AMD Phenom II Performance Uplift

[v_rr]

http://resources.vr-zone.com/newvr/image.php?m=540&s=http://resources.vr-zone.com//uploads/6273/PhenomII_uplift.jpg

This slide shows the key areas of improvements for 45nm Phenom II over 65nm Phenom such as more IPC, higher frequency, more cache, and DDR3 support. There is a 5% cache uplift on the cache architecture and a 3% uplift on the core architecture. With all these innovations in place, AMD is touting a 20% performance boost. I guess this is not the exciting part for enthusiasts but the massive overclocking headroom of Phenom II where one can go above 4GHz on just air cooling and 6.3GHz on LN2 as demonstrated in this webcast.

http://resources.vr-zone.com/newvr/image.php?m=540&s=http://resources.vr-zone.com//uploads/6273/PhenomII_940.jpg

http://resources.vr-zone.com/newvr/image.php?m=540&s=http://resources.vr-zone.com//uploads/6273/PhenomII_innovations.jpg

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-phenom-ii-performance-uplift/6273.html?doc=6273

[naokaji]

20% faster per clock and clocks higher? sounds very good, now we can just hope they hit retail soon and will deliver the performance they promise.

[RPGWiZaRD]

20% (minus the clockratio boost) faster than Phenom I should make it very competitive at least with the older Penryn series and that's a good thing. Against i7 it can competite with bang-for-buck instead and the better overclockability(?) should make things more even. Again AMD + slides I've learnt to put not too much trust in and only reflecting special cases and in general usage it might not be as fast as the sliders suggests but that remains to be seen, it's soon available anyways.

[Caveman787]

From this graph it's only 8% ipc and I hope thats not true....because as I recall q6600 had 12% ipc over phenom which would mean yorkfield would have like 17% ipc over phenom.

Which would make them still behind....hope it's more like 15% ipc overall.

Bigger step perhaps....but I was hoping they'd make it be able to compete with everything intels got in the way of old tech ipc wise and be able to compete with i7 aswell in gaming.

[w0mbat]

Yorkfield has a ~2-4% higher IPC than kentsfield, so phenom -> phenom II is a bigger step.

[kemo]

From the slides i can only understand that Phenom II is 20% faster than Phenom I and we are talking about 2.6GHZ VS 3GHZ , am i missing something , it is 20% for 15% higher clock

[RPGWiZaRD]

Yorkfield has a ~2-4% higher IPC than kentsfield, so phenom -> phenom II is a bigger step.

It heavily depends on application, it's like 2 - 15% difference and average around 5 - 7%.

[Shintai]

From the slides i can only understand that Phenom II is 20% faster than Phenom I and we are talking about 2.6GHZ VS 3GHZ , am i missing something , it is 20% for 15% higher clock

Yes, 2.6Ghz vs 3Ghz.

Its basicly gonna match kentsfield. Far from as pretty as some have claimed.

Im also sure they use 3Ghz vs 2.6Ghz because the math percentage is then bigger for the other improvements.

[informal]

Yorkfield has a ~2-4% higher IPC than kentsfield, so phenom -> phenom II is a bigger step.

Probably the 8% is the average,since cache and smaller IPC can do more in games for example than in certain apps.Games (http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/tests/prozessor/1951279/amd_phenom_ii_x4.html)saw a larger boost over Agena(simulated Deneb by using Shanghai @2.7Ghz on server board with regged ram),L3 is to "blame" probably and its new sharing properties(better dynamical allocation for one core if app is mono-thread ie.)
We saw that in Cine10 for example,which i personally am not a fan of, K10.5 is ~10% faster.In pointless superPi, which btw i'm using as an example only because people here like it for some strange reason,there is ~11% increase over K10. In SSE optimized stuff Agena was quite competitive with C2Q(at least with 65nm ones),so in these apps. it should be smaller increase for Deneb over Agena ,i'd say around 5-6%.

In case some of you missed it,we have 64bit cine10 results from a user over at AMD subforum.Competitive results vs QX9770 at the same clock(3.2GHz),pretty good match at the same clock:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3490578&postcount=250
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=90566&stc=1&d=1228958064
1% slower multicore result (per clock) than Yorkfield and 3% slower single core result.

[Shintai]

For the cache talk I like to throw this in. I know its not for K8/K10 but its a nice example anyway of where it matters.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoLaunch/L2cachecomparison.png

[Leeghoofd]

let's at least hope +4Ghz is doable on high end air cooling and on water... if it can do that it will attract for sure some attention...

[Rammsteiner]

let's at least hope +4Ghz is doable on high end air cooling and on water... if it can do that it will attract for sure some attention...
Then Ive to let you down there.

Of course its doable, but it's kind of a different story to say 'Phenom II will do 4Ghz+ on air'. There will be some nice steppings out there, but as always with everything, YMMV. Even some Yorkies refuse to OC, or they do OC and degrade like madness. It's all down to being lucky in the end:rolleyes:

[Leeghoofd]

AMD better redraw that OC'ing chart then if they cannot guarantuee 4ghz with decent cooling and components...this could be very misleading. Or better add a small PS note that an OC like this is a result of several factors (mobo, ram, psu, cooling , end user, etc...) and can vary from rig to rig...

[K404]

Most expensive AMD board is £200...the cheapest I7 board is £200

dual channel DDR3 (or DDR2) Vs tri-channel DDR3

I7 prices: £230, 450, 800

PheII....gotta be less than that!

Even if AMD performs 10% worse on averge than I7, its gonna cost more than 10% less.

PheII mobo compatability is a nice point.

Vs... I7 is pseudo octo-core for multi-threaded apps.

[Helmore]

AMD better redraw that OC'ing chart then if they cannot guarantuee 4ghz with decent cooling and components...this could be very misleading. Or better add a small PS note that an OC like this is a result of several factors (mobo, ram, psu, cooling , end user, etc...) and can vary from rig to rig...

If I read the slide correctly then it states that overclocks for a 940 (3 GHz.) on air are around 3,5 GHz. on average and for water it's 4,2 GHz. on average. Seems right to me, just a little more conservative claim than what we may get only to not let us be disappointed by their claims.

[Leeghoofd]

Do you have another slide than what I see here ?, I only want to know what that * refers too, I see a white line in the OC bar at +/-3.9 seperating air and water... where do you see 3.5 ?

[Helmore]

I was talking about where the blue hue is the darkest. To me it looks a bit like a Gaussian distribution seen from above, with the peak at about 3,5 GHz. for air cooling an around 4,2 GHz for watercooling.

