AMD Phenom appears in pricelist

[Epsilon84]

In case you guys haven't realised, Intel's 45nm TDP is *very* conservative. I mean they are literally throwing out TDPs that are twice what the chip consumes.

Under full load, a QX9650 (130W TDP) consumes under 65W... read some reviews!

[Morais]

In case you guys haven't realised, Intel's 45nm TDP is *very* conservative. I mean they are literally throwing out TDPs that are twice what the chip consumes.

Under full load, a QX9650 (130W TDP) consumes under 65W... read some reviews!

[Epsilon84]

I honestly don't see the humor, but whatever rocks your boat dude.

[BeardyMan]

I honestly don't see the humor, but whatever rocks your boat dude.

2.33ghz part already consumes more.

[KTE]

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...

I don't agree by my understanding of how Intel works at all. They had no competition with quad core, none whatsoever, why did they release it? Why did they release a 2.66GHz quad, or 2.4GHz or a 3GHz, or a higher FSB quad part? Do you know this costs them a lot, even just marketing and office paper work? Why release a 3GHz quad with Penryn and a 3.2GHz if theres no competition with their 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad? This is an inaccurate way of thinking because what you as one consumer thinks is not the way a business thinks. They don't kill their Core 2 sales with releasing some Penryn 2-core or 4-core, do they? It's different market segments and prices suit different people. I don't care whether anyone loves and worships Intel or AMD, its daft, but I won't hide a fact to give partisan views for AMD or Intel and its pretty damn clear both of them had TDP problems for a year although at different frequencies. In case you forgot, Core 2 Duo was supposed to release at 3.33GHz 3 months after initial release. Where did you see that transpire to fact 18 months after the promises from fiction and PR waves? Just like 3GHz Phenom marketing.

[nemrod]

I don't agree by my understanding of how Intel works at all. They had no competition with quad core, none whatsoever, why did they release it? Why did they release a 2.66GHz quad, or 2.4GHz or a 3GHz, or a higher FSB quad part? Do you know this costs them a lot, even just marketing and office paper work? Why release a 3GHz quad with Penryn and a 3.2GHz if theres no competition with their 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad?

It's only to show an improvement and give a reason to buy. Qx9700 cost 1399$.

example:
* Intel Xeon E5405 : 2 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5410 : 2,33 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5420 : 2,50 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5430 : 2,66 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5440 : 2,83 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5450 : 3,0 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon X5460 : 3,16 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 120 Watts

Do you really believe that x5460 has suddently 40W higher consumption? In fact tdp should be around 85W if there was more categories of thermal solution...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ous-punch.html

As for raw performance, Yorkfield typically streaks past the QX6850 (its 3GHz Conroe-based quad-core predecessor), while drawing one-third the power of its counterpart at idle and just under half at load.

[Hornet331]

In case you guys haven't realised, Intel's 45nm TDP is *very* conservative. I mean they are literally throwing out TDPs that are twice what the chip consumes.

Under full load, a QX9650 (130W TDP) consumes under 65W... read some reviews!

saying it consumes under 65W is a bit risky, lets say they consume below 80W

[knightwolf654]

$1399!!! that is ridiculous!

its happening already.. i dont care what you guys say amd is looking to be a much better deal. may be a bit slower but it doesn't cost a heart transplant to buy it.

[Hornet331]

$1399!!! that is ridiculous!

its happening already.. i dont care what you guys say amd is looking to be a much better deal. may be a bit slower but it doesn't cost a heart transplant to buy it.

so what?

you dont have to buy it if you dont want to spend so much money. Noone forces you to buy a BMW M3 either...

if you want performance comparable to amds quad, go get a Q6600 for 211€ (inc. 20% VAT)

[KTE]

It's only to show an improvement and give a reason to buy. Qx9700 cost 1399$.

example:
* Intel Xeon E5405 : 2 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5410 : 2,33 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5420 : 2,50 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5430 : 2,66 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5440 : 2,83 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon E5450 : 3,0 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 80 Watts
* Intel Xeon X5460 : 3,16 GHz - 12 Mo cache L2 - FSB 1 333 MHz - TDP 120 Watts

Do you really believe that x5460 has suddently 40W higher consumption? In fact tdp should be around 85W if there was more categories of thermal solution...

