There are golden Phenom X4 B3s out there capable of hitting 3.2Ghz on air!

Quote:

---

AMD@Penang shared us the information that there are actually a couple of Phenom X4 B3s capable of running 3.2Ghz stable at undisclosed voltage and week production batches. The first batch of the retail B3 samples distributed to reviewers were definitely the early average B3s focusing more on quick TLB-Fix ready Phenom CPUs review. However, when conducting the yield performance tests under several different later production batches of the CPUs, there are actually quite a lot of B3s capable of hitting 3Ghz mark stable on generic air cooling. This is definitely a good news for AMD overclockers out there who wants to play "Hunting for Golden Chip" game. Let the season begins!

---

Source: http://xpentor.com/mamboserver/index...d=972&Itemid=1

Well probably one of our xtremists got one of them :up:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=183025

This is good to see, but sadly wont draw any attention here :(

Too little, too late, imo. Next architecture please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimmer411

This is good to see, but sadly wont draw any attention here :(

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai Robinson

Too little, too late, imo. Next architecture please...

---

Agreed.

Nice to see some air results though.

I don't understand why I'd play "hunt for the golden chip" when I can just go out and buy a yorkfield or wolfdale and be practically guaranteed a golden chip :-p

Its sad in a way, to see AMD ruined by the dithering management and the fact that so many key people have already left (i'm betting because they didn't like el-presidente ruiz).

I *want* AMD to be decent competition, but come on, theres so much more they can do - wheres the new K10 based dualcores already with NO pointless L3 cache?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halo112358

I don't understand why I'd play "hunt for the golden chip" when I can just go out and buy a yorkfield or wolfdale and be practically guaranteed a golden chip :-p

---

yes we all know that for +6 months, if nothing more to say then stay in the intel forum, there are actually people that like to test and have these chips because they are difficult (read knowledge on htt-nb-mem-etc) to OC and not just pump up the fsb and vcore.

if 9550's are also able to pull off speeds like this it makes for pretty nice cpus at their current price.

Or are phenoms still awefully fsb limited so you need an unlocked multi in order to get past 2.5Ghz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

if 9550's are also able to pull off speeds like this it makes for pretty nice cpus at their current price.

Or are phenoms still awefully fsb limited so you need an unlocked multi in order to get past 2.5Ghz?

---

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz? AMD fantoys will miss this point but it just like bragging about Smithfield while X2 pimpslapped it at almost stock speed:rolleyes: I'll be glad when K10.5 or 11 ships and provides some real competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halo112358

I don't understand why I'd play "hunt for the golden chip" when I can just go out and buy a yorkfield or wolfdale and be practically guaranteed a golden chip :-p

---

Not if you're an AMD Fan and don't buy Intel:D

I'm not an amd fanboy, but rather someone that made the mistake of not doing their homework (especially when I bought my rig right before conroe's launch), so this will be an awesome upgrade for my am2 rig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz?

---

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz? AMD fantoys will miss this point but it just like bragging about Smithfield while X2 pimpslapped at almost stock speed:rolleyes: I'll be glad when K10.5 or 11 ships and provides some real competition.

---

I don't think the clock speed difference is that high, maybe for core2 vs k8, but there were definitely some improvements in K10.

I would love to play with Phenom cpu and DFI 790FX. But I really got sick of the chip lottery that goes along with AMD overclocking. It was so frustrating getting a dud stepping when others were cruising on stock volts. I have a lot of K8's laying around that were disappointed.
On the other hand I have 2 core chips that exceeded my expectations and never left me wanting.

While this article is encouraging to see them getting some good scaling, it just has the same smell to it that the 3ghz demonstration they had before they released the Phenom quad's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai Robinson

Its sad in a way, to see AMD ruined by the dithering management and the fact that so many key people have already left (i'm betting because they didn't like el-presidente ruiz).

I *want* AMD to be decent competition, but come on, theres so much more they can do - wheres the new K10 based dualcores already with NO pointless L3 cache?