[Glow9]

LOL that top Graph is terrible I can put my own stats up on a bar graph with nothing to really compare it to as well, especially that 1333 wtf is going on there. Rediculous

[kromosto]

this is the worst marketing slide i have ever seen. the first one i mean.

so if amd marketing dep is playing like this so lets start to do our stupid math calculations to follow their order. first lets examine the facts.

<facts from="approximate values taken from graph 1">
1. phenom II 940 is %24 faster then 9950
2. %4 is from ddr3 memory so we cant see that increase on first released am2+ type pII
3. %6 from additional cache.
4. %11 from frequency
5. %3 from ipc.
</facts>

<stupid math calculations>
and from 2.6 to 3.0 %15 clock increase.

so %15 increase in clock give us %11 performance increase.

and again so we are plannig to get pII to 4.0 ghz on air. it is %53 more clock from 2.6 and we know that %15 clock increase give %11 performance increase.

<result> this gives %38 and plus %13 from ipc ddr3 and more cache pII @ 4ghz will give %51 more performance then a 9950 if we are talking about am2+ version this diff is %47</result>

</stupid math calculations>

are we happy now?

[Nedjo]

Most expensive AMD board is £200...the cheapest I7 board is £200

WTF... £200 for sAM2+ mobo?? :eek:

take pick from one of those DFI mobos that are among the best there is for sAM2+: http://www.alternate.de/html/categoryListing.html?cat1=16&cat2=374&cat3=0&tgid=223&tn=HARDWARE&l1=Mainboards&l2=AMD&l3=Sockel+AM2%2B&#DFI

no where near £200...

and the best part is that you can save even more to get basically same OC from the Phenom: http://www.alternate.de/html/product/Mainboards_Sockel_AM2+/Biostar/TA790GX_A2+/288020/?tn=HARDWARE&l1=Mainboards&l2=AMD&l3=Sockel+AM2%2B

[D-Cyph3r]

Theres 2 boards that are right up there, though both look fairly useless compared to Asus and DFI's cheaper options:

Foxconn Destroyer (http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Foxconn-Destroyer-NF780i-SLI-S-AM2plus-PCI-E-20-(x16)-DDR2-1066-533-800-SATA-II-SATA-RAID-ATX)

Foxconn A79A-S (http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Foxconn-A79A-S-AMD-790FX-S-AM2plus-PCI-E-20-(x16)-DDR2-1066MHz-Crossfire-SATA-II-SATA-RAID-ATX)

No, I dont know why they are so expensive either. :/

[v_rr]

My way of see that is picking on Phenom 9950 review and multiply 9950 score by *1.2 or *1.25
Exmple:
Phenom 9950 - 100 fps - Game X
Phenom II 940 - 120/125 fps - Game X

[accord99]

My way of see that is picking on Phenom 9950 review and multiply 9950 score by *1.2 or *1.25
Exmple:
Phenom 9950 - 100 fps - Game X
Phenom II 940 - 120/125 fps - Game X
Only in low resolution CPU limited situations.

[gallag]

Only in low resolution CPU limited situations.

LOL, No, no CPU performance matters again.

On topic, ipc gains = lame, oc headroom = fantastic.

[chew*]

Most expensive AMD board is £200...the cheapest I7 board is £200

dual channel DDR3 (or DDR2) Vs tri-channel DDR3

I7 prices: £230, 450, 800

PheII....gotta be less than that!

Even if AMD performs 10% worse on averge than I7, its gonna cost more than 10% less.

PheII mobo compatability is a nice point.

Vs... I7 is pseudo octo-core for multi-threaded apps.

I think that some of your statements are misleading. We do not know what will be charged for true am3 variant boards or cpu's at this time. If i had to guess that true enthusiast level boards have not even been released yet, 790 was meant for AM3, the am2+ versions we have seen appear to be more mainstream to me.

Phenom mobo compatibilty supports am2+ denebs not AM3 denebs.........AM2+ denebs will NOT be compatible with AM3 boards......so if you get a AM2+ deneb it is an end of life product.........that said your resale value will be poor also. While this makes for easier transition the bottom line is if you want a TRUE AM3 platform you will have to start from scratch. I would not expect major improvements shifting to ddr3 at first but over time I think AMD will be able to widen the performance gap of ddII versus DDRIII offerings.

According to this list you do not have much of a choice what you buy either...........there will be No budget chip so to speak as far as we know etc no 3 core no 2.6g 4 core for DDRII users.

Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz 8MB Deneb AM3 Apr, 2009
Phenom II X4 940 3.0GHz 8MB Deneb AM2+ 8th, Jan
Phenom II X4 925 2.8GHz 8MB Deneb AM3 Feb, 2009
Phenom II X4 920 2.8GHz 8MB Deneb AM2+ 8th, Jan
Phenom II X4 910 2.6GHz 8MB Deneb AM3 Feb, 2009
Phenom II X4 810 2.6GHz 6MB Deneb AM3 Feb, 2009
Phenom II X4 805 2.5GHz 6MB Deneb AM3 Feb, 2009
Phenom II X3 720 2.8GHz 7.5MB Heka AM3 Feb, 2009
Phenom II X3 710 2.6GHz 7.5MB Heka AM3 Feb, 2009

[v_rr]

Watching this review:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=10

And making Phenom II = Phenom 9950 * 1.20 this new CPU will be = Intel Q9550 (or between <Q9450/Q9550> depends from the test).
If I multilply Phenom 9950 *1.25 it can be faster then Intel Q9550 in some and slower in other.

It´s a lame way of calculating scores but, it´s a way....

If someone put here more reviews with:
- Core I7 920
- Q9650/Q9550/Q9450
- Phenon 9950

It whould be easy to say more about that. Found other:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=16

Phenom II 940/945 hardly touch the Intel Core I7 and should be competitive with Q9550.

[initialised]

Most expensive AMD board is £200...the cheapest I7 board is £200

dual channel DDR3 (or DDR2) Vs tri-channel DDR3

I7 prices: £230, 450, 800

PheII....gotta be less than that!P II 920 2.8GHz = £220
P II 940 BE 3.0GHz = £250
i7 920 2.66GHz = £250
Q9550 2.83GHz = £284
Q9650 3.0GHz= £466
i7 940 2.93GHz= £484
i7 965 3.2GHz = £881
QX9650 3.0GHz = £931
QX9770 3.2GHz = £1184

Prices from http://uk.insight.com VAT inclusive

Clock for clock performance data is still under wraps but should be close to Penryn, as such it is almost 2x the performance per pound (bang for buck) but if you consider the unlocked multiplier then it's more like 4x

[Rammsteiner]

I think that some of your statements are misleading. We do not know what will be charged for true am3 variant boards or cpu's at this time. If i had to guess that true enthusiast level boards have not even been released yet, 790 was meant for AM3, the am2+ versions we have seen appear to be more mainstream to me.
Errr, it's not like AM3 is needed just yet though:rolleyes:

If you'd get AM2+ right now you can survive a long time with that really. Although AM3 is a tad more future proof.


