Printable View
Link
They got stable 3Ghz on default Vcore and stable 3.3Ghz on 1.43V.
3.4Ghz was achieved with 1.45V but i can't figure out if it was prime stable or not.It was tested on Foxconn A79A-S(790FX+SB750) and standard 9850's stock cooler.
They tested only with lowish 2.3/1.8Ghz clocks(default) against Brisbane @2.3 and 2.6Ghz,which it demolishes pretty much in every aspect and seems to OC better then K8 G2 dual cores also.
nice results, might be a good pic for budget gaming systems
it's better then any x2 on the market then if 3.4ghz is max clock (average)
Brisbane top 3.3ghz.
byt the looks of it. /CPU-z B3 stepping
sersouly I didn't think they would go that low.
what's next a sempron single core with the 2mb of L3 cache....
or is the next Athlon lol
but K10 is more higher performance than k8, dont know it?:) 3Ghz X2 6500+ is similary as any 3.9GHz K8.
Another K10 X2 review....
http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=4067 :D
You notice the diminishing returns as you add more cores with you go from an X2 K10 to an X3. 2mb of L3 must really be choking the X4s. Also the 2.3Ghz 6500+ is decent in gaming, clock for clock, against everything else. Synthetic benchies dont mean a damn thing to me because theyre coded for Intel arch to begin with (you can quote me on that. Ask the software devs. They will confirm this). AMD needs to pour on the L3 to give these chips breathing room.Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRicer
It looks like the X2 6500 is a pretty good gaming CPU vs. the E5200, if it is priced at $70-80 then it will actually be a good value.
I really don't understand why AMD has to clock this so low, at even 2.6GHz/2.0GHz it would be a lot more competitive and would be either a competitive or even better choice than the E5200 for people not overclocking. 2.3GHz/1.8GHz on a dual core CPU just seems ridiculous.
If we equivalate these chips to 1MB L3 per CPU core...
Heka BE is going to kick quite some ass. 2MB L3 per core, faster L3s, and another additional core. I reckon even Lynnfield needs its rear-view mirror checked. :D
And ignore IT168. Horrible Radeon 4850 review, horrible Radeon 4670 review, what's next in line? Oh. Can't say it's unexpected for their calibre.
I doubt that. AMD might fully have a Penryn competitor though, but obviously with much inferior performance/watt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
And you base this claim on your dreams or what?! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
FYI,Heka is 45nm and we've seen that first 45nm quad core Pehnom chips draws 90% less power than 65nm equivalent(clock-wise).
And we've also seen the first 45nm quad core Core 2 Quads do the same. The main difference is that 65nm Core 2 Quads already use less power than 65nm Phenoms, so Intel's power drop at 45nm is even more impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Oh really?How about waiting on the actual review of 45m Dual/tr/quad chip before proclaiming C2Q a winner? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Also,you should look at the whole system power consumption since intel chips don't have the burden of IMC to deal with(since you can't measure the power consumption of the on board northbridge separately on intel setup).
How about AMD fans stop proclaiming Heka a Lynnfield competitor before an actual review.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
System power consumptions tend to favor Intel even more than Intel's power advantage in CPUs would suggest.Quote:
Also,you should look at the whole system power consumption since intel chips don't have the burden of IMC to deal with(since you can't measure the power consumption of the on board northbridge separately on intel setup).
Yeah ..whatever.Why do i even bother,silly me.
Yes, why do you considering how badly Phenom has underperformed your expectations for the last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Yeah,maybe in your dream like synthetic-only test suit.Who cares what trolls think anyway :rolleyes:
I didn't know Phenom's were so bad they let EVERYONE down....I have never been let down. Mine all perfomed well. I think AMD could have let out higher clocked ones...and this 6500 will be fine..and it will OC fine. I believe clock for clock it is faster then any AMD dual core. AMD's hiaghest priced chip is a 9950 (unlocked multi) for $175.00. So don't compare it to a $1000.00+ Intel chip.
Our little section of the world has been invaded by fanboyism... Ugh, it hurts too much.
As usual, I'm with Charged on this one...... Why do people care so much about the brand of their processor. I think I care about my toenail clipper more. Why all the vitriol, I dunno.
Fact is, AMD stuff works fine, and is just as fun to play with as Intel stuff. Most of us who have both don't get so emotionally charged over which processor has better (alphabet soup to follow TDP, IPC, CPW, DMV, DHS)
My games work just fine, as does windows vista, as well as linux. Heck, I'm pretty hard pressed to tell which processor my software runs on once the machine is booted ya know!
more BS from emotional 15 year olds.... gotta love it:rofl:
Hmmm, need more L3 cache, so hopefully with the cache increase on the Deneb/Shanghai things will get better.
I read once that someone claimed that their AMD processor was actually capable of opening notepad. Right...what a newbz0r. :up:
Phenom's reputation is much like Vista's. Everyone who doesn't have it hates it because they heard it is bad. A few people who do have it hate it because they wanted to going in. Most of the owners are probably happy for the most part.
I know I am.
** Sigh **
I want one of these for a second machine i am building.
3.4Ghz on air, Should get even better on water.
http://en.expreview.com/2008/09/23/a...0-kuma-review/