http://pctuning.tyden.cz/images/stor...om-6500-BE.png :welcome:
-clock on clok with K8 Athlon, 6s better in 1M superpi
-in next few days maybe first test on Computerbase...
Printable View
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/images/stor...om-6500-BE.png :welcome:
-clock on clok with K8 Athlon, 6s better in 1M superpi
-in next few days maybe first test on Computerbase...
Looks good, a proper low end new gen offering from AMD. The naming will (and already has) confuse the hell out of a lot of people who will think its just same 'ol K8.
in germany available for ~86€
but 95W TDP :eek:
Can anyone confirm if its the same size die as the X4's, basically checking if its just disabled cores or a newly spun chip.
According to that CPU-Z it's a crippled X4, same CPUID.
Although Super PI can DIAF from my part, that's quite impressive nonetheless. Really looks like a nice HTPC chip.
Weird thing though is that it's a BE and yet the HT-link is at 1.8Ghz?
Im quite curious whether it's just 2 disabled cores or not. I think it would be quite a waste of materials if it actually was:rolleyes:.
Why cant AMD make a new cpu???? AMD 64 was 2003 technology, get over it and make a new damn cpu already!!!
hmm crippled... doesn't "salvaged" sounds more precise? I mean who in the right mind would cripple fully working piece of highly complex silicon and sell it below price of the fully working parts? It's more reasonable is to capitalize on modular architecture, and salvage any fully working cores... right?
3.2Ghz 6400+ K8 vs a 2.3Ghz dualcore K10 6500+? Talk about marketing...
This is a K10 based processor with only 2 active cores, not a K8 with only 2 cores available.
Agreed.. this is salvaged silicon, not crippled. This is better than simply tossing the silicon, think of the millions of dollars of "saved" revenue.
The 3.2GHz 6400+ K8 will wipe the floor with the 2.3GHz K10 6500- in every single application known to man kind.
AMD started copying nVidia's stupid marketing ideas.
better for us though - the 6500+ would get a much larger % overclock than the 6400+.
not 4ghz on air, mind :P
x3 8450 for same price is a lot better chip. Unless this is sold for 50-60eur, it simply makes no sense at all. Even considering x3 8450 is available everywhere for long time, x2 6500 is new chip made from same core, just more crippled than even x3.
In HPM Comp x2 6500 costs 92eur, x4 9950 - 157eur. 2 cores 2.3GHz vs 4cores 2.6GHz
compared to Intel E8400 - 142EUR, Q9650 - 460eur. 2 cores 2.66GHz vs 4 cores 3GHz.
Whats wrong with AMD price policy lately?
SO what does the Q6600 and Q9300 cost? Not to mention the E7200 that's faster than most of the 3 tri and dual core Phenoms? Value? If costs are a must, the 5600+ price to performance ratio is hard to beat.
Same site.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14756/3
Actually, x4 9950 is priced very well for AMD, both Q66/Q82 is more expensive, but x4 9950 can compete with these two pretty well. But yea, this x2 is totally wrong priced, E5200 should be competitor for this. E5200 costs around 70eur.
apparently not. doesn't look like demolished here and that is just at 2.3... a black edition is meant to be clocked up. So it will beat the 6400+ .
fyi. i know there isn't a system specs for those scores, but there are several reviews i ve seen, they are just in german, so its hard for me to find them, but they have been posted in other threads.
you have a point but that can also be said about your beloved brand....
hmm Nvidia's marketing is actually worse, they renew old brand to new series...
regarding speed indeed very strange for sure on a NB speed of 1.8 and only 2,3ghz, maybe if they would start with NB @ 2.2 and 2,5GHZ speed it would have been something.
lets see what OC brings on a 750 board.....
Sure, I just helped a couple of buds pick out good budget systems with a 5600+. One E7200 and one 5600+. Money is tight right now and BOTH are with what they ended up with. When all the flames and bickering is over with, that's all that matters. Must folks will NOT make good use of a Quad core processor. There aren't enough of us geeks to make a difference for Intel or AMD. If either is depending on us, they're screwed.