According to this list you do not have much of a choice what you buy either...........there will be No budget chip so to speak as far as we know etc no 3 core no 2.6g 4 core for DDRII users.
Athlon X4, X3 and X2, no? Propus? If that ain't budget Im lost:confused:

[StalkingButcher]

I thought AM3 Denebs were compatible with AM2+ boards, but the AM2+ variant of the Denebs was not compatible with AM3.

[chew*]

Errr, it's not like AM3 is needed just yet though:rolleyes:

If you'd get AM2+ right now you can survive a long time with that really. Although AM3 is a tad more future proof.


Athlon X4, X3 and X2, no? Propus? If that ain't budget Im lost:confused:

No budget DENEB AM2+ in X3 chip.

[chew*]

I thought AM3 Denebs were compatible with AM2+ boards, but the AM2+ variant of the Denebs was not compatible with AM3.

IF that was the case why make a AM2+ deneb ;) the am2+ denebs are the only thing available as of jan 8th or whatever date they are releasing.

[StalkingButcher]

Perhaps because the CPU is ready but the platform isn't? It looks like AM3 is still awhile away(april-may?). The availability of AM2+ boards would make it worth it I guess. The AM2 Deneb only has DDR2 support where the AM3 Deneb has both DDR2 and DDR3?

[chew*]

Perhaps because the CPU is ready but the platform isn't? It looks like AM3 is still awhile away(april-may?). The availability of AM2+ boards would make it worth it I guess. The AM2 Deneb only has DDR2 support where the AM3 Deneb has both DDR2 and DDR3?

I think you are confusing what has been told.

It was said phenom II would support am2+ and AM3. Not that AM3 chips would work in AM2+ boards. AM2+ phenom II is ddrII and will not be forward compatible.

AM3 phenomII is a ddr3 variant and from what ive read is not backward compatible or there would be no need for a AM2+ variant.

[Solus Corvus]

So it looks like for the 65nm -> 45nm transition AMD focused on the process and not as much on the architecture. The good news is that those efforts seem to have been fruitful. That leaves the door open for them to make further improvements in an architecture revision ( kinda like a tick*, or is that a tock*?). Either way, they better not sit content with their results or Intel could just accelerate nehalem platform deployment and wipe out any advances AMD has made. But an architecture refresh and then a (relatively, for AMD) quick transition to 32nm could help stoke the fires of competition.


*(lol, don't flame me ;) )

[gryle]

I think you are confusing what has been told.

It was said phenom II would support am2+ and AM3. Not that AM3 chips would work in AM2+ boards. AM2+ phenom II is ddrII and will not be forward compatible.

AM3 phenomII is a ddr3 variant and from what ive read is not backward compatible or there would be no need for a AM2+ variant.

Better tell that to Asus, they seem to think that several AM2+ DDR2 boards will be able to run AM3 CPUs: http://event.asus.com/mb/AM3_CPU_Support/ :D

[chew*]

The problem lies with all Phenom II denebs originally being considered AM3, its causing confusion IMO. Like i said why release a Am2+ variant 3 months ahead when you could just release the same AM3 chip.

However if it is forward compatible which would not make sense good for them. maybe they plan to can the AM2+ version as sonn as AM3 is released in march other wise they would be competing with themselves and confusing alot of consumers.

Regardless i'm waiting for AM3 variant.

[YukonTrooper]

20% faster per clock and clocks higher? sounds very good, now we can just hope they hit retail soon and will deliver the performance they promise.
Wouldn't it be an 8% clock-for-clock increase (3% core / 5% cache), with the 12% frequency increase just being higher attainable clocks?

[Helmore]

As far as I know the AM2+ version of Deneb will get EOL status when the AM3 version is launched simply because the AM3 version will also work in pretty much all AM2(+) motherboards. The motherboard manufacturers will have to provide a BIOS update to make the AM3 Deneb work in their AM2(+) board.

[Zucker2k]

The problem lies with all Phenom II denebs originally being considered AM3, its causing confusion IMO. Like i said why release a Am2+ variant 3 months ahead when you could just release the same AM3 chip.

However if it is forward compatible which would not make sense good for them. maybe they plan to can the AM2+ version as sonn as AM3 is released in march other wise they would be competing with themselves and confusing alot of consumers.

Regardless i'm waiting for AM3 variant.Maybe a bios update is what it'll take. From the profits perspective it makes sense because you can sell chips in the first quarter, instead of waiting till march and beyond to sell. Maybe the progress of process maturation is another factor, so that AM3 chips are going to benefit from that.

Edit: Helmore beat me to it.

[MomijiTMO]

Honestly, the price disparity between Phenom II and i7 is a huge factor for budget conscious people like myself. I'm with K404.

[Hornet331]

Honestly, the price disparity between Phenom II and i7 is a huge factor for budget conscious people like myself. I'm with K404.

PII is not the competetitor of PII, its a showdown between C2 (45nm) and PII. Whoever delivers the better bang for the bug will win that race. :yepp:

[STaRGaZeR]

Honestly, the price disparity between Phenom II and i7 is a huge factor for budget conscious people like myself. I'm with K404.


PII is not the competetitor of PII, its a showdown between C2 (45nm) and PII. Whoever delivers the better bang for the bug will win that race. :yepp:

What he said. Let alone i7, not the objetive of this CPU.

[dinos22]

if AMD is saying they want to compete with Yorkfield why are they playing the name game with their products against Nehalem then ;)


compare Deneb with Nehalem fellas
actually wait for reviews to come out first

and then retail parts and once available price comparisons are fair game as well ;)

[YukonTrooper]

if AMD is saying they want to compete with Yorkfield why are they playing the name game with their products against Nehalem then ;)


compare Deneb with Nehalem fellas
actually wait for reviews to come out first

and then retail parts and once available price comparisons are fair game as well ;)
Ohhhh, I like the sounds of this, my chum Australian fellow! :)

I like it because I know you have a Deneb in your dirty little hands, so you've obviously made some comparisons? Spill the beans! Just not any NDA beans. :p:

Let's go, Dinos, let's go! :woot:

[informal]

@chew

AM3 Phenom IIs are backwards compatible with AM2+ boards ;).BUT,AM2+ Phenom IIs will not work in AM3 boards since they are limited to only DDR2 standard.

