-
Triple Core Phenom 8600 Benchmarked
-
I sure hope these are dirt cheap!
-
iv been saying this for a while, but i think wolfdale and toliman are gonna be in fierce competition.
edit: 5331 cinebench score? :banana::banana::banana::banana: thats low, i gotta retract my statement lol. at this point amd should sell phenom quad cores at intel dual core prices.
-
They will ofc be chepaer then the quad cores but their price i guess will mostly depend on if AMD will raise the price on the 9500 and 9600 when B3 comes.
ANd besides im guessing that the first Triple cores will be a mix of B2s and B3s.
-
They better be a lot cheaper than Wolfdales if that's how it gonna perform. I might bite at around $130. Maybe?
-
I can't read the SPi results, but I'm guessing 1M?
And if that's right, I've seen A64s perform better :shakes:
Best Regards :toast:
-
Uses Patched BIOS. Slower than you need.
-
WOOO! 4ghz Prescott P4 performance!! :rofl:
That better either not be 1M pi, or those chips better be like $50 tops.
-
why would somebody bench a tripple core cpu using superpi? :stick:
-
To show the miserable single-treaded performance? Was hoping for a wPrime result, that would have been more useful. I simulated a tri-core Yorkfield at 2298MHz and it slapped those Toliman results in the face. I hope the huge performance delta was due to the TLB patch.
http://gomeler.com/pic/Articles/AMD%...-yorkfield.jpg
Click image for full-sized image, full article here.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DTU_XaVier
I can't read the SPi results, but I'm guessing 1M?
And if that's right, I've seen A64s perform better :shakes:
Best Regards :toast:
Here here. My FX-53 does that in 1M. Is that 32M then?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob94hawk
Here here. My FX-53 does that in 1M. Is that 32M then?
No, my 3800@3.07 does 28 sec. I think AMD cpu's just arent optimised for the superpi benchmark. Its better to focus on game and synthetic performance.
-
my p4 550J @ 3700 did 27 sec...lol
-
wonder why they enabled the tlb to show results... or at least, show both, tlb and non tlb bios. These dont really yield any useful data, as by the time it is released it will be b3, and any pre b3 will be owned by people who will risk not using tlb...
-
-
Oh man, now that just looks terrible. Need 3GHz Phenom/Toliman ASAP.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
[XC] gomeler
Oh man, now that just looks terrible. Need 3GHz Phenom/Toliman ASAP.
You mean 4GHz :rofl:
-
I might pick up one of these, if there cheap then definitely build a cheap rig around it, seems OC'd be ok for gaming + its pretty good for mulit-tasking so pretty good if they price it right imo
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starscream
They will ofc be chepaer then the quad cores but their price i guess will mostly depend on if AMD will raise the price on the 9500 and 9600 when B3 comes.
ANd besides im guessing that the first Triple cores will be a mix of B2s and B3s.
No worries, with the Q6600 dropping to 229, and the Q9300 coming in at 260... AMD cannot charge much over 200 for their top quad, and from the looks of it ... a good portion of the Wolfdale's will beat this CPU just in raw performance ... so expect triple-cores between the 100-150 range, that would be my guess.
-
Did anyone expect any different? It is just Phenom X4 with one less core after all, same architecture otherwise basically :shrug:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SparkyJJO
Did anyone expect any different? It is just Phenom X4 with one less core after all, same architecture otherwise basically :shrug:
exactly.......
-
these better go for $119.99 w/ ECS mobo @ Fry's
and the mobo better sell for $40 on eBay
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KoHaN69
these better go for $119.99 w/ ECS mobo @ Fry's
and the mobo better sell for $40 on eBay
Nahhhhh, Gateway and HP will suck these up nobody's business, then sell them front and center at Best Buy to the common sucker er.. I mean common consumer.
-
Whats the power consumption of these?
Will my PC draw 2x more than 2core wolfdale?
-
what about 2k6 cpu score?
in games i guess there is no difference whatsoever to dualcores.
which makes me wonder... why should people buy a tripple core?
in games a dualcore is enough, and if you use apps that DO use more than 2 cores, you want a quadcore and not tripple core... lol :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saaya
what about 2k6 cpu score?
2793
--
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5...917076fvf2.jpg
-
AMD now a days belongs in the budget bins, no way they should be pricing their products close to intel, when they perform like this......the amd x2 is a cpu from 2005 and the phenoms barely beat it, thats sad, the only way for amd to stay in the game is to get in the budget bin and stop trying to make high end cpu's if they are not high end.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AngryArtichoke
I sure hope these are dirt cheap!