Again, way too many folks don't uderstand Bang for Buck and how 5600+ made a very good showing for itself for what it costs. It consistantly showed its excellent Value. It's dollar to FPS, Saconds saved, and etc.. kept it at the top of the charts. Think 6500@2.3GHz can do the same?
Instead of leaving that open ended, why not give us a link? Not the first time the naming shenanigans have went one. TBread and Barton had similar tricks where older models were faster than their newer name sakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
In other words, it (6400+) is faster than an X3 at 2.4GHz, why name this one 6500+ at 2.3GHz and only two cores? The whole PR thing was to mislead right from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by XBits
go to link in villians post
because its a black edition. And you dont buy a black edition unless your going to play with the multi... otherwise, buy the cheaper locked dual cores. and With a 2.3ghz phenom dual, matching pretty much a 3.0ghz brizbane, its safe to say that the 6500+ will easily outstrip the 6400+ once the multi is upped a bit.
Its like buying a qx9650 and leaving it at stock multi..and upping the FSB... it makes no sense! a black edition is meant to be OC'd hence the huge tDp.
Guys, are we getting the model number X2 6500 and PR ratings ie. 6000+ / 6400+ mixed up? I have a strong feeling that we are.
I don't think AMD would be stupid enough to rate a 2.3GHz Kuma at '6500+' when it barely matches an X2 6000+, if that.
that's why they should call it "PHENOM x2", so they could name it Phenom X2 6500 without any problem...
anyway, e5200 is so much more atractive... even at stock speeds...
Yeah, there would be no confusion whatsoever if AMD used some common sense and called it a Phenom, which it is. Its also a little overpriced IMO, considering an X3 8650 only costs $10 more, you may as well go for the extra core.
As for the E5200, I'd agree. Faster, cooler, cheaper, better overclocker... but it ain't AMD, which rules it out for a certain demographic. :p:
I think you'll all be surprised when you see how much higher the IPC on this "crippled" chip is compared to K8 and even current Phenoms. This chip has similar core enhancements that Deneb will bring. To add to that, you'll see how well 2mb of L3 gets the job done when only having to deal with two cores instead of four. Supposedly these chips were fabbed as a test run for Deneb core enhancements. We'll see if that turns out to be true shortly.
not really. Its ahead in 2 of the tests, albeit by a small margin, about 1% faster clock for clock in cinebench than e6600 aka conroe, and 2 1/2% in grid.. in crysis its about 5% behind based on the fps... its basically clock for clock with conroe at low speeds, and we ve seen that with improved nb and htt clocking could probably increase those margins, especially as the clocks rise, so if this is the case, and it is indeed a deneb test bed, then deneb seems like it will close the gap on penryn whether it will catch it or not remains to be seen of course. But this does seem to be good news for amd considering this is 65nm and not 45nm.
pcgh test results
informal did the maths in another thread...
I stand by my 'slightly behind Conroe' comment. Furthermore that comparison is against the older 1066FSB Conroes, 1333FSB Conroes would be a bit further ahead (2.33GHz E6550 ~= 2.4GHz E6600, so 1333FSB Conroe would be ~4% faster than Kuma).Quote:
Some concrete numbers for Kuma based on PCGH mini-test.
Cine10(in thousands of points):
Kuma @ 2.3 is 4% behind the C2D @ 2.4Ghz and 8% behind 3Ghz K8 X2.
At 2.4Ghz ,Kuma's projected score would be ~5.1 matching C2D and ~4% slower than 3Ghz K8 X2.
Crysis(10x7 CPU test):
Kuma @ 2.3Ghz is 10% behind E6600 and ~2% behind 3Ghz K8 X2.At 2.4Ghz, Kuma would be 6% behind 2.4Ghz C2D and slightly faster or equal to 3Ghz K8 X2.
Grid(10x7):
Kuma @ 2.3Ghz is 2% slower than 2.4Ghz C2D and 9% faster than 3Ghz K8 X2.At 2.4Ghz ,Kuma would be 2% faster(or equal) to C2D and 12% faster than 3Ghz K8 X2.
Average from 3 tests show us that per clock Kuma is 1.33% slower than Conroe and that Kuma at 2.4Ghz is ~2.6% faster than 3Ghz K8 X2.