[dinos22]

yukon
i havent touched Ph2 yet :shrug:

[YukonTrooper]

yukon
i havent touched Ph2 yet :shrug:

strokes the CPU for the upcoming weekend torture session

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5983/pc092940800x600edittc2.jpg

:yepp:
On the weekend, I guess, but I thought maybe you got a little excited and did some early testing. :D

[informal]

I think he said it's a weekend OC action coupled with good beer? :)

[charged3800z24]

which means he isn't lieing about not touching it yet, right? I wish I could touch one lol

[Eson]

Does anyone have source for AM2+ Denebs only has DDR2?

The way i thought it worked is that AM2+ and AM3 Deneb are basically identical. Just that AMD choose to release it as 'AM3' when they release the AM3 motherboards. Because they want to make it clear that this processor fits this motherboard so normal people understands it. And they choose to release Deneb as AM2+ now in the beginning because there are no AM3 motherboards out yet, so normal people don't think that there are no motherboards for this new processor yet...

This is what i was hoping for. I don't understand what AMD means with 'Seamless Transitions' otherwise.
http://resources.vr-zone.com/newvr/image.php?m=540&s=http://resources.vr-zone.com//uploads/6273/PhenomII_innovations.jpg

[chew*]

Actually I think it is a competitor to I7 at price point.

While it might perform on par with c2d and c2q in clock per clock and price per price it looks to me like it will also compete with Ci7 in price per price ala Ci7 920. 2.4g versus PII 3.0g.

Remember the average consumer does not OC. So if the PII 940 can trade blows with C i7 920 at the same price that will be what oem's and consumers will be looking at. I suspect with a 600mhz clock advantage that it will be close with PII 940 winning in some apps and Ci7 920 winning in others.

[chew*]

@chew

AM3 Phenom IIs are backwards compatible with AM2+ boards ;).BUT,AM2+ Phenom IIs will not work in AM3 boards since they are limited to only DDR2 standard.

So all these people that are getting warm and fuzzy and preordering are basically throwing away money 3 months to early.

[dinos22]

On the weekend, I guess, but I thought maybe you got a little excited and did some early testing. :D

Josh has the chip and board and is bringing it over on sunday

[STaRGaZeR]

Actually I think it is a competitor to I7 at price point.

While it might perform on par with c2d and c2q in clock per clock and price per price it looks to me like it will also compete with Ci7 in price per price ala Ci7 920. 2.4g versus PII 3.0g.

Remember the average consumer does not OC. So if the PII 940 can trade blows with C i7 920 at the same price that will be what oem's and consumers will be looking at. I suspect with a 600mhz clock advantage that it will be close with PII 940 winning in some apps and Ci7 920 winning in others.

With the exception that the Core i7 920 has a clock speed of 2,66GHz, not 2,4GHz. That means 340MHz difference :p:

PII is not the competitor of i7.

[chew*]

With the exception that the Core i7 920 has a clock speed of 2,66GHz, not 2,4GHz. That means 340MHz difference :p:

Oops....thx for correcting that. Still should be close i think or at least i hope. It's price reflects that it is........just as intels 9450 priced in the same range also which makes it a competitor to its own I7 920.

[STaRGaZeR]

Oops....thx for correcting that. Still should be close i think or at least i hope. It's price reflects that it is........just as intels 9450 priced in the same range also which makes it a competitor to its own I7 920.

That the point. i7 920 and the old Penryns are about the same price, when perfomance is not. Look at AMD's own charts, less than 10% clock per clock with Agena. It can only compete with Penryn, and the reviews will show just that. This is just a die shrink, what did people expect? Just like Conroe --> Penryn, less power consumption, less heat, sighly better IPC, bigger caches, but no revolution.

[chew*]

real world apps.

ci7 920 versus q9450/9550 both in same price range.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/4
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/5
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/6

and i dont take much stock in this one but http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/11

If q9450/9550 trade blows in real world apps versus ci7 920 and PII is competitive with q9450/9550 which are in its price range than it goes without saying it will trade blows with ci7 920 as well.............

[STaRGaZeR]

real world apps.

ci7 920 versus q9450/9550 both in same price range.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/4
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/5
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/6

and i dont take much stock in this one but http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/11

If q9450/9550 trade blows in real world apps versus ci7 920 and PII is competitive with q9450/9550 which are in its price range than it goes without saying it will trade blows with ci7 920 as well.............

First, these are games, not "real world apps". 95% of games are GPU limited.
Second, in all your links AMD gets raped by Intel, the "app" doesn't matter.
Third, the 10% improvement is over Agena. In you own links that means Penryn outperforms PII.

Maybe you might find some cases where even PhenomI is competitive, and thus PII will be too, but I can show you the opposite a lot more times depending of the application I choose (excluding synthetic bechmarks of course). The same conversation since Phenom was launched...

[chew*]

Well I can only hope that it will be competitve with c2q. This is all hypothetical of course till we see real results. most of my conclusions are based on price. can't imagine that amd would price it comparably if it wasn't competitive, wouldn't make much sense.

[STaRGaZeR]

They are priced against Q9450 and Q9550. The "problem" for AMD is that the i7 is there too.

[Zucker2k]

They are priced against Q9450 and Q9550. The "problem" for AMD is that the i7 is there too.Unfortunately, PII is being launched right after Nehalem.

[Dami3n]

Core i7 play in other league. Better clock per clock performance, 8 threads, turbo mode, triple channel, expensive boards and ram, some boards with sas support, .....
Phenom II is good Amd step, cheap, and with better performance than previous agena 65nm, but thats all. They are here to compete with yorkfields, don´t expect miracles.

[AbelJemka]

They are priced against Q9450 and Q9550. The "problem" for AMD is that the i7 is there too.
I have to disagree with on this one.
If you excluded i7 from ur equation, it stay Q9450/Q9550 vs i7920.
If Intel put i920 there it's because for them Q9450/Q9550 and i920 are not competitor.

[Zucker2k]

I have to disagree with on this one.
If you excluded i7 from ur equation, it stay Q9450/Q9550 vs i7920.
If Intel put i920 there it's because for them Q9450/Q9550 and i920 are not competitor.i920 is the "hook," cheap, you upgrade platform, you don't look back.

[JumpingJack]

Yorkfield has a ~2-4% higher IPC than kentsfield, so phenom -> phenom II is a bigger step.

It was a bit higher than that.... 2-10% about the same as the Deneb shrink really:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3137&p=4

Some apps were 2%, games ranged from 2 to 9%, encoding and rendering were on average 8% on average or so... clock for clock anyway.

[JumpingJack]

real world apps.

ci7 920 versus q9450/9550 both in same price range.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/4
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/5
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/6

and i dont take much stock in this one but http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/11

If q9450/9550 trade blows in real world apps versus ci7 920 and PII is competitive with q9450/9550 which are in its price range than it goes without saying it will trade blows with ci7 920 as well.............

