SourceQuote:
HD9500WCGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9500 (4MB,95W,AM2) box $247.00
HD9600WCGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9600 (4MB,95W,AM2) box $278.00
HD9700XAGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9700 (4MB,125W,AM2) box $288.00
Printable View
SourceQuote:
HD9500WCGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9500 (4MB,95W,AM2) box $247.00
HD9600WCGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9600 (4MB,95W,AM2) box $278.00
HD9700XAGDBOX CPU Desktop Phenom X4 9700 (4MB,125W,AM2) box $288.00
so that's where it came from!
It was already posted yesterday, but the person didn't supply the source
the difference between the 9600 and 9700 prices wont be 10$
If it is, I don't think too many people will be buying the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
If those are the real prices then the choice is between the 9500 and 9700. An extra 200MHz for $40 isn't too bad.
The 9600 is kinda stuck in no mans land...
Now, of course, the question everyone wants answered - how does it compare to a similarly priced Q6600. :)
if these are the prices at launch, imagine how much they will cost after 1-2 month after release. this really makes me excited as the prices seem pretty ok for me :)
So it all goes as expected...
Tsk tsk...look in the list...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
not bad I'm guessing about £170 with tax in Britain
for the 9700
ETA: Friday December 14, 2007.
from here:
http://www.isorm.com/product_info.php?products_id=2560
hope it launches sooner
I've heard rumors of 2.4G and 2.6G for the 9700 . Can someone confirm one or another or neither ?
2.4GhzQuote:
Originally Posted by Slay0r
http://www.isorm.com/product_info.php?products_id=2560
http://www.compsource.com/ttechnote....X&vid=34&src=F
http://www.pcsuperstore.com/products....html/froogle/
thanks for the heads up :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Is there any news on a 2P desktop motherboard that will take 2 Phenoms but use normal DDR2/3 memory and have decent OC options in bios?
Too expensive. Q6600 will probably own it... :/
any information about HE series? I Want 65W X4 :hehe:
QuadFather aka 4x4?Quote:
Originally Posted by twilyth
That's what I'm thinking - like the L1N64 but non-server.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
nice and cheap! this is good news from AMD, intel already said no cheap quad cores. i see it falling down to the low $200 by January
I think many people will like an idea to have nehalem-like cpu into their computer for only 250-300 USD :rolleyes: and if to recollect the price of descent am2 mobo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warship
XS is so full of wishful thinking it ain't even funny...
You are comparing Phenom with Nehalem? LOL....Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Also performance counts, nothing else. And there is a phenomal lack of that....
Oh just roflmao...:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
How did it go with that 2.4Ghz 125W TDP denial? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I've heard of people deluding themselves but seriously...:rofl:
They want so bad for AMD to become what it used to be...
that's why a tricore phenom performs better then a intel quad core in 3dmark06.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
:clap:
Proff? Curerntly it shows quite the opposite...Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Quote:
Performance of Quad Core Phenom X4 2GHz on AMD 770 chipset vs QX9650 running on X38 using 8800GTX
SUPER PI 1M = 40s
Using 8800GTX external vga card,
3Dmark06 = 98xx (Phenom X4 runs at 2GHz)
3Dmark06 = 107xx (QX9650 underclk to 2GHz)
Oh lol,denial.I never said it wasn't going to have 125W spec.I wanted to see your source(which in that time you didn't have-you just went by the inq article and guessed ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
BTW,the roadmaps i have seen had 2.6Ghz 125W Phenom in them.Obviously AMD "lost" one bin,but they will probably launch it in Dec.
So we can agree on the 125W that you refused to accept for so long? And the release clocks is lowered to 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4Ghz?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Good! Then it is just as predicted. Yet you kept trying to deny it.
I guess your mysteriuos X4 @2GHz will appear to be GP7000 @2GHz (triple-core) from hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Nope...look at the numbers for one?Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
3dMark2006 - 6175 at 2.0Ghz X3 phenom = 3.08 points per MhzQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
3DMark2006 - 6638 at 2.4ghz Intel Quad = 2.76 points per mhz
PCmark05 - 5830 at 2.0ghz X3 = 2.915 points per Mhz
PCmark05 -7700 at 2.4ghz Intel Quad = 3.2 points per mhz
Quad core vs tripple core, what efficiency :up: :ROTF:
I doubt its a tripplecore. Because your single post contradicts all the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Also 7000 series was their old name before Intel launched 9000 series penryns. Then AMD made their into 9000 too.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=160392
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=68503
2 x 2GHz K10: 4242
2 x 2GHz C2Q: 4335
2 x 2.66 C2Q: 5662
And thats clovers...
