the review carefully you'll note that while the new Phenoms are faster than some Core 2 quads, they are not faster on a clock-for-clock basis. Remember back when AMD was leading in that category and it was such a big deal?
As of right now the Phenoms are a good deal IF you already own an AM2+ mobo... otherwise they are not a good deal for 2 reasons: 1. AMD is coming out with the incompatible AM3 socket that will use DDR3 memory in the next few months, so these current chips will have a very short shelf life; 2. Intel doesn't have to do any innovation at all to beat these chips, all it has to do is drop the prices on current Core 2 quads like the 9550 that outperform the Phenoms but are currently priced higher... dropping prices ain't rocket science and there are rumors these cuts could be coming by the end of the month.
As for the Core i7, sure it is more expensive, but even the 920 model appears to wail on these chips, and there is a whole lot more future-proofness in buying a low-end i7 right now. Interestingly, the review mentions the new Phenoms have 758 million transistors which means they have about 27 million more transistors than Nehalem... but Nehalem at 2.66 Ghz is easily beating a Phenom at 3.0Ghz. It looks like what AMD really needs is a new architecture, but that does not appear to be coming any time soon.
Re:Good... but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Core I7 isn't all that future proof. Intel is going to bring out the consumer version of the I7 with guess what... A new Socket!
I think that the AM2+ socket will have a good life span. The AM2 sure did.
The thing really is though is that the Core2 and the X2 really are still "good enough". Most people really are not dieing for a faster PC.
The Atom is the right now the most interesting CPU around. I think AMD should produce a two core version of the PhenomII or a 45nm X2 cpu.
A very low power use AMD cpu combined with the 780G would be a great product right now.
The only reason that any QuadCore interests me right now is that I am addicted to FSX.
Parent
Re:Good... but... (Score:4, Informative)
There's a major problem with your logic. Intel is coming out with a lower-cost mainstream Nehalem, but it is not discontinuing the current i7 sockets, they will continue as a high-end option and you'll be able to slap 32nm Westmere's in there when the time comes. AM2+ is at the very end of the road. As for the older Core 2 quad socket 775's, they are getting nearer the end of the line, but with some price cuts the current 775 socket systems are still going to outperform anything AMD has until at least 2010... the Core 2's are at the end of the technology ramp-up road, but not at the end of the price-performance road.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yea but then you will be stuck with only high end stuff. I would wait until the consumer I7 hits unless you are a hard core gamer.
But as I said I really am not all that interested in the highend. It is just really overkill right now. You can build a good X2 780G system for under $300 right now. Or less than you would spend for just an I7 CPU.
Core2s are still a little more expensive but your right they are still a good choice.
Re:Good... but... (Score:5, Informative)
The AM3 Phenom II's are supposed to be able to work in an AM2+ motherboard (and utilize DD2 memory). TechReport's review of the chip has some more details on this:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147 [techreport.com]
So AM2+ is still a viable socket for the future since AM3 processors will fit in. I wonder if the backwards compatability will work both ways - could an AM2+ processor be used in an AM3 motherboard?
Parent
Re:Good... but... (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder if the backwards compatability will work both ways - could an AM2+ processor be used in an AM3 motherboard?
Nope, since they lack the DDR3 support in their memory controller.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The thing really is though is that the Core2 and the X2 really are still "good enough". Most people really are not dieing for a faster PC.
I'd love to play supcom and not lag =/
Something tells me I need more than an I7 to do that, however...
Re:Good... but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing really is though is that the Core2 and the X2 really are still "good enough". Most people really are not dieing for a faster PC. The Atom is the right now the most interesting CPU around.
Yeah, I've been thinking about that. For most businesses and individuals I talk to (and/or support), do you know what they use their computer for? Checking e-mail, surfing the web, writing papers/letters, holding their music collection and loading their iPods, and storing their digital pictures. They don't do much else.
Now how fast of a processor do you need to do that? I'll give you a hint-- a lot of them are doing it on computers that are >5 years old, and they aren't complaining about speed unless they're loaded down with malware.
I wonder where the computing industry is going next, because I feel like it's been a while since anyone came up with a new use for PCs that the masses were clamoring for. MP3s were the last one, and IIRC that's been commonplace for almost a decade now.