These are mostly all GPU limited cases, such small variation with changing CPU clocks speeds is not indicative of a generalized statement like you are making. In CPU specific Apps, the i920 ~ same or better than an QX9770..

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/10
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/11
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/9
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/7

It is inappropriate to selectively interpret data, especially when the review confutes the results with a GPU cap. In situations where the GPU is enough to put the load/cap back onthe CPU, the i920 is also faster than the QX9770.

[Stukov]

I think you are confusing what has been told.

It was said phenom II would support am2+ and AM3. Not that AM3 chips would work in AM2+ boards. AM2+ phenom II is ddrII and will not be forward compatible.

AM3 phenomII is a ddr3 variant and from what ive read is not backward compatible or there would be no need for a AM2+ variant.


The Phenom II, Deneb core in AM3, has both DDR2 and DDR3 memory controller and if you plug it in AM3 you are stuck with DDR3, while the same CPU in AM2+ will be DDR2 only. This only works with Phenom II AM3 CPUs, while the first two to launch as AM2+ are limited to DDR2 only.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10821&Itemid=1

[chew*]

I clipped those results becuase they are not synthetic......synthetic benchmarks are just that take it with a grain of salt........

seeing as it appears they used a high end card the cpu and platform can become a bottleneck, why else would c2q series able to win in those apps..........if the cpu is better its just better.........apparently however this in not the case. Bottom line i build a pc to use it not just bench it with synthetic benches.

I play alot of games and it's quite obvious the 920 is bottlenecking at its stock speed. Not to say I would run stock but average joe would......average joe is a majority.

[G0ldBr1ck]

you cant really base where its meant to compete on the CPU price alone but on the entire platform. tho the pII is priced on par with i7 when you factor in MB and ram for the overall platform it puts them in 2 completely diffrent price points.

[chew*]

you cant really base where its meant to compete on the CPU price alone but on the entire platform. tho the pII is priced on par with i7 when you factor in MB and ram for the overall platform it puts them in 2 completely diffrent price points.

Well considering we don't know how much an am3 board will cost, we dont know how much the am3 variant chip costs and ram will need 4 gig. Can't make a comparison then.

[JumpingJack]

I clipped those results becuase they are not synthetic......synthetic benchmarks are just that take it with a grain of salt........

seeing as it appears they used a high end card the cpu and platform can become a bottleneck, why else would c2q series able to win in those apps..........if the cpu is better its just better.........apparently however this in not the case. Bottom line i build a pc to use it not just bench it with synthetic benches.

I play alot of games and it's quite obvious the 920 is bottlenecking at its stock speed. Not to say I would run stock but average joe would......average joe is a majority.

That's not what the data says ... the bottleneck in your links is clearly GPU limited.... there are other benches on the net though that do show it at the limiter, and it is limiting near a QX9770 level, sometimes a tie, sometimes just below, sometimes just above. ... it is probably more reasonable to say it out performs a QX9650 ... so somewhere in between:

Examples:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/nehalem_core_i7_review/22.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/nehalem_core_i7_review/24.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-940-965/page12.html (low res, nonGPU limited)
http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-940-965/page11.html

On to the non-gaming benches ... Cinebench is not synthetic, neither is winrar, nor paint.net, nor 7-zip ... PCMark of course is... but your statements contradicts the data.

[Clairvoyant129]

Looks good, would love to get my hands on it. If priced right, I would pick these babies up right away.

[Leeghoofd]

What's the difference between a Qx9650 and a 9770 ? just the FSB to me run the QX9650 at 400FSB with 8 multi and you get the same performance... I7 920 isn't much faster (at stock) than these 2CPU's in some games yet it jields mostly higher minimum fps... which is more important to me.

Phenom II will shine for many current AMD users and that will only want to upgrade the CPU to get better clocks (without an overal mobo, ram swap) and 5-10% better performance clock for clock of the current AMD generation... for current high end Intel S775 users it might just be a new toy to play with...

Also wasn't Intel to foresee some price drops early next year ? Think AMD will have to follow to make tis baby more meaningfull to the crowd... current retail prices of 240 euro's for the 920 and 285 for the 940 are a bit to steep for me ( although I know we are talking about the 2 high end ones here) and even if it could offer the same performance as the Q9450 and 9550...(which are a tad more expensive)

Real tests and comparisons will give a better view soon... still a bit too foggy to me at the moment

[JumpingJack]

^^^ Yeah, Phenom II is going to do extremely well ... even if it comes up short IPC wise, it will be plenty fast enough for gamers and enthusiast. The OCing is now pretty much established, it will OC well which will make it a fun CPU to dink around with in that respect.... I am looking forward to it.

[OBR]

Yorkfield has a ~2-4% higher IPC than kentsfield, so phenom -> phenom II is a bigger step.


hehehee, 5 percent is really BIGGER step ... :rofl:

[Stukov]

That's not what the data says ... the bottleneck in your links is clearly GPU limited.... there are other benches on the net though that do show it at the limiter, and it is limiting near a QX9770 level, sometimes a tie, sometimes just below, sometimes just above. ... it is probably more reasonable to say it out performs a QX9650 ... so somewhere in between:

Examples:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/nehalem_core_i7_review/22.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/nehalem_core_i7_review/24.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-940-965/page12.html (low res, nonGPU limited)
http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-940-965/page11.html

On to the non-gaming benches ... Cinebench is not synthetic, neither is winrar, nor paint.net, nor 7-zip ... PCMark of course is... but your statements contradicts the data.

I thought this was a pretty good review taking on the "GPU/CPU bottleneck" issue with current cards and a fast CPU.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/1

[dread77]

Check out a few air results with PhenomII (http://oktabit.foracamp.gr/content/first-look-phenom-ii-x4-940-english-version?page=3#comment-11286)...

[Stukov]

Check out a few air results with PhenomII (http://oktabit.foracamp.gr/content/first-look-phenom-ii-x4-940-english-version?page=3#comment-11286)...

Fair bit of resluts in this http://oktabit.foracamp.gr/content/first-look-phenom-ii-x4-940-english-version

[STaRGaZeR]

I clipped those results becuase they are not synthetic......synthetic benchmarks are just that take it with a grain of salt........

seeing as it appears they used a high end card the cpu and platform can become a bottleneck, why else would c2q series able to win in those apps..........if the cpu is better its just better.........apparently however this in not the case. Bottom line i build a pc to use it not just bench it with synthetic benches.

I play alot of games and it's quite obvious the 920 is bottlenecking at its stock speed. Not to say I would run stock but average joe would......average joe is a majority.

Maybe you should look at the data you link more carefully, because you're completely missing the point.