---

Too bad Ruiz is still around...he's a company killer wherever he goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

yes we all know that for +6 months, if nothing more to say then stay in the intel forum, there are actually people that like to test and have these chips because they are difficult (read knowledge on htt-nb-mem-etc) to OC and not just pump up the fsb and vcore.

---

have you given up on the AMDolics Anonymous meetings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Even @ 3.2GHz what C2D speed is that, 2.8GHz? AMD fantoys will miss this point but it just like bragging about Smithfield while X2 pimpslapped it at almost stock speed:rolleyes: I'll be glad when K10.5 or 11 ships and provides some real competition.

---

well as far as i know phenom does scale pretty well with clock increases.
So i also think a 3.2Ghz phenom can keep up pretty well with 3-3.2Ghz kentfield..

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

I'm not an amd fanboy, but rather someone that made the mistake of not doing their homework (especially when I bought my rig right before conroe's launch), so this will be an awesome upgrade for my am2 rig

---

Nope, it had nothing to do with that though AliG. That was kind of understandable because there were some doubts about if Core would really be that fast. Then some thought it was too good to be true and cost what it did. I'd not give anyone a hard time on that one.

This time it is Different. All of the Proof is there. There isn't any Guesswork, Doubt and etc.., though some are still in denial.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

I don't think the clock speed difference is that high, maybe for core2 vs k8, but there were definitely some improvements in K10.

---

true, look at video encoding performance of k10 vs k8 (k8's weak spot) it improved massively.

but, k10 simply isnt a amazing chip like c2d, it would :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: slap a 4ghz p4... but no chance against c2d, sorry but intel clearly won this round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

yes we all know that for +6 months, if nothing more to say then stay in the intel forum, there are actually people that like to test and have these chips because they are difficult (read knowledge on htt-nb-mem-etc) to OC and not just pump up the fsb and vcore.

---

Try since the release of C2D architecture... like what, 1.5 years????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakko

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

---

Thats the point. Clock for clock Phenom is slower than C2D architecutre. A 3.2Ghz phenom does not perform as well as a 3.2Ghz Quad. We arent even talking Penryn either which makes that small gap larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

---

Ehhh, no. Thats the thing. A Q6600 can be had for $199 at Microcenter. A quick look for the 9550 gives me $210.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakko

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

---

What is really sad is many people are buying Dell Inspiron 530's and just BSEL modding from 2.4GHz to 3GHz on stock mobo/voltage.


When every Core 2 Quad can be overclocked to 3GHz on stock voltage that tells you something.

Pretty much all core 2 quads can hit at least 3.6GHz.

So I dont really understand what the point of comparing a 3.2GHz core 2 quad to a Phenom is anyway since when overclocked @ best case senarios it would be 3.6-4GHz vs 3.2GHz.

Any way you look at it, Intel currently has a better offering. That doesn't mean AMD wont ever again, etc... but lets be realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

Try since the release of C2D architecture... like what, 1.5 years????

Thats the point. Clock for clock Phenom is slower than C2D architecutre. A 3.2Ghz phenom does not perform as well as a 3.2Ghz Quad. We arent even talking Penryn either which makes that small gap larger.

Ehhh, no. Thats the thing. A Q6600 can be had for $199 at Microcenter. A quick look for the 9550 gives me $210.

---

Over here in NL a 9550 starts at a little under 150euro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

well as far as i know phenom does scale pretty well with clock increases.
So i also think a 3.2Ghz phenom can keep up pretty well with 3-3.2Ghz kentfield..

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

---

But Q6600 will clock higher than 3.2GHz. I'm not trying to compare a Penryn at 3.2GHz already or something like the Q6600 or etc... Who said Clock for Clock equals?

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

A 3.2Ghz phenom does not perform as well as a 3.2Ghz Quad.

---

Interesting. I have not seen any 3.2Ghz Phenom benchmarks to support your statement.