They must be, Dell will be using them in Optiplex systems (mass produced office PCs).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saaya
what about 2k6 cpu score?
in games i guess there is no difference whatsoever to dualcores.
which makes me wonder... why should people buy a tripple core?
in games a dualcore is enough, and if you use apps that DO use more than 2 cores, you want a quadcore and not tripple core... lol :D
exactly
"Nonsense cpus from AMD" not a bad slogan for marketing
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SparkyJJO
Did anyone expect any different? It is just Phenom X4 with one less core after all, same architecture otherwise basically :shrug:
that's what I was thinking. patch or no patch I've seen A64 better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TopherTony
my p4 550J @ 3700 did 27 sec...lol
...and got raped by AMD in every other benchmark...lol
Intel has always been king of SuperPI and will remain as such. Too bad that even it is some 60% faster in SuperPI, it doesn't really mean it is 60% faster overall, let alone in servers where scaling is more important.
-
it is sad to see more pathetic stuff coming from AMD:(
-
re SuperPI: I wonder what would happen if a PI calculation program were written and optimized for K10 instead, and calculated PI faster by a landslide. Would people then use this as an industry standard benchmark as well?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AAbenson
it is sad to see more pathetic stuff coming from AMD:(
Pathetic? Sure intel would have done Tri-Core if they could. They couldn't. Sure the K10 is a joke, but Tri-core isn't.
-
TLB patch averages about 20% slower results... on quads.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13741/4
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it seems to have been overlooked. I doubt that will help on super pi, but on 3dmark it should make an impact.:up:
Again, i dont understand why they tested with the patch on, when by the time these are public.. there will be no tlb errata, or very few available that are b2.
-
Amazing to see the amount of dumb responses, when several people have allready pointed out that the TLB fix hasn't been disabled.
This chip will be amazing value, and intel will have nothing against it.
Owning the high end is not everything.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calmatory
Pathetic? Sure intel would have done Tri-Core if they could. They couldn't. Sure the K10 is a joke, but Tri-core isn't.
Why would Intel need a tri-core? It's not like their current lineup isn't cluttered enough already. Their MCM approach means they don't have to 'salvage' broken quads into tri cores, since each quad is made up of two perfectly working duals.
AMD is only doing this for financial reasons, it's much better to get something for a tri-core than to just throw the defective quads away.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jakko
Amazing to see the amount of dumb responses, when several people have allready pointed out that the TLB fix hasn't been disabled.
This chip will be amazing value, and intel will have nothing against it.
Owning the high end is not everything.
How do you know the chip will be amazing value when the official prices haven't even been released? :rolleyes:
I'm sure it'll be priced competitively against C2Ds, but it doesn't outperform them either, even in multithreading. 2 faster cores = 3 slower cores.
-
Because they will be cheaper than the quad cores.
And the quad cores are allready priced to compete with intel.
This means intels dual cores will be priced against amd's triple cores.
And this may be a battle intel can not possibly win, depending on what apps you buy your CPU for of course.
-
If they're going to be cheap; i may get one for my mediacenter/gameserver rig :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jakko
Because they will be cheaper than the quad cores.
And the quad cores are allready priced to compete with intel.
This means intels dual cores will be priced against amd's triple cores.
And this may be a battle intel can not possibly win, depending on what apps you buy your CPU for of course.
I don't think AMD will be able to sell them as cheap as they should though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jakko
Because they will be cheaper than the quad cores.
And the quad cores are allready priced to compete with intel.
This means intels dual cores will be priced against amd's triple cores.
And this may be a battle intel can not possibly win, depending on what apps you buy your CPU for of course.
You make it sound like Phenom tri-core is superior to a C2D, when actually its not. A Phenom 8600 is roughly equal to an E6750 in multithreaded performance, and gets slaughtered in single threaded performance. Hence, C2D is the faster processor overall.
Also, by the time it is actually released, a Phenom 8600 will be competing against faster Wolfdale C2Ds, not Conroes. AMD will have to price tri-cores below $150 to compete IMO. We will see when it launches I guess.
-
I'd rather have a Intel Dual Core than this.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Epsilon84
You make it sound like Phenom tri-core is superior to a C2D, when actually its not. A Phenom 8600 is roughly equal to an E6750 in multithreaded performance, and gets slaughtered in single threaded performance. Hence, C2D is the faster processor overall.
Also, by the time it is actually released, a Phenom 8600 will be competing against faster Wolfdale C2Ds, not Conroes. AMD will have to price tri-cores below $150 to compete IMO. We will see when it launches I guess.
Not only that, but the wolfdales will almost certainly use much less power and will be much better overclockers on top of offering better performance on a majority of applications. AMD will have to price these below the cheapest Wolfdale, well below.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAR
AMD now a days belongs in the budget bins, no way they should be pricing their products close to intel, when they perform like this......the amd x2 is a cpu from 2005 and the phenoms barely beat it, thats sad, the only way for amd to stay in the game is to get in the budget bin and stop trying to make high end cpu's if they are not high end.
are you considering the clockspeed differenceat all?? The K10 core is a generous advancement of the k8, just not as much as we'd hoped.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Periander6
Not only that, but the wolfdales will almost certainly use much less power and will be much better overclockers on top of offering better performance on a majority of applications. AMD will have to price these below the cheapest Wolfdale, well below.
Yeah, it'll most likely end up competing against Allendales and the Wolfdale 3M refresh, I think 3GHz+ Wolfdales would be a step above it in performance.
