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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

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.

---

I'm not sure about that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

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

---

I seriously fail to see the light in your wheel-reinvention. In games it doesnt do a whole lot better but it does consume more power.

I couldnt care less about power consumption, just funny how K10 was so bad and now Nehalem is awesome:rolleyes: In the end K10 was for me personally a lot more worth than a C2, although C2 had quite a few numbers on its side, the actual fun was lacking severely. i7 now has about the same features as K10, but the platform is overpriced and although Intel finally managed to have everything available on launch, most triple channel and motherboards weren't. Sod that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

I seriously fail to see the light in your wheel-reinvention. In games it doesnt do a whole lot better but it does consume more power.

---

Not significantly more:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3453&p=3

i7 920 uses 10W more than a C2Q 9450 which has full load power consumption of around 50W. Since games don't generally fully tax CPU, the full load system power consumption doesn't provide a necessarily accurate picture of the power usage while gaming.

Quote:

---

I couldnt care less about power consumption, just funny how K10 was so bad and now Nehalem is awesome:rolleyes:

---

K10 is bad because it neither had performance, performance/watt or power usage. Much the same way Prescott was bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

q9550 will be faster. If you get it to 3.8 GHz, good. That would equal about 4-4.2 GHz Deneb.

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

What would Lynnfield bring to the desktop then?

---

IIRC Lynnfield drops some of the memory performance features that are present in the full-fledged Nehalem systems. My guess is that there will be a pretty large performance penalty, although it might be offset by slightly larger overclocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

IIRC Lynnfield drops some of the memory performance features that are present in the full-fledged Nehalem systems. My guess is that there will be a pretty large performance penalty, although it might be offset by slightly larger overclocks.

---

dual channel is better in some scenarios because of lower latencies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Not significantly more:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3453&p=3

i7 920 uses 10W more than a C2Q 9450 which has full load power consumption of around 50W. Since games don't generally fully tax CPU, the full load system power consumption doesn't provide a necessarily accurate picture of the power usage while gaming.


K10 is bad because it neither had performance, performance/watt or power usage. Much the same way Prescott was bad.

---

I believe the measurements shown in the anandtech article are inaccurate. Here is an explanation of potential measurement error on Nehalem processors by LostCircuits:

Quote:

---

In our initial article about the Core i7, codename Nehalem, we were stunned by the power efficiency of Intel’s new CPU, particularly, as we stated, since the measured processor power consumption also comprised that of the memory controller – a saving on the system level of somewhere in the order of 15-20W under load. In the course of numerous discussions, it became obvious that the numbers we measured did not quite add up to the thermal load. After the embargo on the Core i7 was lifted, data sheets became available proving our assumptions wrong, in that the memory controller was NOT part of the power we measured through the VRMs. At the same time, CanardPC and several other websites like HardTecs4U posted additional information regarding the overall power configuration of the Nehalem CPU, which is somewhat different from what we have come to know in the past from CPUs offered by Intel or AMD.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

IIRC Lynnfield drops some of the memory performance features that are present in the full-fledged Nehalem systems. My guess is that there will be a pretty large performance penalty, although it might be offset by slightly larger overclocks.

---

Pretty large? As in 1-3%? Maybe the same gained with the ondie PCIe. Before trichannel was useless. Now its pretty large gain! :rofl:

Lets just say it doesnt matter much.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15967/6

Not exactly the huge penalty for a 920 with dualchannel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jazzman

I believe the measurements shown in the anandtech article are inaccurate.

---

It's a total system power consumption measurement.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MsB

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.

---

You got it. Phenom II will hit Intel harder than anyone can imagine. It's perf/watt/$$ will be better than anything Intel has to offer today. With today's economy, how many people will be springing for $1K upgrades when they can buy a $250 proc to replace the one they have or buy a whole new platform for half the price?

With the money saved, you could buy an air conditioner to cool your room and not your cpu. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taurus_sel

;)



With the money saved, you could buy an air conditioner to cool your room and not your cpu. ;)

---

...in January...:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

...in January...:up:

---

:rofl::rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

K10 is bad because it neither had performance, performance/watt or power usage. Much the same way Prescott was bad.