Until I see such a benchmark then your statement is a "theory". You may be correct. On the other hand it is possible that your theory is not correct. There is no way of knowing at this time since no such benchmarks exist.

Although it appears that we might have benchmarks at that speed soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

But Q6600 will clock higher than 3.2GHz. I'm not trying to compare a Penryn at 3.2GHz already or something like the Q6600 or etc... Who said Clock for Clock equals?

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/4

---

I know Q6600's clock higher, 9550's are cheaper (or atleast they are over here :D) so that put's it at around the same price/performance ratio.

But if the netherlands is the only country where a 9550 is cheaper than a q6600; sure, if a q6600 costs the same or even less than a 9550 it's a way better deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Interesting. I have not seen any 3.2Ghz Phenom benchmarks to support your statement.

Until I see such a benchmark then your statement is a "theory". You may be correct. On the other hand it is possible that your theory is not correct. There is no way of knowing at this time since no such benchmarks exist.

Although it appears that we might have benchmarks at that speed soon.

---

You just havent been looking. Im not here to spew FUD or hate on AMD. Its just the way it is. I will go find one bench of phenom vs quad and link it, but the rest is up to you. What Im saying is, what I posted is common knowledge that non penryn quads outperform phenom in the majority of testing at the same clocks. In all fairness there are some benches (Divx encoding, WAV to name a couple) that phenom accels at over Q6600. Overall though, clock for clock the Q6600 is faster at the same clockspeed. The margin may be little but it is there. Throw Penryn on top of that, and that gap increases to something more than a negligable win.

Let me find a review since you wont...http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=9

Quote:

---

AMD's nascent Phenom also suffers under the considerable yoke of Intel's Core 2 Quad 6600 pricing, which at £165 for a hugely-overclockable 2.4GHz part is something of a bargain. AMD, though, is pitching its slightly underperforming quad-core part at roughly the same price. The industry needs AMD to survive and succeed yet it's very difficult to make a compelling buying recommendation for a processor that's a year behind its competitor - one who has already moved on to a more-efficient 45nm manufacturing process - is between 10-20 percent slower in most benchmarks, and costs much the same.

Our HEXUS.bang4buck graphs show that AMD needs to lower the pricing of the Phenom 9600 to, say, around £135 before it becomes a genuinely viable option to Intel's '6600, should your usage pattern reflect that of a heavy multitasker. If the Phenom 9600's pricing (£159) stays exactly where it is right now, it's a case of too little, too late, we're afraid.

Bottom line: the new Phenom quad-core processor and 7-series chipset pack in some potent technology. Trouble is, Intel got there first. You need to be better than the competition if coming from behind: AMD's new launches aren't quite that.

---

EDIT: or just read the link above your last post that covers the exact same thing I just mentioned.

Quote:

---

Since TF2 doesn't make use of any more than two CPU cores, the Phenoms have no advantage over dual-core chips. Clock for clock, Intel's Core 2 chips are faster here; at 2.4GHz, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms the Phenom X4 9750. And the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 are both well ahead of the Phenom X4 9850.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

I know Q6600's clock higher, 9550's are cheaper (or atleast they are over here :D) so that put's it at around the same price/performance ratio.

But if the netherlands is the only country where a 9550 is cheaper than a q6600; sure, if a q6600 costs the same or even less than a 9550 it's a way better deal.

---

No NO NO! That's the Q6600 running at stock 2.4GHz speed and running as fast as the ES Phenom at 2.6GHz. Now if you try and scale the speed, go from 2.4GHz to 2.6GHz for Phenom most times (clearly not all) it would need to be 2.8 to 3GHz to get a better result. Even with Games that aren't GPU Bottlenecked. Sure with some apps the Gap is small.

