AMD Phenoms to surpass 3 GHz (Follow up)

helmutcheese · 2 Aug 2007 at 14:43

" Although AMD managed to showcase a quad-core Phenom CPU running at 3 GHz, skeptics have labeled the move a marketing stunt that doesn't really say anything about the frequency capabilities of the upcoming K10 processors. Although it is true that 3 GHz parts will not be arriving in time to take the performance crown from Intel's upcoming 45nm CPUs, the Phenoms will eventually get to that speed and even surpass it as the latest revision has done wonders to the K10s clocks.

The newest revision, as confirmed by Fudzilla, enables Phenom X4s codename Agena to top around 3.2-3.24 GHz while their little dual-core brothers, the X2 Kumas will be able to reach 3.4 GHz, with air cooling of course. The results are pretty interesting as AMD is using the 65nm process but, do note that these high-end CPUs will only be released if necessary, in 2008.

Competition will be back with a vengeance in 2008. "

http://www.tcmagazine.info/comments.php?shownews=15612&catid=2

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=15545&catid=2&highlight=3+ghz

ergonomics · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:14

too late

intel will dominate that year as they have this year/half of last year

Emlyn_Dewar · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:24

I'd love to see you're reasoning for that... Until these chips are actually released then I don't think anyone on these forums will know their performance.

OT: Am I right in thinking that it's only the Dual Core Kumas that can be dropped into an existing AM2 motherboard? And the Quad Core Agenas will require an AM2+ motherboard?

helmutcheese · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:26

Correct, he does not know, nobody here does.

I think both Dual and Quads fit todays AM2 Mobo's (not 100% on this) but you lose HT 3.0, no big deal today esp with 1x GPU set up and the new powersaving aspects (cant remember term)

Emlyn_Dewar · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:36

I hope so, wouldn't mind the option of quad core, should I ever need it, without having to change the motherboard.
Will have to put my AM2 setup back together and maximise the X2 3800's potential to make do at the moment.

~>Dg<~ · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:36

love all that write off amd just cause there not the quickest at the moment give it a few months watch the c2d champions jump ship like its on fire.The difference at the moment is small even though amds stuff is three years old man it makes me laugh .the only difference is oc ability .most of the time the difference is a bat of a eyelid or a few fps which you wouldnt dont notice in any program, game.

stickroad · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:44

Intel are just well up their at the moment becuase of the overclocking potenial.

jaykay · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:45

ergonomics said:
too late

intel will dominate that year as they have this year/half of last year

How is it too late???
We dont know how it compares to a penryn core? But its good to see AMD having a safety net with the high clock speeds.

Talrinys · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:47

dgmug that's absolutely incorrect, there have been tests, i believe they were performed by anandtech, clearly showing the clock-for-clock improvements in the C2D range. Nevermind even better performing dualcore chips, a nice cache, and extreme overclocking capability. If AMD comes out with a better chip, which i have no doubt that they are doing with this, that including overclocking potential can beat my C2D, i'll get one, why not, i'm going for max performance. However all these rumors, confusing release dates, various weird model names, etc. doesn't help anyone. We'll see when they are there, and we'll see if Penryn will beat those?

I'm still an AMD fanboy, will be for a long time cause of the awesome ondie memory controller, but C2D right now is just a better choice, and if Penryn will be too, i'll stick with that. And next year it'll be amazing, Intel makes an ondie controller too, and AMD moves to 45nm, gonna rock for consumers.

Talrinys · 2 Aug 2007 at 15:49

stickroad said:
Intel are just well up their at the moment becuase of the overclocking potenial.

Yeah for us performance freaks, AFAIK AMD still has an absolutely huge part of the broader market, and in many laptops there are AMD processors.
That's a big part of why AMD probably doesn't even really care, their price-advantage is a very good reason for getting their stuff, the HD2900 shows that too. That doesn't mean that i wouldn't get an 8800GTX if i had the money, but i don't, which is why i got the 8800GTS back in December.

