AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition: dual-core Phenom at the ready

[Rammsteiner]

Gee...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3453&p=3



Overall FASTER and LESS POWER CONSUMPTION.

Errr, that link was already posted Where as I replied with the link I posted since QX977x ain't really a guideline for C2Q.

Server platform? It's a C2Extreme QX9770 vs a Corei7Extreme 965, and C2Quad Q9450 vs a Corei7 920

Can I remind you what socket QX977x uses? Right, skt 771, that's a server platform. Core i7 965 uses just like 920, 1366. QX977x is nowhere inline with any skt 775 C2 CPU, at all. It's mainly aimed at ST for epic e-peen rage

You can clearly see that at "low" frequencies Nehalem is not so power efficient when gaming, but stop right there. If you use anything other than games and/or you cranck up the frequency, well you see the result. The problem with Phenom (X2, X3 and X4) is that it underperforms in almost everything, and Corei7 underperforms in almost nothing, both compared to Penryn.

And yes, I crap about Nehalem's power efficiency in games at 2,66GHz, why not. I'm not a fanboy, remember? However I'm not going to use it only in games or at 2,66GHz so...

Phenom underpeforms? Excuse me? Been running 9850BE at stock for 4 months and a 9950BE stock for 1.5 months and Ive yet to suffer from any 'under performing' results really Compared to Penryn, it ain't doing that bad. At least, at stock.

Core i7 running at higher frequencies, I cant comment on that since QX977x is just a stupid comparison. Get some skt 775 QX CPU instead to compare When OC'ing comes into this, of course Phenom loses since it's simply not scaling well. But we knew this for how long already? Not like Phenom cant be OC'd though, 3Ghz at default Vcore isnt a rare thing at all but nothing to write home about either.

[gryle]

Errr, that link was already posted Where as I replied with the link I posted since QX977x ain't really a guideline for C2Q.


Can I remind you what socket QX977x uses? Right, skt 771, that's a server platform. Core i7 965 uses just like 920, 1366. QX977x is nowhere inline with any skt 775 C2 CPU, at all. It's mainly aimed at ST for epic e-peen rage

QX9770 is socket 775: http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAWM

[Rammsteiner]

QX9770 is socket 775: http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLAWM

What the

Think I got messed up with QX9770 and QX9775. Nevermind then

[STaRGaZeR]

Can I remind you what socket QX977x uses? Right, skt 771, that's a server platform.

Not really LOL.

Phenom underpeforms? Excuse me? Been running 9850BE at stock for 4 months and a 9950BE stock for 1.5 months and Ive yet to suffer from any 'under performing' results really Compared to Penryn, it ain't doing that bad. At least, at stock.

This is the kind of response I don't really want to read. I know you're not stupid, so please don't act as such. You know what underperform means, but in case you don't want to remember it I'll tell you: it involves comparison. One thing underperforms compared to other when its perfomance is lower than the thing you're comparing to. There is no such thing as underperforming with only one thing, you need two and you need to compare them to decide which one is faster. Phenom is not slow by itself, Phenom is slow compared to Penryn (and Kentsfield). In consequence, Phenom underperforms compared to Penryn. I have not suffered any "under performing" as you call it with my Banias laptop, and yet it underperforms like hell compared to any Core2 or K10. So please, enough with that self-justificative responses.

When OC'ing comes into this, of course Phenom loses since it's simply not scaling well. But we knew this for how long already? Not like Phenom cant be OC'd though, 3Ghz at default Vcore isnt a rare thing at all but nothing to write home about either.

Phenom scales well, I don't see any faults there. The problem is that when you increase frequency in both K10 and Core2 the base differencies grow bigger. And the problem with Deneb is the same, but it has way more frequency headroom so AMD can mitigate it with that: you'd need something like 4,5GHz+ to beat a 4GHz Penryn, the same way it needs 3GHz to be somewhat competitive with Q9450 and Q9550.

[informal]

Phenom scales well, I don't see any faults there. The problem is that when you increase frequency in both K10 and Core2 the base differencies grow bigger. And the problem with Deneb is the same, but it has way more frequency headroom so AMD can mitigate it with that: you'd need something like 4,5GHz+ to beat a 4GHz Penryn, the same way it needs 3GHz to be somewhat competitive with Q9450 and Q9550.