However if you already have a LGA775 system and you only play games, upgrading to i7 is not worth the cost. If you own an AMD system instead, then upgrading to any Intel CPU will give you more FPS in those games that are not GPU limited.

[AbelJemka]

Maybe you should look at the data you link more carefully, because you're completely missing the point.

However if you already have a LGA775 system and you only play games, upgrading to i7 is not worth the cost. If you own an AMD system instead, then upgrading to any Intel CPU will give you more FPS in those games that are not GPU limited.
Or upgrading tp PII maybe...

[STaRGaZeR]

Or upgrading tp PII maybe...

Key word: maybe. That maybe has 99% possibilities and increasing every day of being a no when the processor launches unfortunately.

[Katzenschleuder]

That's not what the data says ... the bottleneck in your links is clearly GPU limited.... there are other benches on the net though that do show it at the limiter, and it is limiting near a QX9770 level, sometimes a tie, sometimes just below, sometimes just above. ... it is probably more reasonable to say it out performs a QX9650 ... so somewhere in between:

Examples:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/nehalem_core_i7_review/22.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/nehalem_core_i7_review/24.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-940-965/page12.html (low res, nonGPU limited)
http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-940-965/page11.html

On to the non-gaming benches ... Cinebench is not synthetic, neither is winrar, nor paint.net, nor 7-zip ... PCMark of course is... but your statements contradicts the data.Your game benchmarks are CPU limited - at a hundred million frames per second.
So what?!

That a Core i7 compresses a 2 GByte rar archive in 2 minutes less than a AMD Phenom is something almost no one cares about, because 99% of the users only do this once a month or once a year.
Wow, I only paid 500 € so I don't have to wait two minutes once a month!

[AbelJemka]

Key word: maybe. That maybe has 99% possibilities and increasing every day of being a no when the processor launches unfortunately.
Based on what?
If PII perfoms why socket AM2 users will go Intel, it will no worth the cost.

[kromosto]

Your game benchmarks are CPU limited - at a hundred million frames per second.
So what?!

That a Core i7 compresses a 2 GByte rar archive in 2 minutes less than a AMD Phenom is something almost no one cares about, because 99% of the users only do this once a month or once a year.
Wow, I only paid 500 € so I don't have to wait two minutes once a month!

so you need a console not a pc

[Stukov]

so you need a console not a pc
Heresey!!:slapass:

[Smalltimer]

That a Core i7 compresses a 2 GByte rar archive in 2 minutes less than a AMD Phenom is something almost no one cares about, because 99% of the users only do this once a month or once a year.
Wow, I only paid 500 € so I don't have to wait two minutes once a month!

Gamers certainly don't make up the majority of PC users and a systems ability to perform calculations is hardly something to scoff at.


No one cares...
99%...

Reality check over here! :rofl:

[Katzenschleuder]

so you need a console not a pcBecause I say that investing into a new CPU isn't worth it for nearly all end users?
At least try to make sense.

[Katzenschleuder]

Gamers certainly don't make up the majority of PC usersRight! Most of them don't do anything more than writing/reading emails, browsing the web and write some letters.


and a systems ability to perform calculations is hardly something to scoff at.Sure, a 2000 € SAS controller has the ability to "perform calculations" as well.


Reality check over here! :rofl:Please enlighten me with your wisdom.

[kromosto]

Because I say that investing into a new CPU isn't worth it for nearly all end users?
At least try to make sense.

of course budget is the most important factor in a deal. but if you want to upgrade you pc and get a new one what to choose is simple "which gives you the most performance gain".

and what makes sense is if you say this


Your game benchmarks are CPU limited - at a hundred million frames per second.
So what?!

That a Core i7 compresses a 2 GByte rar archive in 2 minutes less than a AMD Phenom is something almost no one cares about, because 99% of the users only do this once a month or once a year.
Wow, I only paid 500 € so I don't have to wait two minutes once a month!

then this means you dont care about performance gains in cpu like rar time render time , compile time etc. so your old computer will be enough to you for a long time. then keep your old computer save your money and buy a console for gaming i think you will be happier.

[Katzenschleuder]

of course budget is the most important factor in a deal. but if you want to upgrade you pc and get a new one what to choose is simple "which gives you the most performance gain".Right.
But what I am saying is that it becomes less and less neccessary to upgrade the CPU at all.


then this means you dont care about performance gains in cpu like rar time render time , compile time etc. so your old computer will be enough to you for a long time. then keep your old computer save your money and buy a console for gaming i think you will be happier.Compiling and linking is extremely I/O and not CPU limited.

Just like compiling applications, not more than a microscopic fraction of the consumers use 3D rendering applications.
I can hardly imagine a situation where an average end user is compressing archives for more than a few megabytes on a daily basis.

All I am trying to say is that there is less and less need for more CPU speed in the end user market.
Graphics cards and SSDs are the market of the future.

[Neuuubeh]

I can hardly imagine a situation where an average end user is compressing archives for more than a few megabytes on a daily basis.

All I am trying to say is that there is less and less need for more CPU speed in the end user market.
Graphics cards and SSDs are the market of the future.

Dude come on. Of course close to noone compresses 400 gigs of data every day. Its selfexplanatory that the shown test arent meant to show performance of tasks the huge majority of people performs on their PCs every day. Truth is, most of the people can have a 5 year old system at their homes and be perfectly happy with it. Noone is expecting someone to upgrade to a i7 Extreme edition just to browse and to watch movies. Would you have liked it better if the benchmarks showed load times in Firefox and temps after 20 mins browsing of some Flash site?


The same logic you are trying to apply to just CPUs goes for Graphic cards and SSD as well, I dont see why they have to be different. Why upgrade to a SSD to gain a few seconds copying large files, when you do that only coupla times a week? Why upgrade to the latest graphics card, when it only brings you 4-5 frames improvement at say 1280x resolution, which is already as playable as it gets?




Just like compiling applications, not more than a microscopic fraction of the consumers use 3D rendering applications.
how many do you think game at huge resolutions, or crunch for F@H or w/e the users in here use their PCs to do, validating upgrading to a
new PC every 7-8 months or an year?

[JumpingJack]

Your game benchmarks are CPU limited - at a hundred million frames per second.
So what?!

That a Core i7 compresses a 2 GByte rar archive in 2 minutes less than a AMD Phenom is something almost no one cares about, because 99% of the users only do this once a month or once a year.
Wow, I only paid 500 € so I don't have to wait two minutes once a month!

That's the point :) ... this is how you ascertain how a CPU runs gaming code. And it makes a difference, you will always want to maximize the FPS for the budget/rig you are assembling to a) ensure that outside of the bench sampling, the game runs with min FPS > 60 FPS as much as possile for the smoothest best game play and b) future games.

