AMD Shows Deneb (Phenom II) pictures of 6.2GHz CPUz etc

Talking about pricing strategy, while indeed AMD will try to build some good foundation after some stretch of bad time for them, i don't think price war is in their plan. They don't have the competitiveness to wage it, correct ? Regarding die size, how an AMD quadcore, triple, and dual core compared to Intel's counterparts ? This is very different compared to RV770 vs GT200 duel case, IMHO. Sorry if it's OOT, atleast this is not a flame bait post, just trying to broaden the discussion in a useful manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

What would Lynnfield bring to the desktop then?

On the other hand, now that Deneb has made the IPC gap closer to Yorkfield, the E8XXX is going to have a hard time. AMD's new X3s are not like their old (more or less) pathetic attempts. This time it's much stronger (in terms of IPC and clock), priced probably rightly, and even has an enthusiast oriented version to butt heads with the E8600, which it will be cheaper against.


The E7XXX is a tough one to handle. It has only 3MB of cache (which does take away some % of performance), but AMD's K10.5 dualcore has no L3, just 2*1MB of L2 (at least this is fast).

E7400's the top model now. 2.8Ghz. AMD probably can counter with a 3Ghz dual core SKU. If Intel goes to E7500, AMD just needs to shift to 3.2. Nowadays on 45nm, they no longer have any big difficulties to not go aggressive on dual core stock clocks, which will be what most OEMs will use.

E5XXX is an easy sweep. Again, dual core K10.5 speedbinned.

---

The only way AMD is going to be competitive against Intel is to bring a superior product to the market; damn, some of you guys are too forgiving. At best, AMD is going to maintain its current market share, at worst, Intel is going to hit back hard. Already we're seeing some benefits of this anticipated Intel strike back from AMD, I mean most of you were pricing PII x4 940 around $350; well, I got good news, it's going to be $275 :clap: Now watch that price take a significant dip when Intel slashes prices on penryn. In short, you the consumer are the beneficiaries. Unfortunately, AMD is going to take a hit in the pocket. Intel will take some hit too, but it's already profitted enough from penryn to offset any losses at this point. This is the dilemma AMD has, it is going to be forced to price the top end part PII x4 940 below the Q9550. Intel has another hand, in Ci7 920. This is currently priced below the Q9550, so it is going to be a contender too for people looking to upgrade. In short, my assessment that AMD is 18 months late to the market, is spot on; the truth is AMD is once again, playing catch up. Worse, its product looks ordinary against the last-gen Intel competitor.

Oh wow, the sky is falling, AMD's gonna fold their chair soon, going under the night Phenom 2 is released. I can't believe these negativity toward this particular company in this forum, it's just totally pathetic. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursindonesia

Oh wow, the sky is falling, AMD's gonna fold their chair soon, going under the night Phenom 2 is released. I can't believe these negativity toward this particular company in this forum, it's just totally pathetic. :rolleyes:

---

Are people supposed to ignore the likely outcomes just because those outcomes bring unpleasant consequences?

AMD need for Intel to have delays with multisocket Nehalem, 32nm and to have Westmere also have problems, because if Intel execute multisocket Nelly, 32nm and Westmere according to their roadmap, AMD will be even worse placed for all of 2010 than they have been for all of 2008 and I just couldn't imagine them surviving all that.

There must be some chance of Intel having problems with at least one of those 3 things, so we will see, but how can one not see the massive problems AMD is potentially facing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Are people supposed to ignore the likely outcomes just because those outcomes bring unpleasant consequences?

AMD need for Intel to have delays with multisocket Nehalem, 32nm and to have Westmere also have problems, because if Intel execute multisocket Nelly, 32nm and Westmere according to their roadmap, AMD will be even worse placed for all of 2010 than they have been for all of 2008 and I just couldn't imagine them surviving all that.

There must be some chance of Intel having problems with at least one of those 3 things, so we will see, but how can one not see the massive problems AMD is potentially facing?

---

AMD is also dropping its FAB's so this means less overall debt and costs. They can put more of their money back in to R&D and keep things moving along at a better pace. As long as they have a decent P2 launch here and then can keep up the performance and the pace while putting out the triple and dual core models OEM's will be eager to snap them up as long as priced properly. This gives them a healthy chance to climb back into the ring and stay competitive. They don't need Intel to falter, it would help, but they are more than capable now to keep themselves afloat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Are people supposed to ignore the likely outcomes just because those outcomes bring unpleasant consequences?

AMD need for Intel to have delays with multisocket Nehalem, 32nm and to have Westmere also have problems, because if Intel execute multisocket Nelly, 32nm and Westmere according to their roadmap, AMD will be even worse placed for all of 2010 than they have been for all of 2008 and I just couldn't imagine them surviving all that.