It seems like where computers are going is not to be bigger/better/faster, but rather smaller/cheaper/more energy efficient. Something might break that trend, but until it does, I wonder how important it will actually be to be the "performance king".
Parent
Re:Good... but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The one thing that takes more speed than a five year old PC and that is digital video. HD-digital camcorders are now under $200. Transcoding video to put onto DVDs may become popular. If Blu Ray recordable disks become cheap then people may start making those at home.
But even that may not need a fast CPU. I think you will see more and more video work off loaded to the GPU.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may be right. The thing is that the flip camcorder is so cheap that they may soon be everywhere.
Just wait until cellphones come with HD video.
But yes cheap, simpler, and lower power use going to be the way of the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even games require a great CPU, anymore. Some of the most innovative ones(Like World of Goo or Left4Dead) will run on old systems, like a 2ghz Athlon XP from 2002/2003. :P Faster CPUs are for... bragging rights? Encoding stuff?
More memory is for multitasking - you can never have enough memory! I'm amazed that I can hit 1GB memory usage when my OS and background software only consumes ~150MB. A year ago that wasn't the case, but now I just have more stuff running...
I think the next must have computer har
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Watching divx content really is enough to make performance matter -- an atom, for example, just can't keep up compared to a "fuller" CPU.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...The Atom is the right now the most interesting CPU around...
I really have to disagree with you there. I think the VIA Nano is a bit more interesting, as it basically beats the Atom into the ground with almost everything [hardocp.com]. Back on topic, I think that the above post was right; most people don't need a high-end computer. Even some of the mid-range to low-end computers might be a little much for some people. AMD should really go for the cheap side, making cheap, low-power processors to tide them over while they redesign their high-end chips to compete with I7.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The price cut is the clincher. I disagree that the compatibility with motherboards is an issue: all the reviews I've read describe an AM2+/AM3 hybrid part that supports both DDR2 and DDR3 which will allow you to upgrade the MB and RAM and keep the processor.
AMD needing a new architecture is a myth: Changing the microarchitecture underneath the AMD64 set isn't going to yield enough improvement to make it totally worthwhile. Their pipeline length and IPC count are comparable to Intel, but AMD's smaller rese
Re:Good... but... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Good... but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually you are looking at this in the wrong way. The entire problem is that you are looking at the Phenom as though it's the critical portion of AMD design, which it's not. The Phenom II is part of the Dragon platform, which includes the 4000 series graphics and the 7 series chipset. When combined, the system can be configured for less than $500 or just under $700 with very high end parts. Once together, the AMD system can use Overdrive to hit 4ghz on air with very little effort. Tests have put them at 3.8ghz with the automated performance boosts. Now, not only does Intel not have a platform to match, but their chipset and graphics departments are still playing catchup. Once the AM3 systems hit the market Intel will be in a considerable amount of trouble staying competitive.... especially with the current voltage problems (DDR3 performance memory can burn up i7 chips).
Also, do not forget, AMD manufacturing costs are dropping while Intel's are increasing. This is not a good trend to have when attempting to compete on prices. New i7 CPUs are entering the market at equal prices and staying high, while the very best AMD chip enters market at the lowest Intel price point and drops. It becomes very hard to justify spending several times more on an Intel system for a tiny performance difference, knowing that it might not even be DDR3 compatible.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought an AM2+ motherboard recently with a near bottom-of-the-line Athlon 64 X2 dual core. This is exactly the news I've been waiting for. In a few years I'll be able to double my cores and maybe modestly increase my CPU clockspeed from 2.2Ghz to maybe 2.8Ghz, hopefully while not increasing the TDP beyond 85W. Oh, and it would have been cheaper (and eventually faster) than buying a top of the line system now.
AMD is perfect for the people like me who love saving a couple hundred bucks every few years by
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Phenom 2 is faster clock for clock compared to the Phenom 1.
Phenom 2 when the socket AM3 version is released will be compatible with both socket AM2+ as well as socket AM3 motherboards. Obviously, the older Phenom and this first set of Phenom 2 processors will be DDR2 only parts, so putting them in an environment where DDR3 memory will be used just will not work.