I don't understand why you want to believe that marketing who are 10x more deceiving than us would rather make a very schoolboy loss by saying 130W/136W/150W TDP when it should actually be 80W. Can you honestly give me a plausible reason why they would do that? What do they gain from it? Honestly I don't know what makes you say that or why if you're thinking logically.

FWIW, if you didn't know then let me tell you that overclocking RIPS the TDP to shreds. AND overclocking inside a typical computer case +90% of the world uses gets me 20C higher temps on a core than outside a case with 10C air and 10x 100CFM delta fans.

Also, please, always look at 3+ set of results and then compare to get values of what you think are correct. Taking any one over the other is going to give you wrong values. Intel QX9650 1.2V stock, load power consumption of CPU - actual VDC draw (mostly by CPU): http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==




The server lineup is always the best CPUs of each MFG, they are more stringently tested, lower TDPs and higher binned cores. Why? TDP rating matters in that segment immensely. Now I'm not going to take further part in babbling the obvious, nemrod, it gets us no where.

[Hornet331]

ah, you know that they measure system power and not cpu powerconsumption alone?... also Kyle Bennett... eh yes...

[Epsilon84]

saying it consumes under 65W is a bit risky, lets say they consume below 80W

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_yorkfield/4.shtml



http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15 (this measures system power consumption)

[KTE]

Hornet331: That system CPU was loaded not nothing else, and everything else would not even draw 45W VDC idling.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...61_3707931__11
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...review/28.html
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...=expert&pid=13

[knightwolf654]

so what?

you dont have to buy it if you dont want to spend so much money. Noone forces you to buy a BMW M3 either...

if you want performance comparable to amds quad, go get a Q6600 for 211€ (inc. 20% VAT)

amd fan boy here lol. a bmw wtf i am cheap i bought my sisters car for $500 and a sub from subway and runs like its brand new
either way looking at a few other threads. one comparing the QX9650 to a phenom at 3 GHZ there is a 1000 point difference in the cpu score, and thats separated by around a $700 price difference.

[Hornet331]

well yes, but you also can oc the q6600 to 3ghz without any problem.

you are comparing different cpus with a different pricing to each other.

@ power consumption

there are so many different reviews, and everyone has different measurement methods, so its really hard to tell whats right and what not.

xbit for example has 90W @ load, but i dont know where they have measured it.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._13.html#sect0

[knightwolf654]

blah never liked intel, we wont know how well phenom will clock till its released.
dont judge it yet.

[Epsilon84]

amd fan boy here lol. a bmw wtf i am cheap i bought my sisters car for $500 and a sub from subway and runs like its brand new
either way looking at a few other threads. one comparing the QX9650 to a phenom at 3 GHZ there is a 1000 point difference in the cpu score, and thats separated by around a $700 price difference.

So a 3GHz Phenom costs $330 now?

Oh wait, a 2.4GHz Phenom costs $330, and a 2.4GHz Q6600 costs $266.

Gotta love how some people fudge figures, LOL.

[KTE]

During our tests we measured the DC power going through the processor voltage regulator circuitry that would allow us to estimate the processor power consumption without taking into account the efficiency of the onboard processor voltage regulator.

Yeah. Maybe another thing someone should look at is the load temps they were getting after some CPU burning (stock all) on that Yorkie. It rings to mind that [H] article again lately where using CoolIT Eliminator/Tunic Tower/Ultra Extreme etc they were getting 60C load temps with a 3400MHz C2D while people tend to claim "3900MHz 45C 24/7 stable quad core!!?!" using the same cooling. <very nice>

[savantu]

So a 3GHz Phenom costs $330 now?

Oh wait, a 2.4GHz Phenom costs $330, and a 2.4GHz Q6600 costs $266.

Gotta love how some people fudge figures, LOL.

Imagine how disciplined they are in real life.