Also did you forget this?
http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html
you cant compare barcelona to phenom, their is still a difference. but either way the you can judge something thats not out yet,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
yeah and i remeber when that was intel, yet intel came back. why cant AMD.Quote:
I've heard of people deluding themselves but seriously...
They want so bad for AMD to become what it used to be...
intel guys you can keep being high and mighty. i really look forward to watching you guys take the dive to buy and low end cpu for $2000
Prices look nice, allthough a little tightly spaced for what ever reason...
I hope the whole platform will not be to power hungry (but that might fall into that wishfull thinking category, I fear).
And also hoping that it will be depndable from the get go not needing any adidional drivers and patches for OS and such!
Lol crysis optimized for both Intel and Nivdia.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
And it's tricore.
I hope it does well, but by the looks of it now, I'm getting Yorkfield.
Phenom 7600 2,3 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 7700 2,5 GHz march. 2008
Phenom 9500 2,2 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9600 2,3 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9700 2,4 GHz dec. 2007
Phenom 9800 2,8 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-82 2,6 GHz Q1 2008
Phenom FX-8x 3,0 GHz Q2 2008
Tric-core mister shintai.
Try turn back in history and check roadmaps. Then tell me what was named GP 7000 and 7100. Thats right, QUADCORES! They got renamed when Intels 9000 series Quads leaked.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=5078
So no, its not a tricore. And we gonna ahve the usual crap when its released. Just like with the K10. You hype, AMD fails to deliver your hype and people nag over something that aint AMDs fault.
OMG this is a new list posted on a dutch site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
It's a tricore, and tricore it's confirmed no reason for you to deny facts.
you basicly proved yourself already wrong lol
nice prices AMD but is that going to be enought to keep your head above water
And that's why Intel dual core frags quad core Phenom in Crysis. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Excuses excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
There wouldn't be any 7k seriesQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Intel will name Wolfdales 8k AMD will follow same way with tri-cores
source to backup that claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Just wait and see ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
i just want my FX-82's!!!!! WHY WONT YOU LET ME HAVE MY FX-82's!!!!!
i am gonna tell my mommy...
+1 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
me too
This is not good..
Why is AMD Pricing it so low?
I guess it just doesnt perform too well? I really hope AMD comes up with a gem of a chip next time around. Coz if they dont, were going to go back to the good ole Netburst days...
we shouldn't really complain about it being low, tbh there just trying to price it aggressively against Penryn and for that we can't blame them they need to milk as much money as they can from us consumers until they get back on top!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ad1tya
also we have no idea about yields etc :)
hmm why we dont wait a week, and then we see who was right and who was wrong...
The repeating naming scheme of AMD proves where people's harts are these days: in Intels camp!
Trying to piggy back their CPUs by naming them just above the corresponding daddy Intels CPUs (just like adding + the last time they pilled this).
It's history repeating for AMD, hopefully also performance wise, eventually at least... for theirs and ours sake.
Some people here would not be able to do that if their life depended on it :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
it may be a wee bit faster or slower then the top dog out right not which is fine and all, its faster then what i have and has two more cores. thats good enough for me.
53 posts and no1 noted the typo? :doh: too bad i didnt too
D'oh! If I'm slightly dyslexic can I still get partial credit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Actually, It was Intel who first copied AMD naming scheme, but that's ancient history. Intel has always pretty much been the first processor that people think about. Even when AMD was on top. Most people just buy what they bought before and rarely look at real performance
$289 for a 2.4 Ghz quad core k8 basically (not much IPC improvement over K8), vs. a Q6600 for $266, which will be faster then Phenom.
