AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition: dual-core Phenom at the ready

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Gee...

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

:rolleyes:

Overall FASTER and LESS POWER CONSUMPTION.

---

Errr, that link was already posted:p: Where as I replied with the link I posted since QX977x ain't really a guideline for C2Q.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Server platform? It's a C2Extreme QX9770 vs a Corei7Extreme 965, and C2Quad Q9450 vs a Corei7 920 :confused:

---

Can I remind you what socket QX977x uses? Right, skt 771, that's a server platform. Core i7 965 uses just like 920, 1366. QX977x is nowhere inline with any skt 775 C2 CPU, at all. It's mainly aimed at ST for epic e-peen rage;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

You can clearly see that at "low" frequencies Nehalem is not so power efficient when gaming, but stop right there. If you use anything other than games and/or you cranck up the frequency, well you see the result. The problem with Phenom (X2, X3 and X4) is that it underperforms in almost everything, and Corei7 underperforms in almost nothing, both compared to Penryn.

And yes, I crap about Nehalem's power efficiency in games at 2,66GHz, why not. I'm not a fanboy, remember? However I'm not going to use it only in games or at 2,66GHz so... ;)

---

Phenom underpeforms? Excuse me? Been running 9850BE at stock for 4 months and a 9950BE stock for 1.5 months and Ive yet to suffer from any 'under performing' results really:rolleyes: Compared to Penryn, it ain't doing that bad. At least, at stock.

Core i7 running at higher frequencies, I cant comment on that since QX977x is just a stupid comparison. Get some skt 775 QX CPU instead to compare:rolleyes: When OC'ing comes into this, of course Phenom loses since it's simply not scaling well. But we knew this for how long already? Not like Phenom cant be OC'd though, 3Ghz at default Vcore isnt a rare thing at all but nothing to write home about either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Errr, that link was already posted:p: Where as I replied with the link I posted since QX977x ain't really a guideline for C2Q.


Can I remind you what socket QX977x uses? Right, skt 771, that's a server platform. Core i7 965 uses just like 920, 1366. QX977x is nowhere inline with any skt 775 C2 CPU, at all. It's mainly aimed at ST for epic e-peen rage;)

---

QX9770 is socket 775: http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAWM

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2008/amd_athlon_x2_7000_kuma/

another review, thought its german.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gryle

QX9770 is socket 775: http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAWM

---

What the:confused:

Think I got messed up with QX9770 and QX9775. Nevermind then:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Can I remind you what socket QX977x uses? Right, skt 771, that's a server platform.

---

Not really LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Phenom underpeforms? Excuse me? Been running 9850BE at stock for 4 months and a 9950BE stock for 1.5 months and Ive yet to suffer from any 'under performing' results really:rolleyes: Compared to Penryn, it ain't doing that bad. At least, at stock.

---

This is the kind of response I don't really want to read. I know you're not stupid, so please don't act as such. You know what underperform means, but in case you don't want to remember it I'll tell you: it involves comparison. One thing underperforms compared to other when its perfomance is lower than the thing you're comparing to. There is no such thing as underperforming with only one thing, you need two and you need to compare them to decide which one is faster. Phenom is not slow by itself, Phenom is slow compared to Penryn (and Kentsfield). In consequence, Phenom underperforms compared to Penryn. I have not suffered any "under performing" as you call it with my Banias laptop, and yet it underperforms like hell compared to any Core2 or K10. So please, enough with that self-justificative responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

When OC'ing comes into this, of course Phenom loses since it's simply not scaling well. But we knew this for how long already? Not like Phenom cant be OC'd though, 3Ghz at default Vcore isnt a rare thing at all but nothing to write home about either.

---

Phenom scales well, I don't see any faults there. The problem is that when you increase frequency in both K10 and Core2 the base differencies grow bigger. And the problem with Deneb is the same, but it has way more frequency headroom so AMD can mitigate it with that: you'd need something like 4,5GHz+ to beat a 4GHz Penryn, the same way it needs 3GHz to be somewhat competitive with Q9450 and Q9550.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Phenom scales well, I don't see any faults there. The problem is that when you increase frequency in both K10 and Core2 the base differencies grow bigger. And the problem with Deneb is the same, but it has way more frequency headroom so AMD can mitigate it with that: you'd need something like 4,5GHz+ to beat a 4GHz Penryn, the same way it needs 3GHz to be somewhat competitive with Q9450 and Q9550.

---

That may very well be the case,but don't you think we need some real reviews with variety of apps to conclude what you said?Agena was pretty close to even Penryn in a lot of apps,but it trailed it in others too.It won't be black& white so that you can say 4.5Ghz will be needed to match 4Ghz Penryn.In certain apps it will do better per clock,in some worse,but the average is still unknown.But i say again,those numbers may indeed be true,we just need to wait for some real tests.