One example. The Valve particle test. Phenom 9750 = 66.0, Phenom 9850 = 72 FPS 100MHz faster = 6FPS. Core2Q 6600 = 83 FPS. So if we scaled just as an example only, we'd need 12 more FPS or 200MHz more to get 2.7GHz to reach 84 FPS. Since HT is running 200MHz faster that might be more like using 4 or 5 FPS per 100MHz CPU speed. I based this on 6 FPS and did a mulligan (give me) of the HT bus. So Q6600 is a similar speed at 2.4 compared to 2.7GHz or at a 300MHz Deficit ON THIS TEST.

That's just one test and others vary but Phenom was NEVER clock for clock on more than 1 or 2 tests. Some times it much closer and other time the GAP is wider. That unless some folks think Sandra is an app?

yea, amd should have taken thier winning streak and kept it going. they just got used to the luxury .... shame. atleast there's not a 1ghz difference. like how a 3200+ ( 939 ) was about the same perf as a 3.0 ghz p4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Nope, it had nothing to do with that though AliG. That was kind of understandable because there were some doubts about if Core would really be that fast. Then some thought it was too good to be true and cost what it did. I'd not give anyone a hard time on that one.

This time it is Different. All of the Proof is there. There isn't any Guesswork, Doubt and etc.., though some are still in denial.:rolleyes:

---

Thing is unless you're willing to buy me a p35 mobo, getting a q6600 is completely out of the question because my budget is too small and I already have an am2 board

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

Ehhh, no. Thats the thing. A Q6600 can be had for $199 at Microcenter. A quick look for the 9550 gives me $210.

---

try $199 ... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103251

As I said, AMD has no place on these forums :( kinda sad when you cant post anything AMD without having C2D shoved down your throat.


If these start to average out around 3ghz Im going to pick one up. If Im really hurting for that much more performance than Ill just add a 2nd video card to my system. Its not like the gap between Intel and AMD is noticeable above 1680x1050 res.


The more time I spend using my computer for day to day things and gaming and the less time I spend looking at 3D06, Cinebench and superPi the more I realize how happy I am with my slow crappy 3.2ghz AM2 rig.

Will they even release the Phenom X2 at this point?................

Its sad that everytime the name AMD comes out, everyone has so much crap to say about it.

If you dont like it then just dont say anything

Golden? You mean bronze?

It's almost as if they feel Intel chips can't stand on their own merits, but need a posse of viral marketers to go with them. When anything positive is posted, you can guarantee a known group to chime in and attempt to squash it before it grows legs. It literally seems as if it's their duty, odd as it may seem. I think they may as well come to terms with reality, and realize that their objective is futile. :D
It's a two team race, like it or not! I wonder if the litigation has anything to do with it. It's all very strange...

I for one am happy to see the B3 Phenom clocking up to K8 standards. Now if only further revisions will net us 4GHz and then I'll be positively thrilled. Maybe the 45nm K10 will gain us 4GHz?

Maybe it will, but unless they dump soi I don't think amd will hit 4ghz for a while

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

I for one am happy to see the B3 Phenom clocking up to K8 standards. Now if only further revisions will net us 4GHz and then I'll be positively thrilled. Maybe the 45nm K10 will gain us 4GHz?

---

And what if it does :(

I will get somewhat excited if Phenom would reach 4.2GHz taking into account Penryn's IPC advantage as well. But that will never happen though, sadly but true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Thing is unless you're willing to buy me a p35 mobo, getting a q6600 is completely out of the question because my budget is too small and I already have an am2 board

---

Look at my specs? Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L

Edit; only 87 us dollars!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lazy

Its sad that everytime the name AMD comes out, everyone has so much crap to say about it.

If you dont like it then just dont say anything

---

Wait, when companies release products that are inferior to their competitors (regardless of whom) we shouldn't state the facts?


When Intel was in the Netburst era, their chips were crap. Thank god lots of people let it be known so they could buy the superior AMD chips.