In terms of time to compress, again ... it is data that compares the computational capabilities of a CPU, your statement was the an i7 920 is ~ a 9450 or 9550, but this is clearly wrong.

And some people do care about 2 mins here and there, hold your breath for 2 minutes and let us know if you were every in want of taking a breath :)

Asdie from that, given a choice -- forget brand name or company, if you have CPU A and CPU B, where CPU A costs the same as CPU B, but compresses 2 minutes faster ... which CPU would you want?

[JumpingJack]

I thought this was a pretty good review taking on the "GPU/CPU bottleneck" issue with current cards and a fast CPU.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/1

It was, the golden nugget in a rash of reviews that were unable to get data based on the not having equivalent HW.

There are two arguements to be had here ... a) not many would opt for a tri SLI 280 setup (expense), so it doesn't really matter -- this is a valid argument or b) purely from a computational capability point, is the core i7 better at running gaming code in the absence of any artifical limiter? The question there is undoubtedly yes.

On the thread point though -- Phenom II is going to do very well with gaming at typical 'played at settings', it will be a great gaming CPU... there I have no doubts.

Jack

[Katzenschleuder]

The same logic you are trying to apply to just CPUs goes for Graphic cards and SSD as well, I dont see why they have to be different. Why upgrade to a SSD to gain a few seconds copying large files, when you do that only coupla times a week? Why upgrade to the latest graphics card, when it only brings you 4-5 frames improvement at say 1280x resolution, which is already as playable as it gets?Performance actually scales for GPUs and SSDs and so does the market demand.

A fast SSD (not this current cheap crap with weak controllers) increases performance for common software immensely, is much more reliable, consumes much less power and is absolutely silent.

Your bizarre example with graphics cards makes no sense at all.
GPU performance doubles every 16 month.
The gap between the GPU and CPU market growth is increasing more and more.

[Zucker2k]

Performance actually scales for GPUs and SSDs and so does the market demand.

A fast SSD (not this current cheap crap with weak controllers) increases performance for common software immensely, is much more reliable, consumes much less power and is absolutely silent.

Your bizarre example with graphics cards makes no sense at all.
GPU performance doubles every 16 month.
The gap between the GPU and CPU market growth is increasing more and more.I guess the point is moot since we're moving towards cpu+gpu combo chips.

[Hell Hound]

this is the worst marketing slide i have ever seen. the first one i mean.

so if amd marketing dep is playing like this so lets start to do our stupid math calculations to follow their order. first lets examine the facts.

<facts from="approximate values taken from graph 1">
1. phenom II 940 is %24 faster then 9950
2. %4 is from ddr3 memory so we cant see that increase on first released am2+ type pII
3. %6 from additional cache.
4. %11 from frequency
5. %3 from ipc.
</facts>

<stupid math calculations>
and from 2.6 to 3.0 %15 clock increase.

so %15 increase in clock give us %11 performance increase.

and again so we are plannig to get pII to 4.0 ghz on air. it is %53 more clock from 2.6 and we know that %15 clock increase give %11 performance increase.

<result> this gives %38 and plus %13 from ipc ddr3 and more cache pII @ 4ghz will give %51 more performance then a 9950 if we are talking about am2+ version this diff is %47</result>

</stupid math calculations>

are we happy now?

Looks like a 20 fps gain over 9950 to me.

[YukonTrooper]

I chose Core2Duo because it's undeniably faster. There's my logic. :p:

When Phenom II rolls around, I'll choose whatever is fastest. Price will play a factor of course, but if Nehalem/Phenom II is a rehash of Core2Duo/Phenom, then I'll go Nehalem. Hopefully not, though, because I'd like to go back to the green side.

[Ashraf]

This is not AMD vs Intel. Quit trolling. Please stay on topic, guys.

[Smalltimer]

Right! Most of them don't do anything more than writing/reading emails, browsing the web and write some letters.

Sure, a 2000 € SAS controller has the ability to "perform calculations" as well.

Please enlighten me with your wisdom.
I have affiliations with a company that houses aprox. 300 workstations(operators), dedicated to compile environmental data.
This would be(in most cases) a small enterprise as it only serves a small sector in just a section of a very large industry.

I myself have 2 dedicated workstations(water cooled) at home dedicated to design analysis, again... very CPU intensive and greatly dependent on processing efficiency.

There are many other areas(industry) that house far larger numbers of machines in which case, processing performances would be critical as well.

[Eternalightwith]

This is not AMD vs Intel. Quit trolling. :flame: :nono: Please stay on topic, guys.
__________you________أشرف
Or else..... :frag:

:D

[Eson]

Does anyone have source for AM2+ Denebs only has DDR2?

The way i thought it worked is that AM2+ and AM3 Deneb are basically identical. Just that AMD choose to release it as 'AM3' when they release the AM3 motherboards. Because they want to make it clear that this processor fits this motherboard so normal people understands it. And they choose to release Deneb as AM2+ now in the beginning because there are no AM3 motherboards out yet, so normal people don't think that there are no motherboards for this new processor yet...

This is what i was hoping for. I don't understand what AMD means with 'Seamless Transitions' otherwise.
http://resources.vr-zone.com/newvr/image.php?m=540&s=http://resources.vr-zone.com//uploads/6273/PhenomII_innovations.jpg

Im sorry but i think this is of great importance so i bump my own post. Please reply.

[informal]

I guess your question was about the "Infrastructure" column? If this document is indeed tied to AM2+ Phenom launch for Jan. the 8th than I don't know why would AMD market this version as AM2+ and not AM3?For marketing reasons and for less confusion wrt socket upgradeability? Seems unlikely but who knows.AM2+ Phenoms II being DDR3 ready would be awesome news indeed.
Or this document is linked to AM3 Phenom II launch and it makes sense.

[mAJORD]

Check out a few air results with PhenomII (http://oktabit.foracamp.gr/content/first-look-phenom-ii-x4-940-english-version?page=3#comment-11286)...


I might try and steer people back on topic with some discussion on these..

Looking at HWBOT,

Wprime 32m: 10.31s
Freq Required for Phenom: 3.55-3.6Ghz under vista i'd guess as it performs better with WP for some reason..

Super Pi 1M, 19.4s
Freq Required for Phenom: 3.9-4.0ghz Phenom under XP.. possibly higher under vista

Pifast: 29.59s
freq required for Phenom: 3.85-3.9Ghz


What we know:

DRAM freq and ration tells us HTT clock is stock at 200Mhz

what we assume:

1.) The freq is the same for all tests ???? < maybe someone should ask this in the forum.

2.) Phenom II at worst case is not slower than Phenom 11 for the Wprime test

3.)Phenom II is at best not much faster at Wprime test..