[nemrod]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

The wattage data on the graph represents full system power. The Power test system is using a GeForce 6200, ASUS P5E3 Deluxe (with most integrated components disabled), 2GB Corsair, 2 x150GB Western Digital hard drives, and PCPC 1KW PSU that gives 77% efficiency at the qualified load. Also, all cooling system fans and devices were loaded to an outside PSU. The wattage quoted here is NOT at the wall, but the actual system wattage.

system with penryn at full load consum 151W
efficiency of psu is at best 77%. which lead to 116 watts excluding psu loss
you need then to remove power of geforce 6200, 2G of memory, 2 raptors.
(so you have to remove again minimum 30-40W...) this lead to a power consumption of motherboard + cpu around 76-86W

Do you know how many fab has intel? Do you know how many intel fab are able to produce 45nm? And explain me what are supposed to do the non 45nm fab if intel sales 4GHz quad for 200$

[Hornet331]

Hornet331: That system CPU was loaded not nothing else, and everything else would not even draw 45W VDC idling.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...61_3707931__11
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...review/28.html
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...=expert&pid=13

well ram consume 5 watt each (10W for both) then the geforce6200 (dont know ho much this baby takes but i guess nothing below 15W) 2x raptors (real powerhogs 8W each in idel = 16W) the mobo itself also takes ~20W (x38 chipset)

so were @ 61W only for the additional components

so this means we are @ a good 90W.

[nemrod]

Hornet, you forgive psu efficiency

[knightwolf654]

So a 3GHz Phenom costs $330 now?

Oh wait, a 2.4GHz Phenom costs $330, and a 2.4GHz Q6600 costs $266.

Gotta love how some people fudge figures, LOL.

yes i love it how you fudge figures.
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

i estimated thats the 3.0 GHz phenom was around $400 and the QX9650 is $1149 (source)
thats a $749 difference with a 1000 points addition. my opinion intel gave some of the greatest overclockers in the world there chip to take the world record so they could price things higher. for the latest chips the come out AMD is going to take the crown for price to performance.

now if you dont mind intel fan boys look but dont post your smart *** comments.

[nemrod]

yes i love it how you fudge figures.
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

i estimated thats the 3.0 GHz phenom was around $400 and the QX9650 is $1149

Stop dreaming please! From expreview, we can expect that phenom at 3GHz is about equal to QX6850. From fanboys it 's probably far better...
Why do you believe that it would be far below the price of QX6850. Does AMD have again several hundred millions dollars to lose each quater in the future? Have you never understand that AMD offer is always relative to intel offer?

[KTE]

well ram consume 5 watt each (10W for both) then the geforce6200 (dont know ho much this baby takes but i guess nothing below 15W) 2x raptors (real powerhogs 8W each in idel = 16W) the mobo itself also takes ~20W (x38 chipset)

so were @ 61W only for the additional components

so this means we are @ a good 90W.

DDR3 RAM idles at 5W each 1GB? That is DDR idle usage. That card consumes hardly anything because its not loaded and CPU is loaded so most draw is completely from the CPU. Motherboard chipset 20W seems fair even when the chipset has no use.

Hornet, you forgive psu efficiency

[H] know very well what real power consumption means (Paul does some decent PSU testing), they took into account PSU efficiency and gave the real VDC, which they state as the actual system power draw in watts - can it get any clearer? So trying to get 40W/60W/80W out of that is impossible and is akin to saying more than one review is completely wrong.

10W+20W+16W+5W= Still gives 100W for just the CPU rather than 40W or 60W some would feign us to believe. This is ludicrous if you understand electronics and how Penryn was made as you are saying these ≥3GHz parts are 60W/80W but cannot explain why Intel never thought that and decided to label them 130W/136/150 for desktop consumers and marketing instead. You are trying to tell me you know better than 1000+ professional processor engineers and over a few thousand Intel employees yet without evidence to disprove them.

Further than that, Intel always has low voltage binned parts later down the year, the lower binned highest quad parts at 0.8/0.9V will be 20W lower, so using your beliefs that comes say 40W/60W and they are formed of two same modules, so that gives 20W/30W maximum load for a 3GHz Wolfdale. This is really getting from bad to worse. I'm out of this thank you, because this is equivalent to claiming 90W full load usage by 3GHz Phenom FX.

Can you predict what the TDP of the next highest end Penryn quad will be (after 3.2GHz if it ever sees light of day)?

I've already heard arguments of 4GHz 120W TDP just before it was released but that was ridiculed by Intel themselves.