You can't inform by "not saying anything"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by i found nemo

yea, amd should have taken thier winning streak and kept it going. they just got used too the luxury .... shame. atleast there's not a 1ghz difference. like how a 3200+ ( 939 ) was about the same perf as a 3.0 ghz p4

---

Yepp! Intel got lazy too in the past and it bit them.:p: They also screwed up by putting too many eggs in the processor basket because their Farm was wayyyy to diversified! Meaning they got distracted:confused: away from *one of their core businesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irev210

Wait, when companies release products that are inferior to their competitors (regardless of whom) we shouldn't state the facts?


When Intel was in the Netburst era, their chips were crap. Thank god lots of people let it be known so they could buy the superior AMD chips.


You can't inform by "not saying anything"

---

Absolutely QFT! When or If AMD slaps Intel Silly, we'll see the same type of posts for AMD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

And what if it does :(

---

What if it doesn't?:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

I for one am happy to see the B3 Phenom clocking up to K8 standards. Now if only further revisions will net us 4GHz and then I'll be positively thrilled. Maybe the 45nm K10 will gain us 4GHz?

---

4ghz would be nice. Low priced chips with unlocked multis is very nice imo. Usually you have to pay out your rear for that, and now to see that there is some overclocking headroom makes it even nicer.

Looks like ill be picking up a dfi 790fx pretty soon :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

It's almost as if they feel Intel chips can't stand on their own merits, but need a posse of viral marketers to go with them. When anything positive is posted, you can guarantee a known group to chime in and attempt to squash it before it grows legs. It literally seems as if it's their duty, odd as it may seem. I think they may as well come to terms with reality, and realize that their objective is futile. :D
It's a two team race, like it or not! I wonder if the litigation has anything to do with it. It's all very strange...

---

Let's change one word and see what happens here?

It's almost as if they feel AMD chips can't stand on their own merits, but need a posse of viral marketers to go with them. When anything positive is posted, you can guarantee a known group to chime in and attempt to squash it before it grows legs. It literally seems as if it's their duty, odd as it may seem. I think they may as well come to terms with reality, and realize that their objective is futile. :D It's a two team race, like it or not! I wonder if the litigation has anything to do with it. It's all very strange.

No, we all should lie, fudge and spin for AMD since they need help. Then the same folks bashing other members by calling them Bunnies, Gang, Group, Posse and etc... would gather with us and sing KumBaYa LOL!

I'm curious how much power it draws at 3.2 since Phenoms already draw a huge amount at their stock speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Look at my specs? Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L

Edit; only 87 us dollars!

---

I'm not going to waste my money on a dual core, that would hardly be an upgrade for my purposes as it will bring considerably faster single threaded tasks, but its still no quad core. If I'm going to do a system overhaul, I'll do it either with nehalem or k11 (which ever is better price:performance)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiths

I'm curious how much power it draws at 3.2 since Phenoms already draw a huge amount at their stock speeds.

---

Please stop that! Talking about their huge power draw is bashing them.:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

I for one am happy to see the B3 Phenom clocking up to K8 standards. Now if only further revisions will net us 4GHz and then I'll be positively thrilled. Maybe the 45nm K10 will gain us 4GHz?

---

These may be then next golden chips, but if amd can do 3.7 ghz on air with a reasonable volatage, they would be in pretty decent shape, depending on how much of an advantage the nehalem ipc has vs it. But in the value segment, definately would be hopeful for that. I lucked out with my current q6600 with it being able to maintain this clock 24/7, so i still cant justify going back to green, as it would be a downgrade unfortunately for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

I'm not going to waste my money on a dual core, that would hardly be an upgrade for my purposes as it will bring considerably faster single threaded tasks, but its still no quad core. If I'm going to do a system overhaul, I'll do it either with nehalem or k11 (which ever is better price:performance)

---

I was just saying I already had a P3500 and I'm more interested in Wolfdale after the Price cuts on the 22nd of this month. They can call me anything they like. I'am a Fanboy of my Wallet, not Intel or AMD's. I don't want to give either of them a penny more than I have to;) There's a very slim chance I'll get a Q6600 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

What if it doesn't?:(

---

More or less the same, you know... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I was just saying I already had a P3500 and I'm more interested in Wolfdale after the Price cuts on the 22nd of this month. They can call me anything they like. I'am a Fanboy of my Wallet, not Intel or AMD's. I don't want to give either of them a penny more than I have to;) There's a very slim chance I'll get a Q6600 though.