What I conclude if we got a confirmation on the above assumptions:

CPU freq is either 3.4, 3.5 or 3.6Ghz

Given the 20.xx super pi results we had that were claimed to be 3.4Ghz I doubt it would be 3.4

3.5 - a possibilty if deneb supports half multi's, anyone?

which would mean an approx IPC increase:

Wprime: 0-3% faster
Super Pi: 11-15% faster
Pifast: 8-11% faster

clock/clock

The big assumption is whether the freq is the same across all tests. :shrug:

[informal]

We already know that Phenom II @3.484Ghz scores 19.696s in spi so it's almost certain that this is the clock they ran it at.Also iocedmyself over at AMD subforum said it takes ~23s at stock clock to complete 1M run-this fits well with ~3.5Ghz territory.

[Eson]

I guess your question was about the "Infrastructure" column? If this document is indeed tied to AM2+ Phenom launch for Jan. the 8th than I don't know why would AMD market this version as AM2+ and not AM3?For marketing reasons and for less confusion wrt socket upgradeability? Seems unlikely but who knows.AM2+ Phenoms II being DDR3 ready would be awesome news indeed.
Or this document is linked to AM3 Phenom II launch and it makes sense.

The way i read it is;

Use AMD Phenom II now and transit/upgrade motherboard with DDR3 when the time is right to you.'

As i said before. If they tell people that this is an AM3 processor and average joe looks at motherboards he wont find any AM3 motherboards that can run this processor. Thats why i think they release Deneb as AM2+ now before AM3 motherboards arrive. But looking at the AM3 TDP which is lower then AM2+ processors i think the AM3 Denebs also incorporate a new revision.

I find a processor with both DDR2 and DDR3 IMC, has lower TDP then a processor with only DDR2, unlikely.

EDIT: 200ed post, woot!

[informal]

The way i read it is;

Use AMD Phenom II now and transit/upgrade motherboard with DDR3 when the time is right to you.'

As i said before. If they tell people that this is an AM3 processor and average joe looks at motherboards he wont find any AM3 motherboards that can run this processor. Thats why i think they release Deneb as AM2+ now before AM3 motherboards arrive.

Yeah that's what i meant when i said "For marketing reasons and for less confusion wrt socket upgradeability".If this is the case,good for early adopters since they won't get the chips with limited dram capability(as opposed to AM3 Phenom IIs).I guess we will know soon enough what's the deal here.

[Ket]

Unless Phenom 2 can hit 4GHz+ clockspeeds more often than not.. I see it losing to Wolfdales in the "bang for buck" category for some time...

[@@@@]

I was thinking of a different thing though but you also have a point. it could be of both ways because my understanding with the chart is.

Deneb AM2+ >>> AM2+ motherboards >>> DDR2
so that AMD won't leave the AM2+ boards behind when they make a new transition to AM3 like what they did with the 939 boards
Deneb AM3 is both AM2+ and AM3 boards >>> DDR2 & DDR3

but let just see when it comes out

[chew*]

Phenom 2 does support half multis in amd overdrive.

From what i saw in person tonight I think alot of people are in for a surprise.

Phenom II easily hit 4.8 for me 3d stable with only 1.45v on a dated mach 2 ;)

Prior to tonight I was to believe that am2+ is not compatible with am3 boards, if I heard the gentleman correctly it will indeed work in am3 boards.

[informal]

Phenom 2 does support half multis in amd overdrive.

From what i saw in person tonight I think alot of people are in for a surprise.

Phenom II easily hit 4.8 for me 3d stable with only 1.45v on a dated mach 2 ;)

Prior to tonight I was to believe that am2+ is not compatible with am3 boards, if I heard the gentleman correctly it will indeed work in am3 boards.

Thanks to chew*'s post above,the am2+ CPU upgrade to am3 board seems a bit clearer :yepp: .If this ends up correct,then the chart Eson brought up again is about any Phenom II since all of them support ddr2 and ddr3 memory,no matter if the chips are labeled as am2+ or am3. AM3 chips might bring some additional headroom for OCing and lower power draw.

Also,PCGH website got themselves a Phenom II (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,670341/News/AMD_Phenom_II_in_the_Test_Lab_-_first_CPU_benchmarks_running/) and is in process of running tests :) :

PC Games Hardware tests Phenom II CPU
AMD Phenom II in the Test Lab - first CPU benchmarks running
Author: Thilo Bayer (Dec 12, 2008) - On January 8, 2009 AMD will officially introduce the Phenom II, but today PCGH already received one of the new CPUs.
Phenom II: The new AMD CPU will be officially introduced on January 8, 2009 - PCGH is testing already

According to current rumors the Phenom II can deliver competitive gaming performance and good overclocking capabilities.

There is a lot of official information about the Phenom II already available. Furthermore there are several reports about overclocking, compatible motherboards and other details. As of today PCGH is running tests with the Phenom II - but we are not allowed to publish any results. Nevertheless you can tell us what kind of benchmarks you would like to see and which practical tips are interesting for you. You can also give your opinion on the matter of AMD's possible comeback and if the Phenom II will compete with Intel's Core 2 and Core i7.

[Stukov]

It was, the golden nugget in a rash of reviews that were unable to get data based on the not having equivalent HW.

There are two arguements to be had here ... a) not many would opt for a tri SLI 280 setup (expense), so it doesn't really matter -- this is a valid argument or b) purely from a computational capability point, is the core i7 better at running gaming code in the absence of any artifical limiter? The question there is undoubtedly yes.

On the thread point though -- Phenom II is going to do very well with gaming at typical 'played at settings', it will be a great gaming CPU... there I have no doubts.

Jack

I also thought the article showed an effect that was caused by 1 of two reasons. The effect was that AMD seemed to gain more from the more CPU horsepower than Nvidia. Which either means the hardware may be faster (if not limited by CPU) or there is more software overhead with the drivers, thus the more CPU is required not to bottle neck it.

I am hoping Hilbert does another one of those CPU frequency scaling reviews after the Deneb comes out. Section for each Nehelam, Deneb, Yorkfield, and Wolfdale 2Ghz-4+ghz.

[biohead]

If AM2+ CPUs will drop in AM3 boards and support DDR3, then why have we been hearing for so long that AM3 CPUs will work in AM2+ boards but not the other way around, because of DRAM compatibility. I thought that was kind of official, no?

[chew*]

It appears they were rumours. The only drawback of getting and am2+ now is that "am3 will offer a performance boost over am2+" or so i was told, how much exactly I was not told but it was mentioned that am3 scales even better....Honestly most of my interest was with AM3 and i picked they're brains about it quite a bit, If the cards play in my favor i may be getting some playtime with AM3 in the near future.