As far as prices go, the current pricing is on the initial batch, and going forward, AMD has at least a bit more room to increase clock speed
Re:Good... but... (Score:5, Informative)
AM3 is pin compatible with AM2+/AM2, it just adds faster HT and DDR3 support. My understanding is that Mobo suppliers can even choose to use the AM3 socket with DDR2, getting the (probably insignificant) benefit of faster HT but using cheaper RAM. The fact that the AM3 Phenoms have both DDR2 and DDR3 memory controlers means they van be used in AM2+ boards as long as there is a BIOS update. Could be used in AM2 boards as well from a hardware standpoint, but unfortunately (for me at least) there probably won't be any updated BIOSs for those boards.
Parent
Nice to see AMD doing somewhat better... (Score:3)
125 watt only? (Score:2)
Re:125 watt only? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Power Consumption (Score:3, Insightful)
On another note, it's quite funny to see such high power requirements for the new intels. Am I the only person who remembers AMD getting ridiculed about the Phenoms power consumption? Now that intel has finally released a true quad core chip, their power consumption is the same or more than AMDs. Granted that does nothing about the performance gap, but at least it quiets the power critics.
Headline should read... (Score:4, Interesting)
... "AMD finally on par with Intel tech from two years ago."
Seriously. I love AMD. I've been using AMD chips since my very first system of my own, which had a mighty K6-166.
This past Novemeber, I finally bit the bullet, sold my Athlon X2 system, and upgraded... To a Q6600-based rig. Some may scoff that it's only a 2.4ghz chip, but I'm running it at 3.4ghz right now, and I'm fairly sure I'll reach 3.6ghz with a bit more work.
To be sure, those who don't overclock, but want a powerful AMD-based system will find this chip worthwhile. I would expect those to be people who already have AM2+ systems looking for an upgrade (I have a good friend that wanted an ultra cheap upgrade for her desktop a few months back... I built her an AM2+ X2 setup. Guess what? Now she can upgrade to something worthwhile. Yay!).
However, for the enthusiast, the hardware tweaker, the overclocker... The Phenom II is a disappointment. It has been said it can overclock to as high as 3.8ghz with good air cooling, maybe even 4ghz if you go with water. Awesome. C2Q can clock every bit as high, and you'll get more performance per clock out of it as well. I paid $180 for my Q6600. At 3.4ghz, it'll out-pace the top-end Phenom II. That Phenom II cost $275. Which is about the same price as... A low-end Core i7 chip that will overclock to 4ghz and beyond. With the i5 chips coming down the line, what's stopping Intel from slashing Core 2 prices?
All-in-all, the Phenom II is a powerful chip, and would serve well as the heart of an AMD rig, delivering worthy performance for almost anything. The problem is, a Core 2 Quad will do ya one better every time, for the same cost or less, and has been doing so for the past two years.
I'm anxiously waiting for AMD to bring back the glory days when they actually tried to compete with Intel, not just chase their taillights.
Re:Headline should read... (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the problems is that Intel has practically unlimited amounts of capital that they can dump into R&D, whereas AMD does not have such deep pockets. So, Intel is far ahead, and AMD will inevitably take a long time to catch up. Combine that with Intel's continually underhanded marketing and business practices, and things begin to look bleak for the underdog we are all cheering for..
Parent
glory days (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to take away from some impressive stuff AMD has done, but AMD's glory days were also helped out by Intel shooting themselves in the foot. Back when AMD had the top-end x86s, invented AMD64, etc., Intel's 900-pound-gorilla R&D machine was off working on Itanium, running their x86 line mostly on autopilot. Once they mostly gave up on Itanium and swung their resources back to x86, AMD, as you might expect, has had a much harder time.
The problem with Core i7 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Memory doesn't cost *that* much more. More, yes, but it's not an obscene amount.
However, the mobos are still running at 200$ for the cheapest ones. Oomph.
Re: (Score:2)
There's very little competition in the retail channels for i7 boards. I think there's fewer than 10 boards listed on Newegg when I checked a few weeks ago. I expect this will change in the coming months, which should bring down the price a little bit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Memory doesn't cost *that* much more.
yes, its *only* twice
Re: (Score:2)
But considering todays prices of DDR II even twice as much is kind of nothing =P.