That's what we waited 18 months for?
lets not jump the gun just yet? Of all of the benchmarks that have been PRE-RELEASED, we've yet to see any definitive answers to make an accurate overall performance comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankR
your looking at a premium price give it a few months that will be way down. and yet again dont judgment something thats not out yet, thats like judging someone before getting to know them.
yeh totally the prices are so low.Quote:
Originally Posted by QWIDGYBO
like remember a while back 2 years ago... like Core 2 was being launched and because the price was lower than the athlon x2s it HAD to suck.
price is a 100% accurate indicator of performance.
anyone want to buy a 386 for $10k?
you can't compare a 2ghz phenom with a 2.4ghz intel and use point per Mhz in a graphics card dependant benchmark. the gfx card makes up a lot of the score in 3dmark, so it doesn't scale with CPU speedQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
AKA - if you reduce the speed of the intel quad to 2ghz its 3dmarks per Mhz would increase.
and the same for PCmark if it's gfx card dependant (i dunno :))
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=249
http://www.oohashi.jp/c-board/file/3..._HTx4_88GT.png
3553 3dmark06 cpumarks for K10 @2,4GHz @ddr2 800
That's pretty bad considering my Q6600 is getting 5500+ CPU score clocked at 3.6 ghz...Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Someone talks about Phenoms in november ... Phenoms will launch in mid of December *I KNOW*! 15.11 will appears only new Radeons and chipset ...
Nuker_, you should rather tell us how much is your q6600 getting at 2.4GHz
OBR, you are wrong yourself. Even a kid knows three Phenoms will be announced November 19 he-he
That's very impressive actually especially considering chipsets can get 100-600 points more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
When will these processors be released?
OBR stop providing false information.
Phenom will be in Warsaw and that's a fact.
OBR: If true, then that's a big shame because I was hoping on trying one soon.
Just saw Copper's reply... tilts the boat the other way again.
And i saw Opteron Barcelona 2356 2.3ghz , 2.2ghz, 2.1ghz on preorder too.
In this month we must see phenom.:D
Mate I'm just responding to the claim that for a couple of hundred bucks you can get a "Nehalem-like," cpu...:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
The clue bat strikes again : do you have any idea on how the 3Dmark score is calculated ?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
You cannot draw any conclusions on CPU performance per MHz based on the global score.
To provide more support for your post and to prove Phenom will score a tad higher/or equal to Yorkfield @ same clock in CPU test of 3Dmark06,i will provide a few links here(note:the results are for Barcelona with registered RAM @800Mhz with cas 5 on an server HT1.0 motherboard, while yorkfield's results are from a 2.33Ghz model @ HKEPC->2.4Ghz yorkfield would score 2% higher than HKEPC measured)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Barcelona CPU mark06 score @2.4Ghz(with before mentioned setup): 3553 marks
source: Kyosen http://www.oohashi.jp/c-board/file/3..._HTx4_88GT.png
Yorkfield CPU mark06 score(normalized to 2.4Ghz-from 2.33Ghz score) : 3559 marks
source:
http://www.hkepc.com/?id=171&page=3#view
So we have K10 with regged cas 5 memory on older board scoring the same as Yorkfield on fully fledged desktop motherboard with unregged RAM.
Informal, I believe k10 is a good cpu, but unfairly to amd there is a lot of disappointment surrounding it.This is mostly the fault of yourself and the rest of the AMD horde, Stop hyping sh12 up so much. Every thing AMD has done since AM2 has been a disappointment because of the fanboys hyping. Just leave it and let the benchmarks speak, that is the ones you will deem to be important, and if they do not open a can on Intel the accept it, don't blame memory, pre release cpu, bad bios , wrong chipset etc etc
My point was that Phenom is competitive(per clock) with Penryn,that's all.And this is with having 3x less cache(total amount) and 3 vs 4 issue cores.Talk about efficiency and IPC...
And BTW,i don't have a "horde" ,unlike some of you intel fans who have a habbit to come in large numbers and crash'n'burn every single amd thread(look at the number of locked threads due to name calling,harsh words etc.)
cpus will be named HD and 9700?
so amds branding department was fired and replaced with atis? :lol:
Indeed i wonder with excuses shinati wil come up when he sees K10 on par with penryn :D
and it pwned current quad like i stated.