That may very well be the case,but don't you think we need some real reviews with variety of apps to conclude what you said?Agena was pretty close to even Penryn in a lot of apps,but it trailed it in others too.It won't be black& white so that you can say 4.5Ghz will be needed to match 4Ghz Penryn.In certain apps it will do better per clock,in some worse,but the average is still unknown.But i say again,those numbers may indeed be true,we just need to wait for some real tests.

[STaRGaZeR]

That may very well be the case,but don't you think we need some real reviews with variety of apps to conclude what you said?Agena was pretty close to even Penryn in a lot of apps,but it trailed it in others too.It won't be black& white so that you can say 4.5Ghz will be needed to match 4Ghz Penryn.In certain apps it will do better per clock,in some worse,but the average is still unknown.But i say again,those numbers may indeed be true,we just need to wait for some real tests.

Sure, we have to see the actual numbers. Mine are pure speculation, but you can perfectly guess the margin, it'll be around 200-400MHz average depending on the application. At it will outperform even Core i7 in some of them. I think nobody will tell you otherwise.

Then I think we both have different opinions about underperforming. Comparing it to competition then to define it as underperforming is nuts IMO. K10 is better than K8. When a succesor performs worse, then I call it underperforming. It's not like an architecure is designed today, tomorrow a competitor releases a better one and thus they design a better one the day after and launch it. Although AMD and Intel do have to compete with each other price and performance wise, their advances are pretty much independend most of the time.

We have exactly the same definition. Look at your example, you're comparing the current processor with the predecessor. I'm not talking about comparing it with the competition, I'm talking about comparing it to whatever you want. You can't measure anything without a reference point, so don't insult Einstein . You can't say i7 is fast, in absolute. Therefore your previous post was BS, hence my response, as you were measuring speed without references.

[Rammsteiner]

We have exactly the same definition. Look at your example, you're comparing the current processor with the predecessor. I'm not talking about comparing it with the competition, I'm talking about comparing it to whatever you want. You can't measure anything without a reference point, so don't insult Einstein . You can't say i7 is fast, in absolute. Therefore your previous post was BS, hence my response, as you were measuring speed without references.

K, you lost me here now

You said Phenom was underperforming compared to Yorkfield, where as I said it isnt underperforming because it's faster than K8. But well, I guess this whole thing is turning out in nothing once again Lets just get back on-topic (unless you could make a quick line what Im missing here though).

[knopflerbruce]

loser CPU

Loser user, I think that's a more bullet proof statement

On-topic: THis CPU looks very nice, but does this mean AMD will stop making 90nm parts (Windsor) very soon?

[roofsniper]

loser CPU

ummmmmm do you have anything to say or should i just go trolling in the intel section posting "i7 sucks" on every page without saying anything else? if you don't think its a good cpu then why? personally i don't think its a bad cpu but its not a good one. it came way too late and if you compare it vs the x2 6000 at stock it is pretty even besides power consumption. but if we look at how both of them overclock this could very well be better than the 6000 and be amd's best dual core cpu.

[Hell Hound]

ummmmmm do you have anything to say or should i just go trolling in the intel section posting "i7 sucks" on every page without saying anything else? if you don't think its a good cpu then why? personally i don't think its a bad cpu but its not a good one. it came way too late and if you compare it vs the x2 6000 at stock it is pretty even besides power consumption. but if we look at how both of them overclock this could very well be better than the 6000 and be amd's best dual core cpu.

Will the x2's get the hkmg treatment or not.Maybe 45nm x2 8400+ BE or something like that.

[roofsniper]

Will the x2's get the hkmg treatment or not.Maybe 45nm x2 8400+ BE or something like that.

idk about hkmg but there are making a 45nm dual core. regor. it is the athlon x2 235 or 240 at 2.7ghz and 2.8ghz respectively.

[G0ldBr1ck]

loser CPU

its really getting old friend. every thread I have read in the last week has been filled with the same crap from you.

think im gonna get together all your troll posts (will take quite a wile) and send it to a mod. Or you can just chill out and stop trying to make things unpleasent for others.