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
The Jedi - Monday, April 7, 2008 - link
I'm pretty much with you, but just to comment on this part:"As for price the q6600 is dropping all over the place... Frys had it for 180 yesterday, Microcenter has it for 200."
It's a common misnomer to see a sale price on something and then get it locked into your head that that price you saw one time is the price you should expect to pay for something from then on. For example if the company that rhymes with hell is advertising a PC with monitor for $299, even if it's THREE DAYS ONLY in the fine print, or like after rebate, people tend to get it stuck in their head that "a new computer" can be had for a mere $300, when a wiser person would know something that cheap would be like 3-year old tech/speed, likely with dead pixels and a 6-bit analog LCD panel, Windows Basic, stuff like that.
Companies sometimes have a sale on one thing hoping you'll buy items with it, which allows them to make money. Just wanted to throw that out there.
bigboxes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
How old are you? What's with all this "ownage" crap you are spewing? Do you really tie in your self worth to the cpu you use (feel free to substitute car, house, salary)? Most of us mature individuals who have actually reached adulthood just want the best performance for our dollar, not ownage just to inflate our e-penis.Nice article.
RamarC - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
it's "funny" that anand forgot that the e6750 is $180 (not $266) and that the 3ghz oem e8400 (sans cooler) is in-stock and available for $200. the e8400 would certainly push a couple of phenoms lower on the chart.and it's also "funny" that anand's comparing projected phenom prices (since they aren't available yet) with real street prices. wait until you can get street prices before claiming a better price/performance ration.
Margalus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
apparently you didn't read the article. The amd chip is not as good as intel currently, but they aren't crap.And if you read the article you would have seen that they still recommended and intel cpu for a new system, so it definately wasn't written with payola in mind from amd.
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
We read it, cmon you didnt see any slant towards AMD? Come on, be honest :)And it sounded like they were about to cry when they recommended Intel (plus the long in the tooth comments geez, I mean really, Intels old crap sucks and should die but AMDs latest and greatest ALMOST beats Intels crap wow what logic, LOL). Hey I wish AMD were top dog again. I loved the Athlon XP's & 64's. But facts are facts....
hooflung - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Well look at it this way. Enthusiasts do not drive the market. System builders and servers do. AMD is able to bring competitive prices to the OEM channels and that will also translate to the server markets for the Phenom Opteron lineup.AMD is still largely competitive with Intel at the server level with the Phenom where TLB, the now strong point of the Phenom, is implemented better.
To keep your servers sponsored with a healthy company, IT departments will purchase desktop parts when refreshing hardware. It would be nice for AMD to be able to boast the crown but their company is still profitable, ie in business, by offering parts that sell well.
Also, its not wise to accuse Anand to being bribed. He's been saying this for a long time and he's enthusiastic that AMD is finally making good on their goals. Fanboi squat somewhere else.
michal1980 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
How is this NOT a fluff piece? A 'new' cpu (Thats only new because the first time around it had a bug) thats 4+ months late to the party.Is being beaten by processor that was launch over a YEAR ago.
In gaming the new processor has even been beaten by a X2 6400+!!!.
Thats CRAP. How old is that cpu?
and yet we get conclusions that this is more like the "Amd we're used to seing.. a competitive AMD"? Competitive excatly how? I'll grant you this will push intel to release there 45nm cpu's... But its not like intel is sweeting.
Futhermore, How can you come out and say the Q6600 is long in the tooth, when its better then the new stuff amd has on the market?
Long in the tooth because 12+ months after being released its faster then a brand new amd chip? long in the tooth because its easy to find one for 250, and on sale for less? Or just long in the tooth because It just beats the AMD right now, and doesn't whoop them by 20%+?
I'm standing by my claim this article is fluff/ BS . its written in a postive spin for amd.. When the AMD processor has clearly been beaten again/still.
Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I love how fanboys like to conveniently "forget" about the few years that AMD was dominating Intel in pretty much every benchmark when it was the Pentium 4 against the Athlon64.VashHT - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I don't get what you're saying, are you implying that phenom is competitive because A64 dominated the P4? Funny how you can call someone a fanboy when you're bringing up 2 processors that don't matter in the current market.Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
You kind of have to read the previous post wherein the author implies that AMD has never been competitive, which it has been numerous times. My example was merely the latest and had no bearing on the current generation of products.