After seeing the PCGH test, I'm utterly shocked at 2 things:
1) How nice K10 would have been with enough cache
2) How utterly idiotic AMD was to not take the opportunity and run with Kuma in 2007.
I might be buying one, it obviously doesn't use 95W (probably 45W at 2.3, or overvolted by default) and it should clock to 3+Ghz. No need to switch mobos either.
Where do you get the 45w TDP? Where did I miss reading that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
He is probably going by the supposed Athlon X2 GE-6x00 TDP numbers(all are 45W rated).
BTW,2 cores using that 2 MB L3 is really showing the benefits in short PCGH test.I'd guess with Deneb dual core and its much bigger and faster L3,we might see even better results since 2 cores will share 6MB of L3.Apart from that, clocks,power consumption and IPC will obviously be improved with Deneb too.
THEY'RE 45W CPUS?! At that performance that is marvelous. This is a true Core 2 Duo competitor, albeit 2 years late, but nice to see. All this hints to a little overclocking headroom when the SB750 is considered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I never said that.... please lern to read this is getting sick...
No his post is bad because he only looked at 1 link of the 3 i put, and arguably to the "worst" one to back up the low OCs.
I'm done i thought i was talking to intelligent people that dont try to hide the sun with one finger, i know is AMD section but you know you dont live in a AMD World right?.
So of course there is competition around and of course any smart guy will compare and then make a informed decision (they can pick anyone for any reason but not looking at what is available is just stupid).
The rumored GE-6x00 models are supposed to be 45W.But the BE 6500 model is 95W,probably due to raised vcore for OCing reasons(and i'd guess it's overrated just like 9950 is with the "140W" figure which is more like 110 like you can see in Lost Circuits or even AT review).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
Yeah whatever.You said what you said,you failed to respond to my points about OCing in general and the market for the chips,you used hwbot as proof(lol) etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
I don't agree with you,have a nice day.
That chip seems to have 3MG L3 cache http://geizhals.at/eu/a361555.html so it is not an phenom with two cores disabled. Cache will reqire abit more juice so i'd expect the 2.3GHz part will ship at 55W-65W.
It has 3MB total cache, not 3MB L3.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
1MB L2 + 2MB L3 = 3MB
You're right. So same die and just two cores disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
So yeah, AMD's 65nm or Agena builds have a major problem with scaling clocks and cores, mainly cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Hopefully 45nm rectifies that partially. C2D-esque performance isn't bad, especially when the architecture itself hasn't been through even a radical change.
It got a bad rap from the Intel-Fox news team that attacks every AMD post in the news section of this website and from AMD's own screw ups. I'd like to see both of those things go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
It got bad "rap" because expectations were to high and people thought it would be a Intel killer, then AMD had several issues with it like delays, TLB bug (poorly handled by AMD) and at the end lower than expected clock speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
If you go to performance / price, Phenom is pretty competitive.
Are there any proper reviews yet?
This is equivalent to Conroe E6k from the first reviews, and uses 45W. I'm more excited about this than I was about RV770.
Actually its a gauranteed 200Mhz more than previous overclock limit, so for a Phenom 9850BE that previously OC'd to 2.8Ghz AMD is more or less gauranteeing a new overclock of 3.0Ghz giving a total of 500Mhz overclock...Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
The fact that a CPU manufacturer is gauranteeing an overclock of any kind is something of a miracle, and is not to be taken for granted..
And please can we have less of the calling people stupid, nobody here is stupid... and there's no need for such offensive remarks to be made is there..??
I have an AMD Phenom, I knew when I bought it that Intel out-performed AMD, but I chose to buy an AMD as I was interested in seeing the new architecture at work, and learning how to go about overclocking it as it presented a new challenge... does this make me Stupid... I don't think so..
Oh yeah, full ack. My last AMD-Rig was an Athlon XP, during K8 I was playing with CT479 and mobile processors and then there was the core architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterOfTheReal
Though I think I'll be waiting for Deneb, I don't want to "step down", you know.
But maybe, yes maybe I'll be impatient enough to switch earlier as my mind suggests.
Informal, there's no such thing as Phenom X2 GE 6600 ;)
BTW
on your market you'll be able to buy this CPU for less then 88€ ;)
I seconf everyone on the fact that AMD Phenom is much more fun to play with. I don't care how high Intel over clocks.. they have always done that better.. Look at the crap tech Netburst and right before C2D they would hit over 4ghz easy and still couldn't beat a FX that could only over clock 200mhz over stock.. Just not they are fast and still over clock well.. but are lac luster when it come to fun. Plus.. The Phenom line up runs fine.. it might not always be the fastest, but Reviews like this one show a good comparison..it flip flops between techs.. so depends on what you do I supose..
Yeah i made a mistake,instead of Phenom should have wrote Athlon X2 :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
It's an interesting CPU,but i think i will wait for 45nm X4.
actually there is a phenom ge-6600, and also a phenom ge-6400. check this review: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,65...0_und_GE-6400/
it's in german, but the graphics says it all ;)
The chip does look kinda interesting, though 95w is a little high for 2.3Ghz and a 65nm dual-core IMO. I expect it to be less than advertised.
If it's overvolted compared to the GE-6000 series, you can undervolt it back to 45W :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] M411b
I don't list my overclock in my signature. Yet my older 9850 that couldn't go past 2.7Gzh with a sb600 motherboard is now at 3.2Ghz and I am holding out for a newer bios because I think I might get higher. (I'm also considering getting a 9950 and some water cooling because I'm starting to have fun with these chips.)Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
Awhile back when I looking at signatures in various Intel forums I noticed that most of the people that own Q6600 chips overclock to about 3.2Ghz-3.4Ghz as an AVERAGE overclock. But I learned that is not something you want to mention on those forums.
I noticed that on other forums also.. but it seems everyone wants to believe they are 4ghz+ chips on average.. considering that the Q6600 was like the most bought chip... you might see more people getting higher clocks.. but only on later revisions.. sorta what we are now seeing with Phenom...Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
q6600 was 3.6 avg and that was on first revision G0's the later revisions (what ppl get now) are avg 3.4 with higher voltage (bad recent batches)
i get 3.2 out of my phenom 9850 with SB600 and 2.9 out of my 9550 with sb600 - will sb750 bring me to q6600 speeds? AMD had a bad run with chipsets, current OC's are much better concidering the prices of the chips