He can't "attak me"^^,but he sure can attak Athlon X2 7750!1!1 :D

Now seriously,the chip is pretty good at stock clocks,IPC wise sits between 2.5 and 2.7 E5xxx series(as shown by bit tech and guru3d).What is not so good is power draw,but the question is how much is the chip to blame since FUdzilla did get some strange low(er) power draw numbers(lower than other sites at least).Maybe the 790FX chipsets in the reviews are using more power and it shows now with dual core K10s.OCing is pretty decent too,at least for 65nm Agena core.Hits between 3.2 and 3.4Ghz with 1.45V.which is surprisingly good.Price is not bad too,but it will go down for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Not really LOL.

---

Already pointed that out really. Im embarrased enough already, dont lol over it:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

This is the kind of response I don't really want to read. I know you're not stupid, so please don't act as such. You know what underperform means, but in case you don't want to remember it I'll tell you: it involves comparison. One thing underperforms compared to other when its perfomance is lower than the thing you're comparing to. There is no such thing as underperforming with only one thing, you need two and you need to compare them to decide which one is faster. Phenom is not slow by itself, Phenom is slow compared to Penryn (and Kentsfield). In consequence, Phenom underperforms compared to Penryn. I have not suffered any "under performing" as you call it with my Banias laptop, and yet it underperforms like hell compared to any Core2 or K10. So please, enough with that self-justificative responses.

---

Then I think we both have different opinions about underperforming. Comparing it to competition then to define it as underperforming is nuts IMO. K10 is better than K8. When a succesor performs worse, then I call it underperforming. It's not like an architecure is designed today, tomorrow a competitor releases a better one and thus they design a better one the day after and launch it. Although AMD and Intel do have to compete with each other price and performance wise, their advances are pretty much independend most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Phenom scales well, I don't see any faults there. The problem is that when you increase frequency in both K10 and Core2 the base differencies grow bigger. And the problem with Deneb is the same, but it has way more frequency headroom so AMD can mitigate it with that: you'd need something like 4,5GHz+ to beat a 4GHz Penryn, the same way it needs 3GHz to be somewhat competitive with Q9450 and Q9550.

---

Well, Phenom actually does better at higher clocks than Penryn scaling wise, at least in gaming though. But Yorkfield has a lot more head room and its advantage above Agena makes this like neglectible, for numbers people though. Although I used numbers a long time back to notice Agena does better at higher clocks than Yorkfield but well, everyone has got to be a bit hypocrite now and then:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo squartatore

loser CPU

---

At this point I feel so bad for Chad really now I called him the Italian Chad, Chad at least shown some... you know, a slight form of arguments.

Seriously mate, get a clue there:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Then I think we both have different opinions about underperforming. Comparing it to competition then to define it as underperforming is nuts IMO.

---

It's the only meaningful definition of performance, how well something performs against its current rivals. A Formula 1 car is incredibly fast versus virtually any other car in the world but if it's 1 second a lap slower than the fastest Formula 1 car racing at the same time, then it's slow.

And when you have a two company battle like in CPUs, it's pretty much a given that a CPU from one company will also be compared with a CPU from the other.

Quote:

---

Well, Phenom actually does better at higher clocks than Penryn scaling wise, at least in gaming though.

---

That has to do with Yorkfield hitting the GPU wall much earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

It's the only meaningful definition of performance, how well something performs against its current rivals. A Formula 1 car is incredibly fast versus virtually any other car in the world but if it's 1 second a lap slower than the fastest Formula 1 car racing at the same time, then it's slow.

---

No, then it's slower than the competition, not slow, especially not if another team got a new car the day before with whatever technology that makes it go 20Km/h faster than any other car. That means this team is very good, not that all of a sudden the rest is slow or underperforming.

If this said team would introduce a new car which actually is 20Km/h slower than the previous car, uses even more fuel etc, then it's slow and underperforming, independend whether this car is still better or worse than the cars of the competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

And when you have a two company battle like in CPUs, it's pretty much a given that a CPU from one company will also be compared with a CPU from the other.

---

Yeah, I can imagine that happening:ROTF: Still doesnt justify to call something like that though, at least not as a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

That has to do with Yorkfield hitting the GPU wall much earlier.

---

Could be, but not sure since there was a rising line still for both CPU's. If there was this GPU wall, wouldnt the FPS remain the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

That may very well be the case,but don't you think we need some real reviews with variety of apps to conclude what you said?Agena was pretty close to even Penryn in a lot of apps,but it trailed it in others too.It won't be black& white so that you can say 4.5Ghz will be needed to match 4Ghz Penryn.In certain apps it will do better per clock,in some worse,but the average is still unknown.But i say again,those numbers may indeed be true,we just need to wait for some real tests.