Link
already posted but i like to bolt it :D
going to make it my sig lol ^^
hmm
C2Q in Vista
and
Opteron in 2003
that's not right comparison
2003 is slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
where? you mean weak SM2/3 results in 2003? that can be because of different drivers, different directX versions, background processes etcQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
everybody knows Vista eats much of cpu MHz
Actually Q6600 reaches 3700-3800 cpumarks in tweaked NT 5.1
That used to be a 2.3GHz part: http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1893/23ghzx4sn0.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
That's different to what I've heard. I heard:Quote:
Phenom 9500 2,2 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9600 2,3 GHz nov. 2007
Phenom 9700 2,4 GHz dec. 2007
Phenom 9800 2,8 GHz Q1 2008
November 19th:
9500 2.2GHz
9600 2.3GHz (maybe now changed to 2.4GHz to meet new roadmap)
9700 2.6GHz (125W)
9800 2.8GHz (maybe by mid-January)
Dirk said in mid October that November is Phenom launch at higher than 2.5GHz, like here: http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.p...=16488&catid=2
3GHz Penryn 45nm 1333FSB is at 130W TDP @ 1.208V: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7...zpenrynkn3.jpg
3GHz Phenom 65nm 1.488V (HT is wrong because of bug, its double): http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4...zphenomlo3.gif
At 1600FSB/3.2GHz Penryn 45nm DP breaks 149W barrier: http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/885/45nmus0.jpg
AMD and Intel current design for future architectures: http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9...deasby1.th.gif
This is why there was a huge cry of "foul" in the industry when Intel revealed their new plans. You can see the similarity.
win2003 is for 3dmark like windows 2001 is for superpi, it's slow.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Vista is actually a proper os when it comes to 3dmark06/05/03 it sucks only for 01
That roadmap changed last week.Quote:
That's different to what I've heard. I heard:
November 19th:
9500 2.2GHz
9600 2.3GHz (maybe now changed to 2.4GHz to meet new roadmap)
9700 2.6GHz (125W)
9800 2.8GHz (maybe by mid-January)
Beside the numbering-changes the TDP for the 2,4GHz version rose to 125W.
With that new numbering the highest cloked 9xxx-phenom should be an 9900 at 2,6 GHz. Will they use 10xxx for higher clocking versions or will they use non linear numbering in relation to the frequency beyond 2,4GHz?
FZ posted a pre-order link today. There the 9700 is not available before 14. Dec.
Maybe he had fx-phenoms in mind.Quote:
Dirk said in mid October that November is Phenom launch at higher than 2.5GHz, like here: http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.p...=16488&catid=2
That Phenom GP-9600 2.3GHz B2 was a release sample and it was reported at 89W TDP in EVEREST. Nothing for Phenom is in concrete before retail samples though, not even for Penryn.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
http://www.isorm.com/index.php?cPath...b201a0bfd5bbf6
this is concrete ;)
prices are a bit high there.
So only 2,3 GHz in November. LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by madcho
Yeah that says 2.4GHz for December. Release prices are always higher than MSRP or /1000 prices, or compared to those a few weeks after, and especially when the quantities are low near Xmas.
Honestly, if I see that as final, the business manager liaising with my uncle's corp has been lying and bluffing all along, which would be a different story all altogether but make me think of them as pretty damn sad and disingenuous at all levels.
If only 2.4GHz FX/X4 is released this year (nothing higher), then despite what they say, they are having problems with TDP.
Bit like how Penryn >3GHz had problems with TDP since January. So did Barcelona just at 1GHz lower.
hmm i still have difficulties to see how this quads form amd can competent. Right now it seems they are ranging from 260-320$ but they are only max @ 2.4ghz, so it seems its positioned against the cheapst quad of intel right now (the Q6600 for 266$).
everyone who changed to conroe last year wont change to phenom cause they have a drop in solution. (budget)Gamers would rather buy the upcoming E8400 for 183$ and get better performance than with a quad phenom or quad intel.
Im really curious to see how this quads will sell.
Im really curious to see how this quads will overclock >:D
Maybe they have problems with B2's. I think the lower clocked modells are B1/BA'2, this would also illustrate that hight TDP at 2.4 GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Well, hope dies last. :rolleyes:
Only 2.3G at launch and then 2.4G in December. That's discouraging. Hopefully, that wont be the case, but its probably correct. The only thing I can think of good about that, is I would have to wait until q1 for the Yorkfield model I've been looking at, which, for me, gives AMD 'til then. Too bad I was hoping to play with one of these. On the other had if it clocks well and performs well, I may pick one up just for fun and I do have some people close to me that could use an upgrade if I decide to ditch it later.