It still is a 2 games + 1 app mini-test,but it shows a trend at least.
its relative, it could also be faster in 2/3 tests. Again, this is with a slow nb/htt, as deneb will have a 2.0ghz clock, as a value dual core, it looks like it will do well, it just depends on how high it can clock, if it can reach 3+ and handle 2.2+ nb htts then it will be a solid competitor.
by conroe i refer to kentsfield(merom...what have you, the 65nm c2d) for the sake of posterity, not penryn, as that is on a different process(45nm), with instruction tweaks.
We could argue all day over little details, the maths is all there for you to see, if you don't accept it thats your prerogative. Its also a somewhat moot point since 65nm C2Ds are EOL, Intel has crossed over to 45nm for a while now.
On a somewhat different note, I'm not sure why AMD is releasing Kuma at such low clocks. IMO they should have released it at 2.5GHz or more so it outperformed existing K8 X2s.
It actually doesn't look too bad. Depend on the price of course. At 2.3ghz is slightly behind the 6000+, but at around 3ghz it should beat a 3.5ghz K8 easily.
villa1n and Epsilon84,both of you have good points.From the known results,with a larger-per-core L3 pool,K10 seems like a very good Dual Core option/alternative to Merom.But,since merom is EOL,Penryn will be its competitor.We must keep in mind that with HTT clocking and NB clock going up(can yield from 5 to 10% improvement,results do vary),paired with 1066 DDR2,this Kuma variant may very well be a good dual core option,especially for a low cost 790GX based system,provided it clocks to at least 3-3.2Ghz.
Also,Kuma shows us that L3 do matter a lot and that per-core L3 pool which will be increased greatly with Deneb,coupled with raise in sheer NB clock and IPC increase ,could bring Deneb a lot closer to Yorkfield if not surpass it in some instances(although this do happen with K10 in some cases too).
You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
would those questioning why its a 6500 kindly pull your heads out of your asses? lets think for a second, what speed is a 9500? 2.3ghz... its a 6500 on the phenom naming scale, not k8...
I agree, but maybe they released it at the lowest clock possible to theoretically beat at 6400+ by their metrics, so they could maximize the bin...? lol i have no logic for the clocks they released... 1.9, 2.1, 2.3 although aren't the latter 45watt parts? i guess they could be targetting htpc and oem with near passive cooling? but the black edition...you d think they d want it 2.5 at least...
9500 is 2.2ghz, x4 9600 and x3 8600 are 2.3ghz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors
According to your link, a dualcore K8 @3GHz is around 21% faster than a dualcore K10 @2.3GHz. The 3.2GHz should be 30% faster .
If we consider OC, then the 2.3GHz BE is on the bottom on the list of the good/cheap/energy efficient dualcore OC-ers.
AMD needs a 45nm "native"(no disabled cripled cores) dualcore to have a decent OC-er.
It doesn't look bad for an office PC, but a 2.3GHz dualcore in 2H 2008 is a joke.
If 20% is slightly, then a 2Ghz Athlon64 X2 4000+ 2x1MB L2 is slightly behind the 2.3GHz K10.Quote:
At 2.3ghz is slightly behind the 6000+
I doubt this. At 3GHz(with the NB&L3 OC-ed proportionaly ~ 2.2GHz) it should be slower or on pair with the K8 X2 @3.5GHz. Check the Phenom X4/X3 @3GHz benchmarks and compare them to a 3.5GHz K8 X2.Quote:
but at around 3ghz it should beat a 3.5ghz K8 easily.
You don't need a hard proof to realize that. We've already seen how Phenom X3/X4 performs compared to Athlon64 X2, so Phenom X2 can only perform same or slower at same clock.
Anyway, if you want a hard proof, the link above in villa1n's post should give you a more clear image.
I don't know if its your vision or math skills,but how did you come up with this is beyond me:
Here is the summary of the scores:Quote:
dualcore K8 @3GHz is around 21% faster than a dualcore K10 @2.3GHz. The 3.2GHz should be 30% faster
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=34
Average from 3 tests show us that per clock Kuma is 1.33% slower than Conroe and that Kuma at 2.4Ghz is ~2.6% faster than 3Ghz K8 X2.
It still is a 2 games + 1 app mini-test,but it shows a trend at least.