People will spend more money on accessories with blue LEDs!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You say that you didn't turn it in when you got married?!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Memory costs for high-end DDR3 can be several TIMES that of high-end DDR2.
Consider this: high-end DDR2 could be considered DDR2-1066. Just built a rig with 4GB of DDR2-1066, cost me $44.
At the same store, from the same memory manufacturer, 4GB of DDR3-1600 (the high-end equivalent) costs $136, three times the price.
If you cry foul and want to see DDR3-1066 (the slowest DDR3), things improve slightly; the same brand, 4GB goes for $99, only double the price.
In short, DDR3 costs 2x to 3x the price of DDR2, whi
Re:The problem with Core i7 (Score:5, Informative)
To be more specific, the motherboards are $200+ on the low end of the spectrum whereas there are a wealth of Phenom II supporting motherboards for $100; and 4GB of DDR3 is only now approaching $100. 4GB of DDR2, OTOH, (which works with the AMD Phenom II), can be had for $20 if you look for it. If you're too lazy to look for these deals, it can be had for $40 no rebates.
AMD has a real winner on their hands here.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, for a quad DDR II-system for cheap it looks like AMD wins.
Even cheaper gaming DDR II-system I guess it's intel E8500.
I don't know if Core i7 920 + motherboard is worth the extra money for what they deliver, maybe it gets more worth it with a more expensive CPU since you'll have so much added cost for motherboard and memory anyway. DDR 3 offers additional benefits though (atleast theoretically.)
So if you want the latest and greatest Intel still wins.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean. I need to update my 5 year old computer because the new Adobe Lightroom brings it to a crawl when rendering. Since the i7 was just about to come out, I figured I'd wait. I knew there would be a premium for it, but I was prepared for that....until it came out and I found out just what the premium would be. $300 for the CPU was something I was prepared for, but $250 for the motherboard, and $25+/GB was a bit more than I was expecting.
Re: (Score:2)
$25+/GB is the cheapest it's ever been! What is your point ?
I do agree I7 motherboards are ridiculously overpriced and the selection is pathetic, especially considering how many i965 and P35 boards were dumped into the market below $100 just a year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem with Core i7 (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about most people, but when I budget for a new build I budget the entire thing as a single purchase. So if the CPU+mobo+RAM cost $200 less I will put that money into faster graphics or more memory or a nicer display or whatever.
I suspect it's a small, small group who buy the best that's available on the market with no concern for an overall budget.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just built an i7 system, splurged on a few nicer options and ended up at just about $1000 for the build. Had I been more fiscal:
MB = $250
i7 920 = $300
3GB Ram = $100
PSU = $100
Case = $50
Total = $800
But if you already have an AM2 MB, a $250 upgrade puts you back in the ballpark of being on the cutting edge. If someone wants to save $650 on a full system upgrade, it makes a lot of sense to me.
Re:The problem with Core i7 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the video card, yes, the poster missed it. No LGA1366 board has onboard video.
On the sound however, the onboard audio is great if all you're going to do with it is SPDIF out it to a receiver. And the $300 board have optical and/or coax out.
Re:The problem with Core i7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The problem with Core i7 (Score:4, Interesting)
I produce music and recently installed a PCI soundcard to use insted of the onboard sound. I immediately noticed a different: no background hiss/noise anymore. I also used to hear high pitched sounds that correlated with HDD access.
Parent
Re:The problem with Core i7 (Score:4, Informative)
Onboard sound really sucks. Get really good head phones and you'll hear hiss, noise, or interference whenever your system does something. I have Sennheiser HD 280 pro headphones with passive noise canceling and I tell you, there is a huge difference. Now if you have crappy head phones that let in all the sound from your whining computer fans, then sure, you'll never notice the noise and hiss the onboard sound produces.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 didn't made it into your comparison? I'd say I'd prefer Athlon-XP over Pentium 4 to.
I don't know which I'd prefer of Core Duo and Athlon64 X2.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had an Athlon 500Mhz (the oldest, slowest, first one they ever made -- it was back when AMD was just jumping on that fad of putting the chip on a slot instead of a socket). First of all, this was before NetBurst, so it was competing against P3
Re:Did you ever notice (Score:5, Funny)
So you didn't notice how you can't spell "Islamo-Communist mental case" without I n t e l then?
Parent