---

lol wallet fanboy, yeah same here. Except my wallet seems to be about half the size of yours. To be honest I'm far more interested in nehalem than k10.5 because of how instable amd's been recently, but I'm afraid I won't be able to afford a nehalem system due to the high costs of ddr3 and a new mobo etc. And for that reason I'm just going to have to stick with amd until I can get a job that pays more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunterFalstaff

try $199 ... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103251

---

Good find, though my point still stands...(debunking TripleA's point I guess) :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

So i was saying; if a phenom 9550 can be clocked to those speeds it will be really cool chip because it's significantly cheaper then a q6600.

---

Significantly cheaper != same price (for less performance).

I really don't understand all the excitement behind this. Any Q6600 will be able to get to 3.2ghz on air; some will often even do 3.6. Even at 3.2ghz, it would still be significantly faster than a Phenom at the same speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NetburstXE

I really don't understand all the excitement behind this. Any Q6600 will be able to get to 3.2ghz on air; some will often even do 3.6. Even at 3.2ghz, it would still be significantly faster than a Phenom at the same speed.

---

So, we finally see an improvement in their product, and we're just going to crap on it? I don't get it. They were having trouble getting their complex design up and working, they finally do and now it's clocking alright and instead of saying nothing and just nodding it off because it isn't something that interests you, you take a positive outcome and turn it negative. This is the stuff that bugs me, since we all know the history of this architecture, we don't need to be retold every other post! And by we, I'm not talking about "fanboys" I'm talking about everyone. Everyone knows the history at this point, at least everyone reading the news in this forum. What were the average overclocks B2 9600's were seeing? 200-400mhz? and now we're seeing 500+?

that's just crappy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NetburstXE

I really don't understand all the excitement behind this. Any Q6600 will be able to get to 3.2ghz on air; some will often even do 3.6. Even at 3.2ghz, it would still be significantly faster than a Phenom at the same speed.

---

And given the overclocking headroom on phenoms, you have to admire the fact that Intel keeps their processors pegged at their current default frequencies; because it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of q6600s for example, are capable of running at 3Ghz on default voltages. In fact, based on this fact alone, the trouncing of phenom was a foregone conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakko

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

So I actually don't really understand your point.... I guess.

---

it's found that clock per clock core is a faster uarch.


face it newer itterations of core can do 4Ghz on air AND are around 15-20% faster per clock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

there are actually people that like to test and have these chips because they are difficult (read knowledge on htt-nb-mem-etc) to OC and not just pump up the fsb and vcore.

---

That's why you kept recommending the Black Edition in previous posts :p:

Regards

Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakelwe

That's why you kept recommending the Black Edition in previous posts :p:

Regards

Andy

---

Same principles apply even with an unlocked multi.:yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper

Golden? You mean bronze?

---

That was exactly what I was thinking. Since when a 23% OC is considered golden? :confused:
Maybe Phenom set new standards for OC-ing....:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irev210

Wait, when companies release products that are inferior to their competitors (regardless of whom) we shouldn't state the facts?


When Intel was in the Netburst era, their chips were crap. Thank god lots of people let it be known so they could buy the superior AMD chips.


You can't inform by "not saying anything"

---

Im not saying that we shouldnt let people know whats better but thats not the case here. People tend to go overboard on the whole "I hate AMD" thing and act like their life depends on it and im sure you have seen plenty of that around here.

Its not like people dont know that since its been discussed numerous times.