Oh, my bad. I red the scores wrong. Although there is a legend with the colors of the bars, the order is oposite. The 6500 is first on the legend, but the bar on the chart is last. So, somehow I red the scores wrong.
Kuma is not looking bad after all, but it doesn't looking good either. It needs higher clocks to be competitive and to wear the 6500 PR(2.5GHz or more). Anyway, a "native" dualcore(Deneb derivate) with 3MB of L3 is what AMD needs if they want to have a good dual core.
K10 IPC is around 10% better than K8. Yet somehow it manage to climb to 30%+ as a dualcore?
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/07-11-24/3dmark_cpu.png
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/07-11-24/cinebench.png
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/07-11-24/winrar.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...3719/16891.png
Seems to have gone alittle bit of fanboism in this.
I can't believe they would be using phenom X4 cores to make dual core phenoms.... what a waste
Actually all do this so why complaining? Graphic card vendors do that for ages. Chips with dead pipelines end up as lower end GPU's with fixed BIOS so it doesn't try to use dead pipes.
I was implying Conroe/Allendale/Wolfdale in Crysis.
And IPC obviously depends on whether the app is cache-friendly. Games show that with the 2MB L3 left for itself, Kuma seems to perform better compared to Conroe on an overall scale. See how the 2.6Ghz Allendale struggles to get in pace with a 2.33Ghz Conroe.
The Cinebench R10 runs are controversial- The first slide shows a 20% deficiency for the 2.4Ghz Q6600 vs 9600. The new version pits the 2.3Ghz 9650 at 10% slower.
Decide yourself.
Do you really want to act like... 'that' or what:shakes:
Then just take a look at the Phenoms ffs? From a clear point of view, which does not need a single piece of 'fanboyism', you can see the following:
X4 2.4Ghz = 41.8fps
X3 2.4Ghz = 42fps
X3 2.3Ghz = 42fps
Thus, how hard is it to see that a Phenom X2 2.3Ghz would actually perform faster than any other Phenom in non multi-threaded environments, or at least in Crysis?
And if the two salvaged cores are not affecting anything and the two active cores do work for 100%, 3Ghz+ shouldnt be any problem at all. Now how can people still say this wouldnt outperform a K8?
And oh yes, as gOJDO noted, the graphs are a bit weird so to say so make sure you read them correctly. It took me 3 times before I noticed it as well:ROTF:.
Edit: It's the model number and the Name.
Yet, still seems a way to confuse folks. Yes, they've lied about the old models as well.
BS because it still ran slower on most tests even with more cache. Also the same price for a slower model with more cache but slower more times than not.Quote:
Originally Posted by PC World
Maybe 5900+ BE or something would make more sense.
It's indeed very close. However, you could say as well that the X3 2.4Ghz is about ~4% faster instead.
It's indeed not a very solid review, but considering it still runs only at 2.3Ghz and not ending at the last spot at all but actually tailing the X2 6000+ it's impressive.
But, to name it actually 6500 is indeed a bit confusing there since it clearly does not outperform the 6000+ at any application. Therefor it's the question how we should be reading the missing '+', whether it's worth it to call it a 6500 because it runs behind the 6000+, I dont know. I think we need to see more graphs before making a conclusion about that.
However, it's very clear though that the 6500BE shows more potential in it than even the 6400+, no doubt in that. But for general customers who're not into OC'ing we need a lot more graphs to actually be able to say it's indeed 'better'.
Well, it's been quite 'honest' to say that an extra 512KB L2 cache is about 200Mhz bonus since K8. Ive not been very active in hardware in the XP days though so I cant really comment a lot about that.
But, as far as I understand it your quote is about only Barton but with more cache and slower speeds but eventually with different PR ratings unlike AMD did with the K8. Also dont forget that at this point we're talking about a K8 vs K10 where as cache and Mhz will have a completely different effect.
Yet I cant say AMD was in their right to do that with the Athlon XP as far as I understand it from that quote. But then again, it's all about marketing in the end and it's been 6 years as well. It's not like AMD was the first and last one to pull that;)
Thus far the only 6500 is a BE. AMD only had one BE with locked multi's and that was the 6400+ so it shouldnt be much of a problem.