-
Sort of off topic but how do apps handle 3 cores. For example if something is optimized for 4 cores, does it use all 3 or just 2?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryboto
are you considering the clockspeed differenceat all?? The K10 core is a generous advancement of the k8, just not as much as we'd hoped.
A design that offers a 15% IPC increase but tops out at a 25% lower clock is not an advancement. Now of course phenom offers double the cores but considering the 4X4 offers equal or better performance and came out back in 2006 it's hard to consider the Phenom at this point anything but a step backward.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=176857
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SparkyJJO
Did anyone expect any different? It is just Phenom X4 with one less core after all, same architecture otherwise basically :shrug:
Problem is this is not the case: the Cinebench score shows that the multiprocessor speed-up is only about 2,66, considering phenoms scale very well in multiprocessor (around 3,85 for 4x cores in Cinebench) this is clearly a step backwards. I wonder if it's the TLB-patch causing this slowdown...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Periander6
A design that offers a 15% IPC increase but tops out at a 25% lower clock is not an advancement. Now of course phenom offers double the cores but considering the 4X4 offers equal or better performance and came out back in 2006 it's hard to consider the Phenom at this point anything but a step backward.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=176857
The K10 architecture is a step forward. The clock speeds are an issue, yes, but blame that on the manufacturing, not the architecture.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Periander6
Not only that, but the wolfdales will almost certainly use much less power and will be much better overclockers on top of offering better performance on a majority of applications. AMD will have to price these below the cheapest Wolfdale, well below.
QFT and what I was hinting at.:D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scottc19
Sort of off topic but how do apps handle 3 cores. For example if something is optimized for 4 cores, does it use all 3 or just 2?
The application will spawn threads based on the number of cores in the system. Use Cinebench as an example. If you have two cores, you'll see two parts of the screen rendering, three cores, three parts, etc...
As for pricing, I believe AMD will price these cores just above their X2 line, but below the Quadcore. In the neighbourhood of $150.
-
I think the pricing will all take a dump when Intel reprices in spring to cut the bottom out of their 65nm parts. In other words, less than a 150 dollar part.
I'd take one for free to play with it but I can't see shelling out any serious coin to use this.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jakko
Amazing to see the amount of dumb responses, when several people have allready pointed out that the TLB fix hasn't been disabled.
This chip will be amazing value, and intel will have nothing against it.
Owning the high end is not everything.
assuming k10 has the same performance-per-clock as 45nm c2d (generous to k10) and you have a program that scales perfectly to 3 cores (very generous to the k10 tri-core) then a 2.6ghz k10 tri would be as fast as a... let's see... 2.6*1.5 = 3.9ghz wofldale
the reality is that a 45nm c2d @ 3.9ghz would slaughter a 2.6ghz k10 tri in pretty much everything.
even an overclocked k8 would be faster than a k10 tri-core most of the time.
i don't know what kind of workloads you think 3 slow cores will excell at.
it'll be an OEM chip where general consumers can say "oh look, three cores, i'll take that over the Intel dual core system at the same price", because for people who can overclock an m0 stepping e4300 would be a better buy
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hollo
assuming k10 has the same performance-per-clock as 45nm c2d (generous to k10) and you have a program that scales perfectly to 3 cores (very generous to the k10 tri-core) then a 2.6ghz k10 tri would be as fast as a... let's see... 2.6*1.5 = 3.9ghz wofldale
the reality is that a 45nm c2d @ 3.9ghz would slaughter a 2.6ghz k10 tri in pretty much everything.
even an overclocked k8 would be faster than a k10 tri-core most of the time.
i don't know what kind of workloads you think 3 slow cores will excell at.
it'll be an OEM chip where general consumers can say "oh look, three cores, i'll take that over the Intel dual core system at the same price", because for people who can overclock an m0 stepping e4300 would be a better buy
Well, of course reality would work out that way since K10 is nowhere near the IPC of 45nm Core 2. That, plus the fact that not all software scales linearly with core count, means Phenom tri-core has no chance of outperforming Wolfdales, unless they can get clockspeeds up drastically. By my rough calculations they'd need to close to within a 10% clockspeed gap with Wolfdales to be competitive on a multithreading level, and lets not even mention single or double threaded performance. Let's also ignore the power consumption and overclockablity of Wolfdale. From a purely performance oriented point of view, Phenom tri-cores will be nothing more than budget alternatives to X2s, with slightly higher multithreaded performance at the expense of single/dual threaded performance.
However, all this is moot to your average user. If AMD can market these properly (perception is everything, look how many P4s Intel sold ;) ) and try to ram home the concept that core count is everything (as opposed to clockspeed is everything in P4) then they may well get a few sales from people thinking 3 -> 2.
-
hmm i can barely work out what i was trying to say a few hours ago with that clockspeed comparison... urgh
probably something like-
an overclocked wolfdale is so much better than an overclocked phenom tri-core it's not funny, how could you possibly defend such a chip on XS you infidel :p