---

I still dont get that part at all.

Prescott was bad because it was actually worse than Northwood in every espect. Only in a very few areas it was marginally better. But K10 is quite a bit better than K8. Also K10 uses IMC and native quad core design on 65nm. It ain't a miracle it uses more power than MCM Yorkfields or even just Brisbane/Windsor:rolleyes: That's why it's just stupid.

You can of course make clear for your self if you care about power consumption etc. In the end it's like saying it ain't fair to compare a GTX280 with a HD4870X2 because the latter one has two cores, in the end they're competitors. Point is just that K10 is called Prescott, it just ain't, I think you need more stuff to name a CPU a Prescott. Otherwise you could call i7 a Prescott too only because it uses more power, but that would be kind of weird, wouldnt it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Pretty large? As in 1-3%? Maybe the same gained with the ondie PCIe. Before trichannel was useless. Now its pretty large gain! :rofl:

Lets just say it doesnt matter much.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15967/6

Not exactly the huge penalty for a 920 with dualchannel.

---

my biggest problem with lynnfield is the lack of 2 full x16 slots, it may not bottleneck my 3870s but it does bottleneck 2 4870s


sure they can use some sort of pcie switch (plx/nf200) but i think that such a switch could be a problem with nextgen cards :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

Source?

---

The pic which shows that 3 GHz Deneb would be a tad faster than a 2.83 GHz Q9400.

Q9550 will be faster, no doubt about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

I still dont get that part at all.

Prescott was bad because it was actually worse than Northwood in every espect. Only in a very few areas it was marginally better. But K10 is quite a bit better than K8. Also K10 uses IMC and native quad core design on 65nm. It ain't a miracle it uses more power than MCM Yorkfields or even just Brisbane/Windsor:rolleyes: That's why it's just stupid.

You can of course make clear for your self if you care about power consumption etc. In the end it's like saying it ain't fair to compare a GTX280 with a HD4870X2 because the latter one has two cores, in the end they're competitors. Point is just that K10 is called Prescott, it just ain't, I think you need more stuff to name a CPU a Prescott. Otherwise you could call i7 a Prescott too only because it uses more power, but that would be kind of weird, wouldnt it?

---

How prescott compared to northwood was not important, What is important is how it compared to K8. That was also k10's problem, How it compared to conroe was more important than how it compared to k8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

The pic which shows that 3 GHz Deneb would be a tad faster than a 2.83 GHz Q9400.

Q9550 will be faster, no doubt about it.

---

until NDA is up and everyone sees the results with the HT at 2400 instead of the misleading 1800.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

until NDA is up and everyone sees the results with the HT at 2400 instead of the misleading 1800.

---

Wait...uhh.. Nice! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donitsi

Wait...uhh.. Nice! :eek:

---

FYI, dont get your hopes up. that was based on nothing but hope lol

I was gonna say, what source......

don't do that to us! Use a smiley or something :p:

Ya, sorry bout dat.:shakes: now theres gonna be an article at the Inq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

Ya, sorry bout dat.:shakes: now theres gonna be an article at the Inq.

---

:rofl:

Should keep an eye out, and if it does show up that would be classic. Then we could all spam INQ with hate mail :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

...in January...:up:

---

Yeah :rolleyes: Not everyone lives in Boston. And not everyone needs an air conditioner blowing through their CPU cooler to get a decent overclock. Maybe in your case you could buy a heater. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taurus_sel

;)

You got it. Phenom II will hit Intel harder than anyone can imagine. It's perf/watt/$$ will be better than anything Intel has to offer today. With today's economy, how many people will be springing for $1K upgrades when they can buy a $250 proc to replace the one they have or buy a whole new platform for half the price?

With the money saved, you could buy an air conditioner to cool your room and not your cpu. ;)

---

Argh cmon, share your knowledge with us :D
When NDA ends?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

FYI, dont get your hopes up. that was based on nothing but hope lol

---

You got me on that, lol :D