Guys we are talking about phenoms here. so don't take it as C2Q vs Phenom, coz it won't make sense. we should be glad amd finally comes out with an improvement for its products. although we still can blame hector for everything though

Seems like the Phenom may be a viable option for those that have an AM2 board already. AMD is not there yet, but things are improving :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by i found nemo

yea, amd should have taken thier winning streak and kept it going. they just got used to the luxury .... shame. atleast there's not a 1ghz difference. like how a 3200+ ( 939 ) was about the same perf as a 3.0 ghz p4

---

actually there is a 1Ghz diference, you can get a q9000 to 4+GHz on air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NetburstXE

I really don't understand all the excitement behind this. Any Q6600 will be able to get to 3.2ghz on air; some will often even do 3.6. Even at 3.2ghz, it would still be significantly faster than a Phenom at the same speed.

---

equal speed 3.0-3.2 with NB running @ 2.5-2.6 (what we see from early b3 oc's). I don't think you're q6600 will be faster ....

off course the G0 will consume less and OC further

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakelwe

That's why you kept recommending the Black Edition in previous posts :p:

Regards

Andy

---

as usual see the context of the post, not the post on itself (read the whole thread), lots of people having issues with that..... specially the bunnies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

equal speed 3.0-3.2 with NB running @ 2.5-2.6 (what we see from early b3 oc's). I don't think you're q6600 will be faster ....

---

I don't think that the "golden" samples can run the NB @2.5GHz~2.6GHz stable. 2.4GHz maybe. It'd be interesting to see a Phenom X4 3GHz with L3 & Nb clocked @2.4GHz compared to a Kentsfield 3GHz FSB-1333.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

I don't think that the "golden" samples can run the NB @2.5GHz~2.6GHz stable. 2.4GHz maybe. It'd be interesting to see a Phenom X4 3GHz with L3 & Nb clocked @2.4GHz compared to a Kentsfield 3GHz FSB-1333.

---

2.4 was already possible on b2 depending on board and person behind it, b3 looks it has more headroom http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=183025

but still would like to see the comparison even with NB@2.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

2.4 was already possible on b2 depending on board and person behind it, b3 looks it has more headroom http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=183025

but still would like to see the comparison even with NB@2.4.

---

I am talking about stable operation. As the op said on that thread, with the NB&L3 set to 2.5GHz the CPU wasn't stable.

IMO Phenom @3GHz and NB/L3 @2.4GHz in average is going to be as fast as Kentsfield @3GHz and FSB @1333MHz for multithreaded software, but for singlethreaded i think it'll still be a little slower. The NB & L3 speed can improve multithreading performance, where Phenom is more competitive to Kentsfield, but for singlethreaded I think that the NB&L3 speed won't do much.

with a lower ipc than a q6600 and even lower ipc than 45nm quads from intel, that oc to 4ghz and beyond... i really dont think 3.2ghz will blow anybodies mind.

its fast enough for any game and any workstation pretty much... but that was the case with the previous phenoms too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

I am talking about stable operation. As the op said on that thread, with the NB&L3 set to 2.5GHz the CPU wasn't stable.

IMO Phenom @3GHz and NB/L3 @2.4GHz in average is going to be as fast as Kentsfield @3GHz and FSB @1333MHz for multithreaded software, but for singlethreaded i think it'll still be a little slower. The NB & L3 speed can improve multithreading performance, where Phenom is more competitive to Kentsfield, but for singlethreaded I think that the NB&L3 speed won't do much.

---

People are forgetting that majority of benchmarks presetnted here were ran with C'n'Q ENABLED.
This is lowering S.T. performance compared to C'n'Q DISABLED. I know AMD is advasing on using C'n'Q, but when benched properly diference between Phenom and Kentsfild isn't that big in 1-2 threaded software.
Pick a bench and I can prove it.
To be clear Kentsfild on average will have better IPC by 1%-10% but nowhere near 15%-25% as claimed by some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

Good find, though my point still stands...(debunking TripleA's point I guess) :up:

Significantly cheaper != same price (for less performance).