V|per · 2 Aug 2007 at 17:42

dgmug said:
love all that write off amd just cause there not the quickest at the moment give it a few months watch the c2d champions jump ship like its on fire.The difference at the moment is small even though amds stuff is three years old man it makes me laugh .the only difference is oc ability .most of the time the difference is a bat of a eyelid or a few fps which you wouldnt dont notice in any program, game.

Not true, i've directly compared an am2 2.2ghz vs a c2d at 2.33ghz.. same ram (ballistix pc 5300 c3) same gfx (76gt)

In supreme commander, the c2d is phenominally faster than the am2 chip.. quite scary actually...

But in all fairness, you do make a good point.. Considering AMD are on an old technology, they are doing damn well.. i really rather hope that amd's new cpus do give intel a run for there money, i have been a great fan of amd in the past, and it was only the core2duo that made me swap...

Vertigo · 2 Aug 2007 at 17:48

Until Nehalem arrives, Intel will be seriously hampered by the FSB. Nehalem will pinch AMD's ideas of the onboard memory controller and hypertransport bus but until that happens, Phenom could steal a march on Intel.

Don't forget that overclocking, which allows cheap C2Ds to achieve stellar performance and also alleviates the FSB bottleneck, is of no interest to the vast majority of customers. If the Phenom can put in superior benches to Penryn and is released a decent time prior to Nehalem then Intel could find themselves with some real competition.

jaykay · 2 Aug 2007 at 18:06

Nehalem will give Intel a slight problem as they wont be able able to join 2 cores together and use the fsb. Like on current quad cores.

Justintime · 2 Aug 2007 at 18:36

I actually dreamt AMD came out with a 8Ghz X2 (per core!) K8 and decimated Intel, not kidding

BoomAM · 2 Aug 2007 at 18:40

Enthusiasts are the most fickle people on the planet.
If AMD was to release a processor that was 50% faster at the same clocks, at the same price, you'd get 99% of enthusiasts jumping ship and saying Intel are done for.
Its nout new. Its been happening for years.

Vertigo · 2 Aug 2007 at 19:29

jaykay said:
Nehalem will give Intel a slight problem as they wont be able able to join 2 cores together and use the fsb. Like on current quad cores.

Which is partly why Nehalem will be a "true" quad-core with a shared L2 or L3 cache, together with the on-board memory controller and hypertransport bus.

Exactly like Phenom actually, which is why AMD could steal a march on Intel if they can release at 3Ghz+ in early 2008 as I don't believe Nehalem is due until Q4 2008.

helmutcheese · 2 Aug 2007 at 21:31

Vertigo1 said:
Until Nehalem arrives, Intel will be seriously hampered by the FSB. Nehalem will pinch AMD's ideas of the onboard memory controller and hypertransport bus but until that happens, Phenom could steal a march on Intel.

Don't forget that overclocking, which allows cheap C2Ds to achieve stellar performance and also alleviates the FSB bottleneck, is of no interest to the vast majority of customers. If the Phenom can put in superior benches to Penryn and is released a decent time prior to Nehalem then Intel could find themselves with some real competition.

Nothing new there

, Intel used Hyperthreading which was invented and patented by AMD in 2002, but they dropped it due to fact short fat pipes in AMD architecture did not really benefit from it like Intels longer thinner pipes.

Tooks · 2 Aug 2007 at 22:14

There's nothing surprising in the least about cpu companies 'borrowing' tech off of each other!

Wasn't it AMD who actually came into being by making clones of Intel processors...?

The on-board memory controller is a good thing though, and AMD should be congratulated for it.

At the end of the day though, I don't care how either company get the peformance, as long as they get it and give us a choice!!

helmutcheese · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:07

Not really, they had agreement about the X86 tech and use of it, the X86 CPU was not actually the best avail at the time, there was a Russian CPU in the works that was amazing but they could not fund it.

Justintime · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:08

Yea i remember that Russian design, looked pretty good but never heard of it again.