---

do you really believe westmere will be available at q4 2009?
i really doubt that, nehalem will only be a few % of the market, not more then 5% for a few quarters, one of the reasons is its large die
quite funny actually because people were screaming everywhere about the diesize of K10, but now that intel has a good cpu with a larger die then the K10, all is fine...
look at nehalem as the GTX280, super performance, power hungry beast, too big die

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiridum

do you really believe westmere will be available at q4 2009?

---

No I don't, at least not to the average punter. But if it is then . . . . .

Quote:

---

look at nehalem as the GTX280, super performance, power hungry beast, too big die

---

Nehalem isn't that power hungry at stock speeds and whilst the GTX280 is outperformed by the 4870x2, Nehalem doesn't have an equivalent concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

No I don't, at least not to the average punter. But if it is then . . . . .


Nehalem isn't that power hungry at stock speeds and whilst the GTX280 is outperformed by the 4870x2, Nehalem doesn't have an equivalent concern.

---

i know a 4870x2 outperforms a gtx280 :p: but that was not my point
and nehalem is quit powerhungry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Nehalem isn't that power hungry at stock speeds and whilst the GTX280 is outperformed by the 4870x2, Nehalem doesn't have an equivalent concern.

---

Nehalem should be power hungry for all the people who were laughin' 'n troll'n how Phenom was power hungry. There ain't hard numbers for PhII yet, but thus far i7 920 uses more than Q9450, upto 20% if not more. There are quite some positive articles going around saying that AMD's 45nm SOI process might actually be better than Intel's 45nm HKMG process. As said, we'll have to wait.

And to be honest, Im quite curious how PhII 940BE stands out against an equally priced i7 920 really. GTX280 doesnt lose everywhere, although in quite some applications it does, but Im not so sure how these two CPU's go up against each other regarding your 'non-equivalent concern':rolleyes: Something tells me this might be quite close actually. At most we've one month to go so we'll see by then heh:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Nehalem should be power hungry for all the people who were laughin' 'n troll'n how Phenom was power hungry. There ain't hard numbers for PhII yet, but thus far i7 920 uses more than Q9450, upto 20% if not more.

---

Performance/watt is the key, not just power draw in isolation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Performance/watt is the key, not just power draw in isolation.

---

perf/watt is very good for nehalem, power draw is not....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiridum

perf/watt is very good for nehalem, power draw is not....

---

It's not bad, given the enthusiast platform it's currently paired with and tri-channel memory support. It only looks bad because it's compared with extremely power efficient 45nm C2Qs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bgriffs

AMD is also dropping its FAB's so this means less overall debt and costs. They can put more of their money back in to R&D and keep things moving along at a better pace. As long as they have a decent P2 launch here and then can keep up the performance and the pace while putting out the triple and dual core models OEM's will be eager to snap them up as long as priced properly. This gives them a healthy chance to climb back into the ring and stay competitive. They don't need Intel to falter, it would help, but they are more than capable now to keep themselves afloat.

---

You forgot that Fab R&D gets cutted. Since ATIC doesnt invest as much as AMD did. Plus the profit loss etc from not owning the fabs. And AMD is keeping the vast majority of its debts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiridum

perf/watt is very good for nehalem, power draw is not....

---

That's a contradiction; focus, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

That's a contradiction; focus, guys.

---

Nah, it is not. You can consume a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of power and be very efficient (perf/watt) in what you're doing. The "problem" here is that while being much more efficient than previous processors Nehalem still consumes more power than those same processors, specially with HT on. But still it is within in the margins of acceptable power consumption, so no big deal. Also, the high consumption is only under load, at idle is the same or even better than Penryn. Nehalem sucks power when needed, and performs in consequence. When it is not required, it sleeps deeply.

So if you have/want a limit of watts, Nehalem can be a problem. But so can be any other CPU, and if you have PC restrictions Nehalem will perform better at any given limit. I don't see any reasons (except price, and maybe max OC compared with Penryn) to get any other CPU. P2 will only have a fight with it in price. Mediocre and within expectations, but we should thank AMD for it. In the end they are the only competition Intel has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiridum

perf/watt is very good for nehalem, power draw is not....

---

Here is how Intel views "power draw".

Figure 3 there shows Intels statistical thermal analysis of MPUs across application workloads ->

http://i37.tinypic.com/2dv1xjc.png

Quote:

---

Generally, the TDP target is determined as a function of the anticipated thermal stress load the processor will encounter, which in turn is a function of the application software run on the processor. For example, FIG. 3 shows a graph of CPU power vs. number of applications, which is illustrative of a typical power consumption vs. application type distribution. Generally, each application program has its own unique power profile, although the profile has some variability due to loop decisions, I/O activity and interrupts. The graph illustrates a statistical distribution based on averaged application power consumption.