---

lol whatever :D

I was looking at prices in the Netherlands cause those are the only prices that matter to me, and over here a 9550 is significantly cheaper than a q6600.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lazy

Im not saying that we shouldnt let people know whats better but thats not the case here. People tend to go overboard on the whole "I hate AMD" thing and act like their life depends on it and im sure you have seen plenty of that around here.

Its not like people dont know that since its been discussed numerous times.

---

:rofl: Have you read this thread? Look at some of the posts and the performance misconceptions in this thread alone!!!

Quote:

---

So i also think a 3.2Ghz phenom can keep up pretty well with 3-3.2Ghz kentfield...

---

Quote:

---

I understand your point, but I do think a 3.2 Ghz phenom will be comparable to a 3.2 Ghz C2D, if not outperform it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

lol whatever :D

I was looking at prices in the Netherlands cause those are the only prices that matter to me, and over here a 9550 is significantly cheaper than a q6600.

---

And I was looking at pricing in the US 'cause those are the only prices that matter to me'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lightman

People are forgetting that majority of benchmarks presetnted here were ran with C'n'Q ENABLED.
This is lowering S.T. performance compared to C'n'Q DISABLED. I know AMD is advasing on using C'n'Q, but when benched properly diference between Phenom and Kentsfild isn't that big in 1-2 threaded software.

---

The same applies to EIST. I personally concluded this by testing my C2D & C2Q with EIST enabled and disabled. Besides, CnQ on K8 is much more better than EIST and I think that K10 has better CnQ than K8.

Anyway, anybody who is OC-ing don't use CnQ/EIST.

Quote:

---

Pick a bench and I can prove it.
To be clear Kentsfild on average will have better IPC by 1%-10% but nowhere near 15%-25% as claimed by some.

---

I don't have a Phenom yet, but according to all the sites who did benchmarks, in average the Q6600 is around 9%~10% faster than X4 9750.

Anadtech
XbitLabs
FiringSquad
TechReport
LegitReviews

If AMD continues this trend of improving Phenom's OC-ing ability and reducing prices I'll buy one for sure.

I say finally that is great they are getting it sorted out on there side but downside is that well.. Its to late :( Some might be intrestest for sure but we'll have to see how it plays out.

And yes, C2D Quads out perform the current Phenom design flat out clock for clock, weather its at 2.4Ghz or 3.2Ghz. As people have mentioned thats not including the newer Intel 45nm chips that can added even more lead per clock speed.

It never fails to amaze me how contentious these threads get, when the topics can be boiled down to a few sentences.

Substance of story: New revision Phenoms OC significantly, but not hugely, more than older chips.

Import of story: Phenom is now somewhat more competitive in the budget overclocking space, or for those who must run AMD as a matter of personal preference.

That's it. What's to argue about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

QFT!

I'm sick of those Intel Fans not liking Phenom and all of their excuses not to buy one. They need to leave all and any thread where folks are trying to paint a better picture of Phenom and or make it look better. So what if Intel faster cooler and etc, like the Slowski's we're happy, leave us alone!

---

Phenom makes for a excellent upgrade path for anyone using an AM2 system & offers the cheapest x86 Quad Core on the market which will only attract more customers. Granted it's not "Xtreme High End" but 96.6% don't buy those chips but the cheaper ones that Phenom targets.


ps: my IBM Model M keyboard is busted so may have spelling and grammar errors, more than usual anyway...

It's all good Brother_Esau I saw the stuff happening to many times before. You're abit like Pete, with 'telling it as you see it' which can be a good thing and a bad thing depending on the other people in the thread :up:

Tony's thread is still nice don't you think ;)

And to each his own, I won't tell you my quad is faster then yours lol :P

I was glad B3 seems to clock this well, and still waiting for 45nm so they might clock even higher! For server's and non performance enthousiasts there is nothing wrong with AMD ( no.. should be: not much as some game benches they do trail to.. ).