---

Sure, we have to see the actual numbers. Mine are pure speculation, but you can perfectly guess the margin, it'll be around 200-400MHz average depending on the application. At it will outperform even Core i7 in some of them. I think nobody will tell you otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Then I think we both have different opinions about underperforming. Comparing it to competition then to define it as underperforming is nuts IMO. K10 is better than K8. When a succesor performs worse, then I call it underperforming. It's not like an architecure is designed today, tomorrow a competitor releases a better one and thus they design a better one the day after and launch it. Although AMD and Intel do have to compete with each other price and performance wise, their advances are pretty much independend most of the time.

---

We have exactly the same definition. Look at your example, you're comparing the current processor with the predecessor. I'm not talking about comparing it with the competition, I'm talking about comparing it to whatever you want. You can't measure anything without a reference point, so don't insult Einstein ;). You can't say i7 is fast, in absolute. Therefore your previous post was BS, hence my response, as you were measuring speed without references.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

We have exactly the same definition. Look at your example, you're comparing the current processor with the predecessor. I'm not talking about comparing it with the competition, I'm talking about comparing it to whatever you want. You can't measure anything without a reference point, so don't insult Einstein ;). You can't say i7 is fast, in absolute. Therefore your previous post was BS, hence my response, as you were measuring speed without references.

---

K, you lost me here now:p:

You said Phenom was underperforming compared to Yorkfield, where as I said it isnt underperforming because it's faster than K8. But well, I guess this whole thing is turning out in nothing once again:p: Lets just get back on-topic (unless you could make a quick line what Im missing here though:confused:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo squartatore

loser CPU

---

Loser user, I think that's a more bullet proof statement;)

On-topic: THis CPU looks very nice, but does this mean AMD will stop making 90nm parts (Windsor) very soon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo squartatore

loser CPU

---

ummmmmm do you have anything to say or should i just go trolling in the intel section posting "i7 sucks" on every page without saying anything else? if you don't think its a good cpu then why? personally i don't think its a bad cpu but its not a good one. it came way too late and if you compare it vs the x2 6000 at stock it is pretty even besides power consumption. but if we look at how both of them overclock this could very well be better than the 6000 and be amd's best dual core cpu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo squartatore

loser CPU

---

its really getting old friend. every thread I have read in the last week has been filled with the same crap from you.

think im gonna get together all your troll posts (will take quite a wile) and send it to a mod. Or you can just chill out and stop trying to make things unpleasent for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

ummmmmm do you have anything to say or should i just go trolling in the intel section posting "i7 sucks" on every page without saying anything else? if you don't think its a good cpu then why? personally i don't think its a bad cpu but its not a good one. it came way too late and if you compare it vs the x2 6000 at stock it is pretty even besides power consumption. but if we look at how both of them overclock this could very well be better than the 6000 and be amd's best dual core cpu.

---

Will the x2's get the hkmg treatment or not.Maybe 45nm x2 8400+ BE or something like that.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hell Hound

Will the x2's get the hkmg treatment or not.Maybe 45nm x2 8400+ BE or something like that.:shrug:

---

idk about hkmg but there are making a 45nm dual core. regor. it is the athlon x2 235 or 240 at 2.7ghz and 2.8ghz respectively.

Will that bring 4mb l2 with ddr2 1200 mem controller ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hell Hound

Will that bring 4mb l2 with ddr2 1200 mem controller ?

---

AFAIK,it will have 2x1MB L2(dedicated ,not shared),no L3 and will be AM3(backwards compatible with AM2+).It should be based on Deneb/Shanghai core and support up to ddr3-1333 officially and upwards unofficially .
It should be faster than current Athlon X2s based on Agena cores,somewhere in E8xxx league ipc wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

AFAIK,it will have 2x1MB L2(dedicated ,not shared),no L3 and will be AM3(backwards compatible with AM2+).It should be based on Deneb/Shanghai core and support up to ddr3-1333 officially and upwards unofficially .
It should be faster than current Athlon X2s based on Agena cores,somewhere in E8xxx league ipc wise.

---

yea thats about it. heres a link that has some of the info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...C_dual_core.29

I don't think Regor is that much of a leap, though. It's just a very small K10.5 die.
Might be slower compared to current Kumas clock for clock because of lack of L3, but they definitely use much less power for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

I don't think Regor is that much of a leap, though. It's just a very small K10.5 die.
Might be slower compared to current Kumas clock for clock because of lack of L3, but they definitely use much less power for one.

---

yea i bet regor will not be that popular. for amd users the low end seems to be becoming triple cores not dual cores.

Regor may end up as "EE" (Energy Efficient) processors. Time will tell.. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

Regor may end up as "EE" (Energy Efficient) processors. Time will tell.. ;)

---

i think kuma will as well. that l3 has to take up a decent amount of power which may be one of the reasons why they don't have it in kuma besides cutting costs.