---

US Patent 7275012 - Automated method and apparatus for processor thermal validation

I LOL at all the speculation and crazy things said in these forums. I do love that I can come here and ususlly, I can get info far ahead of all the other forums but man guys get so intensley competetive over products. Let me put it this way, a different perspective if you will. If this product will hit 4ghz on air and be competitive in per clock performance, Than it already has almost all the previous AMD mother board owners bussiness because for 275 bucks they have a complete upgrade. Now for me I have q6600 and I've been considering an I7 however I'm not a, I Have to have top of the performance no matter what it costs kinda person. I like value and performance just like most OCers. I can buy a 200 dollar asus board with 3way xfire and all the stuff I could ever need and P2 for around $275.00. Thats a total of $475 since I already have lots of ddr2 and don't have to upgrade there I'm in cheap. Now if I want an equivelant I7 board I'm looking at around $325 buckeroonies and around $300 for the proc and, I have to pop for new 3 channel DDR3 memory set to get the most of the performance I7 has to offer.Now thats around 700-800 bucks for and upgrade. Times are getting rough in case you haven't looked around guys so, which can you guess most will buy even if at a 5 percent performance loss? Even if Intel lowers prices and the overall is $625-$725 which do you think most will buy? It's a no brainer. AMD is Back, it's about time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MsB

Thats a total of $475 since I already have lots of ddr2 and don't have to upgrade there I'm in cheap.

---

But because you already have a compatible motherboard, it would be even cheaper for you to pick up a Q9550. And given the performance situation of the last couple of years, going 45nm C2Q will be the most cost-effective upgrade for the vast majority of enthusiasts. And for people with overclocked Q6600s like you, they probably shouldn't even bother since nothing will offer a compelling performance improvement other than i7 for multi-threaded applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

But because you already have a compatible motherboard, it would be even cheaper for you to pick up a Q9550. And given the performance situation of the last couple of years, going 45nm C2Q will be the most cost-effective upgrade for the vast majority of enthusiasts. And for people with overclocked Q6600s like you, they probably shouldn't even bother since nothing will offer a compelling performance improvement other than i7 for multi-threaded applications.

---

ahh but I dont want my p5k-deluxe with :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty pci-e. I want an upgrade to PCI-e so I can xfire If I desire with full speed. So I am going to have to get a mobo. As to whether q9550 will outperform a P2 thats pure speculation at this point no one really has that info yet. and, Please don't quote some review of server procs with limited tests because till we get them and test them we will not know anyting for sure. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MsB

ahh but I dont want my p5k-deluxe with :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty pci-e. I want an upgrade to PCI-e so I can xfire If I desire with full speed. So I am going to have to get a mobo. As to whether q9550 will outperform a P2 thats pure speculation at this point no one really has that info yet. and, Please don't quote some review of server procs with limited tests because till we get them and test them we will not know anyting for sure. :shrug:

---

q9550 will be faster. If you get it to 3.8 GHz, good. That would equal about 4-4.2 GHz Deneb. I am fairly certain that Deneb can not compete in raw speed when both platforms are overclocked. Sure deneb is going to be cheaper though. Then again, do you RAELLY care for the +/- 10 % differences which are program/application dependet and can only be seen via graphs?

Just get which ever is cheaper for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Here is how Intel views "power draw".

Figure 3 there shows Intels statistical thermal analysis of MPUs across application workloads ->

http://i37.tinypic.com/2dv1xjc.png



US Patent 7275012 - Automated method and apparatus for processor thermal validation

---

TDP is a thermal spec. It's not directly related to power consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

TDP is a thermal spec. It's not directly related to power consumption.

---

Yep, you are correct. Thanks to informal and Macadamia for this SOURCE.

Quote:

---

Overclocking: Whatever Happened to Headroom?

Power consumption of an IC is a function of the number of switching events and the square of the supply voltage, at least in theory. If leakage currents are taken into account, we found that the third power of the voltage provides a better fit for any of the CPUs we have measured over the years. What this amounts to is that a 10% increase in voltage will result in a 21% increase in power consumption and thermal dissipation using the classic square function and a 33% increase using our empirically derived function. If the operating frequency is increased by 30% (knowing that a lot of the Nehalem cores will do run up to 4.1 GHz) using 10% overvolting, the thermal dissipation will reach 177% of the stock value. That is, even using the official TDP of 130W, we are looking at roughly 230W, which approximates a power density of some 100W/cm2. This number is not out of the world but bear in mind that the basis for the calculation was not the maximum power consumption but what a typical user may experience using commercial software.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Yep, you are correct. Thanks to informal and Macadamia for this SOURCE.

---

You forgot to bold the part where it's the estimated power consumption of an overclocked Nehalem 4.1 GHz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

You forgot to bold the part where it's the estimated power consumption of an overclocked Nehalem 4.1 GHz.

---

Thanks. I added your suggested highlight. :)

What voltage is this at?