Also HTT is becoming less of an issue with SB750, but it seems to be a bit weird for now with RS780D since it looks like setting HTT higher OC's the IGP as well:p:
The other danger with the chip is if it becomes too successful and they run out of broken chips will they disable working cores to fill the demand ?
Could AMD say no to Dell ?
This is channel only. Every Black Edition CPU is.
good thinking. either that or the price will go up substantially. but there is no much room to go higher since the tri-core prices. all depends on how much garbage chips they get from wafer. and i hope this is only temporary, amd needs to offer true dualies with new process.
If AMD runs out of broken chips that's good news for us. That would mean they no longer fab flawed K10 quads at all!!!! Nobody on the planet has a process that amazing so I doubt they will run out anytime soon.
This little chip could be a nice stopcap solution before the 45nm phenoms roll out :)
I still wonder how "some people" could make a 2.3Ghz Phenom beat a 3.2ghz K8...
review X2 6500+ on expreview
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/kuma/kuma_cpu01.jpg
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...ry_changed.png
CPU Z
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/..._cpuz_01_s.png
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...puz_idle_s.png
load 5000+ system 215W and 6500+ 237W.
A OC, 30minutes wprime ok 1.44V:
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...c_sp2004_s.jpg
1.45V
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/kuma/oc_limit.png
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/kuma/score.png
SO, it uses 22W more at 2.3ghz vs a K8 at 2.6? Seems unlikely, as the B3's are capable of 65W rating at 2.0ghz for 4 cores....
Look at the rest then. At 2.3Ghz Quadcore the TDP rating is what?
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...E15347,00.html
But again, Nice PR stunt to cheat customers. 6500 rating...5000 performance.
it is maybe only 1 cons for this CPU, performance is good
maybe now 65w TDP (new 9950 125W, 9750 new 95W, new 8450 65W)
Conroe has 4mb of cache and this Kuma has 3mb.
thats 25% less cache and 1-2% slower pre clock.
the Deneb should come to have about 512kb L2 x2 plus 6mb L3 thats 7mb's that's more then Wolfdale has (6mb)
if it where just added cache it would be 2-5% faster but where getting a bouns of added IPC to that it.
Looks like it's going to be a great 45nm chip for AMD.
But look to LostCircuits, the B2 9600 only consumes 73W before the VRMs, that's the same speed, with 2 more cores.
It looks like the 6500 won't be a bad CPU for gaming compared to what AMD has out now, when overclocked at least. If you can get the 6500 to 3.3GHz, it will perform fine in games and easily outrun any Brisbane or the X2 6400+. If it ends up costing somewhere around ~$80 or so, then it won't be that bad of an option. If it costs $100 or more though, then it is a really bad deal in comparison to the E7200.
Whoa, 3.3 Ghz stable? I might get this if the price is right, it should match great with the SB750 DFI I wanna buy next month. :D
And I think they called it 6500+ because, at max OC, it's way faster than what a 6400 OC-ed can achieve.
Btw, this guy Shintai hates AMD or what's wrong with him?!
Perhaps he's a little blunt, but in the end all desktop derivatives of the 65nm Phenom core have been lousy CPUs compared to their Intel competitors. The 2.3 Kuma looks to be no exception given it will be outperformed by the E5200 while using significantly more power.
It boils down to simply scaling of two variables that have terms within them that are not interdependent nor scale 1:1, and the fact that power has an inherent offset -- leakage current. The overall affect is it will cause a different perf/watt ratio... example, if the IPC at a given clock improves 10%, but the circuit/architecture increases power consumption by 15%, then the Perf/Watt ratio will go down.
Another example is the preliminary Nehalem results, Anandtech leaked that power increased 10% over a similarly clocked Yorky, but performance was up 20-40% so Perf/Watt will go up. Logic/circuits added that improve IPC will also affect power consumption .... after reading around, the Nehalem design was contrained to a ratio of 2% perf to only 1% consumption increase, if it did not meet this goal then the feature was not included.
Not much to see here, and no reason to grab one of the last 65 nm CPU's now.
Sure, some people want AMD, but if you haven't already got a K10 then you might as well wait for 45 nm.