If they don't have 2.6GHz retail by December, I'm going to have to get the bang4buck Yorky in Q1 instead TBH and I don' see myself changing platforms near after either. :(
Keep dreaming. Nehelem is nothing like X4's. If a yorkfield can compete//beat a phenom, I don't even want to think about what a Nehelem will do to it. I've seen the chips. They aren't even Socket T. Socket B anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
That and I highly doubt AMD will be able to sustain those prices for long. They're taking some heavy losses due to horrible yields. Too much to swallow for AMD all at once, especially when they start cutting fabs too. There's only so much you can out-source for production.
I would switch platform if the new arch is around 50% faster than the old one. I want to feel the boost during normal daily work. This 5-10% advantage in speed is not worth switching. I'll wait for nehalem vs. sandtiger before i move to a new platform. Meanwhile I can replace my X2-3800 with a Phenom-X4 if i really need four cores. (Might be usefull for all my virtual machines).
I'm interested how much power a phenom will require in an AM2 board under normal workload and how the new virtualisation functionality will perform.
Overclocking is not an issue for me, but this forum is definately an interesting playground to learn more about hardware internals.
Most people who buy cpus to integrate into systems, rarely buy anything over a £200 model. To spend more is for the more affluent sector of the community or those going for 100% performance and top Overclocking.
If AMD can make a cpu range that from a range of £100 to £200, perform with a couple of percent the same as the intel priced equivalent. Then I and many others will buy AMD (well if it overclocks like a Dog I wont).
I can't say if this will keep AMD afloat but having budget, desktop, mainstream and parts of the server market means they will be competative against Intel. They may not have the top end desktops (and top end 2u systems) but they probably are competitive in every other sector, once these suckers hit the streets.
I agree fella. Most earthlings look at price first and have a budget. Just like you have a car budget and you don't all buy SSC Ultimas or F1s do you? Rarely. That doesn't include those who compete in races though, such as Button, Makinnen, Schumacher and so on in the motor world ala Coolaler, Shamino, Vince, George, Marcus and so on in the computing world. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
TDP is only for giving a thermal solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Power at full charge comparison:
http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/a...0000063321.png
If tdp of yorkfield was so bad, there would not be a lot of report saying 4GHz in air is "easy"
As for phenom, 9500 should be a little bit below 95W, 9600 just below, 9700 just over. It doesn't mean there is a real difference of 30W between 9600 and 9700 :shrug:
Yes I know. But TDP is what all companies look to, to realize a hotter running component and it matters very much when the company itself promotes "green" left right and center. So they try for the lowest TDP rating possible and it shows abilities of the arch.
Top Yorkie TDP was bad because Intel made it clear they had to run watercooling for 3.2GHz Skulltrail oc'd to 4GHz and it was still giving memory problems so they couldn't bench it, remember? If they could release higher within a decent TDP, damn you me they would do it.
If *ANY* MFG can keep overall CPU TDP down, they won't label it higher, believe me. They label the TDP envelope the lowest possible with maximum load testing for a given SKU (so all of them, the good bad and mediocre remain within that TDP). Some products from that SKU be towards the top end of the TDP and some at the low end.
TDP for Intel was a massive problem since a long time that I knew and some sites reported, they were stuck at 3.33GHz since January 07. And TDP was a problem with AMD Family 10h, they were stuck at 2.3GHz for a long time too. For AMD it was the IMC, its speeds and HT speed being the major hog, and for Intel it was the FSB speed and caches.
Jumping from 65nm to 45nm and not lowering the TDP at same MHz is stalling in the improvement trend of computing technologies. Do I think AMD will have their 45nm product at 130W for 3.0GHz? Who knows, I hope not judging from their excellent TDP differences from 2-core to 4-core at the same node with a new architecture.
Obviously not, they have no reason to sale far better processor now, there is no competion... If they have done that they would have kill their conroe stocks...Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
AMD can at this moment only sale a phenom about equal to a Q6600... The price of 9700 at 289$, 10$ below Q6600 is a clear indication of that... :shrug: