New 45nm Phenom FX Deneb spotted ~ 4.4GHz...?

Mav451 said:
Well the kicker is I thought I remembered Kyle being somewhat optimistic. I think that's what made me wait on upgrading to Core2, until finally seeing the final hard numbers.
Click to expand...

You did well to wait on a Wolfie anyway. In mid 2007, Intel was slipping Allendales into traditional conroe spots of e6300 and e6400 (because of the 2M cache) and they just can't reach the heights of the original Conroes. :(
 
Dan_D said:
I've yet to have a Phenom overclocking experience as good as you've mentioned. I'm not saying that those clocks aren't possible or that they don't happen even fairly often, but I have doubts about it being the norm. Even if you take a Phenom and clock it to 3.4GHz it still won't match the Core 2 Duo G0 at 3.6GHz, and certainly won't touch the Yorkfield's hitting 4.0GHz+. So regardless of the fact that overclocking has gotten better for the Phenom they still aren't on par with Intel offerings. I still don't think a die-shrink and more cache memory will be enough to change that.

This sounds more like the statements I used to hear about B3 stepping Phenoms being worlds better than B2 stepping Phenoms and we all know how that turned out. While I have no doubts that Phenom is going to get better with more cache and a die shrink I seriously doubt it will close the gap between AMD and Intel significantly. Now that doesn't mean that AMD won't be able to offer any viable alternatives at certain price points with Deneb. I'm sure they will. But for those people buying into this hype that Deneb is going to slaughter Agena, I'm more than likely going to be telling you I told you so when Deneb actually hits the market.
Click to expand...

The key for AMD will be to offer Phenoms at a price point where it would make sense to talk about overclocking them to a faster speed than a stock Kentsfield.

A $235 9950 that needs to hit 3.0ghz to beat a Q6600 at $180 just isn't worth talking about. If the chip were $150, it would make a lot more sense.
 
Dan_D said:
I've seen Q6600 G0 processors for $179.99 at the local Microcenter. I'll take that overa Phenom 9950 Black Edition even given that the cost of a good overclocking board will be a bit higher than it would be on the AMD side.
Click to expand...

That's an understandable choice given your overclocking record with Phenom's. :D (don't hate me)
 
OldPueblo said:
What about $186? :p

http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzQ1NzgsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=
Click to expand...
Not a bad deal *if* you have a 140W capable motherboard (I don't, and many of the volume AM2+ boards don't support it either), a good cooler (not included) and very good case ventillation. :p

It's not a bad chip as an upgrade if you already have what I listed above. But it's hard to recommend if you need to also buy a motherboard when you can run a Q6600 @ 3GHz on even a cheap 1333MHz FSB capable board, and it stays within reasonable enough power that the stock cooler is good enough.
 
OldPueblo said:
That's an understandable choice given your overclocking record with Phenom's. :D (don't hate me)
Click to expand...

Yeah I haven't had the best luck with them. Maybe I should stop shooting for 100% stable overclocks? I spend so much time overclocking Phenoms for motherboard articles. It takes me easily three or four times the amount of time to thoroughly explore Phenom overclocking vs. Intel overclocking. To make matters worse the returns on the Phenom overclocking are always a dissappointment to me.

Even if I did have better experiences with them I'd still take the Kentsfield over the Phenom any day of the week. The fact is that at 3.5GHz (which is going to be the upper ceiling for a Phenom) a Phenom still won't touch a Q6600 at 3.4GHz most of the time and G0 Kentsfields are often good for more than 3.4GHz. Hell my B3 Q6600 does 3.6GHz though cooling becomes an issue at those speeds. Water cooling gets the job done but just barely at that speed.

Plus I much prefer Intel chipset based motherboards to AM2+ AMD 790FX/GX boards or NVIDIA 780a SLI chipset based boards. With that said I am well aware of the potential cost differences and I can see the appeal of the Phenom for some people.
 
Scali2 said:
I didn't know that you have to be on AMD's design team... I assumed the laws of physics, chip design and manufacturing were universal. In which light, my above analysis holds.
Click to expand...

moar lik tha laws of speculation LOL
 
SixtyWattMan said:
moar lik tha laws of speculation LOL
Click to expand...

I think Scali2 and myself are right on the money. I don't think a 45nm Deneb will match these rumors because a die shrink and increased cache memory aren't going to be enough to make up for Phenom's shortcommings.
 
Hype hype, doesn't this happen with video cards too? Like the 4870 performing double a 9800GX2 or something and getting 15k vantage scores with 1 card. Zzz
 
Dan_D said:
I think Scali2 and myself are right on the money. I don't think a 45nm Deneb will match these rumors because a die shrink and increased cache memory aren't going to be enough to make up for Phenom's shortcommings.
Click to expand...

Care to expand on this? I think it's a good thing that AMD is at least giving people with AM2 platforms an upgrade path instead of having to swap MB's every time new architecture comes around. It seems your not a big fan of anything AMD related. For the money (if you only do some mild overclocking), AM2 platforms are the best bang for the buck imho.
 
Dan_D said:
I think Scali2 and myself are right on the money. I don't think a 45nm Deneb will match these rumors because a die shrink and increased cache memory aren't going to be enough to make up for Phenom's shortcommings.
Click to expand...

not that I don't doubt that your right but I thought this "shrink" was going to address some of the short comings? or are they relying on the bigger cache for the per clock performance?
 
Valset said:
not that I don't doubt that your right but I thought this "shrink" was going to address some of the short comings? or are they relying on the bigger cache for the per clock performance?
Click to expand...

I suppose the biggest shortcomings were the poor clockspeed scaling and high power consumption. The first reports claim they've taken care of that. In fact, Deneb could have the best performance/watt in the quadcore market.

Another problem was that the L3 cache had poor performance. So I suppose the redesigned cache is meant to address that.
 
dook43 said:
The key for AMD will be to offer Phenoms at a price point where it would make sense to talk about overclocking them to a faster speed than a stock Kentsfield.

A $235 9950 that needs to hit 3.0ghz to beat a Q6600 at $180 just isn't worth talking about. If the chip were $150, it would make a lot more sense.
Click to expand...



I have felt like this for quite a while now...AMD needs to knock the bottom out of their pricing. 9950 should be $135. If it was $135 I would possibly think about coming back over to the AMD side but at $235 I will be happy to stay with my e2200 @ 3ghz...More performance at a fraction of the cost...
 
dook43 said:
The key for AMD will be to offer Phenoms at a price point where it would make sense to talk about overclocking them to a faster speed than a stock Kentsfield.

A $235 9950 that needs to hit 3.0ghz to beat a Q6600 at $180 just isn't worth talking about. If the chip were $150, it would make a lot more sense.
Click to expand...

From our point of view, that obviously is what makes more sense. But from AMD's point of view, that's not the case. They're already bleeding money and I don't think they can lower much more than they were already forced to, given Intel's "old" processors, still beating them overall.
The 45 nm parts will surely improve this, in terms of production costs and overall profit margins, but they will still be playing catching up, since they have yet to get to Penrym levels and Nehalem is right around the corner...
 
just hope amd comes out with something that will at least scare intel a little even if its a rumor maybe amd does have something and hey competition is good if amd werent around intel would be loose with the prices.
 
Scali2 said:
AMD wasn't around for the first years that I used PCs. Big deal.
Click to expand...

Believe me, we need AMD around more than anything. Competition is key here, without them INTEL h/w would be MUCH more expensive and we probably wouldn't be seeing dual/quad/etc core processors this early. I am sure AMD "not" being around when you first got into PC's added to the cost of one SUBSTANTIALLY.
 
Lazy, didn't even skim the thread.

I really want AMD to come back on top. Only because they are the underdog though. :)

Lets go Black and Green!
 
a2vr6 said:
Believe me, we need AMD around more than anything. Competition is key here, without them INTEL h/w would be MUCH more expensive and we probably wouldn't be seeing dual/quad/etc core processors this early. I am sure AMD "not" being around when you first got into PC's added to the cost of one SUBSTANTIALLY.
Click to expand...

You can't really compare cost of PCs back then with the ones today. Everything was more expensive... harddisks, monitors, printers, etc. And there was plenty of competition there.
So you didn't buy as high-end, you generally waited a year or two before you bought a new generation of CPUs. These days the CPUs follow eachother up much quicker, so the prices drop quicker aswell. But that has more to do with the market being much larger, and a much bigger demand for 'bargain basement' systems for grandma and grandpa and all that than AMD being around.

Bottom line is, back then you could buy a very good gaming machine for about the same price as today. My budget for buying a new PC hasn't really changed in the last 15 years or so. Always around 800-1000 euros.

In fact, AMD's most expensive desktop CPUs are less than $200. I've never bought a CPU that cheap. So in the pricerange where I usually buy my CPUs, AMD really doesn't affect anything.
 
Scali2 said:
You can't really compare cost of PCs back then with the ones today. Everything was more expensive... harddisks, monitors, printers, etc. And there was plenty of competition there.
So you didn't buy as high-end, you generally waited a year or two before you bought a new generation of CPUs. These days the CPUs follow eachother up much quicker, so the prices drop quicker aswell. But that has more to do with the market being much larger, and a much bigger demand for 'bargain basement' systems for grandma and grandpa and all that than AMD being around.

Bottom line is, back then you could buy a very good gaming machine for about the same price as today. My budget for buying a new PC hasn't really changed in the last 15 years or so. Always around 800-1000 euros.

In fact, AMD's most expensive desktop CPUs are less than $200. I've never bought a CPU that cheap. So in the pricerange where I usually buy my CPUs, AMD really doesn't affect anything.
Click to expand...

Electronics has been gettin cheaper over the years.Never been so cheap as of today.And competition sure affects marketing and pricing, that well known.
 
game14 said:
AMD is around for quite a long while.Was wondering what pc u used before AMD was around.
Click to expand...

My first PC had an 8088.
AMD didn't have its own CPUs on the market until their 386DX in 1991 (although they made some 8088 and 80286 CPUs for Intel in the early 80s, because IBM insisted on having multiple production sources). By then Intel already had the 486DX out for a few years.
So in the period 8088-80486 there was no AMD. That's 4 generations of processors over the course of about 10 years... with no AMD.
And at first, AMD wasn't the most important clone. NEC was first, with the V20 and V30. Then there were 386/486 clones and upgrade kits from companies like Cyrix, Texas Instruments and IBM, which were generally more 'dangerous' to Intel because they came closer to Intel's performance levels than AMD did at the time.

You might want to check up on the history of x86. AMD hasn't played a very big role in it until the Athlon.
 
Scali2 said:
My first PC had an 8088.
AMD didn't have its own CPUs on the market until their 386DX in 1991 (although they made some 8088 and 80286 CPUs for Intel in the early 80s, because IBM insisted on having multiple production sources). By then Intel already had the 486DX out for a few years.
So in the period 8088-80486 there was no AMD. That's 4 generations of processors over the course of about 10 years... with no AMD.
And at first, AMD wasn't the most important clone. NEC was first, with the V20 and V30. Then there were 386/486 clones and upgrade kits from companies like Cyrix, Texas Instruments and IBM, which were generally more 'dangerous' to Intel because they came closer to Intel's performance levels than AMD did at the time.

You might want to check up on the history of x86. AMD hasn't played a very big role in it until the Athlon.
Click to expand...

Read about the history of AMD , thats why i said they have been around for a while. ;)
Was just wondering what the first pc was u used.As far as i remember the first pc i had access to was an Apple in 1982 , cant remember the exact chipset though,wasnt even mine . Big huge ugly machine , cost around 10 grand that time and was way slower than a todays pocket calculator.
 
Scali2 said:
My first PC had an 8088.
AMD didn't have its own CPUs on the market until their 386DX in 1991 (although they made some 8088 and 80286 CPUs for Intel in the early 80s, because IBM insisted on having multiple production sources). By then Intel already had the 486DX out for a few years.
So in the period 8088-80486 there was no AMD. That's 4 generations of processors over the course of about 10 years... with no AMD.
And at first, AMD wasn't the most important clone. NEC was first, with the V20 and V30. Then there were 386/486 clones and upgrade kits from companies like Cyrix, Texas Instruments and IBM, which were generally more 'dangerous' to Intel because they came closer to Intel's performance levels than AMD did at the time.

You might want to check up on the history of x86. AMD hasn't played a very big role in it until the Athlon.
Click to expand...
They stepped it up big time in the consumer market in the K5-K6 era. K5 started to become a decent replacement.

K6 introducted MMX, and then later around the K6-2 and 3 that brought their 3DNOW instructions set which a handful of game companies integrated. I think I remember runnign a special version of Quake2 optimized for 3DNOW.

K6-2 400mhz + Diamond Viper V550, Riva TNT was my first OpenGL card, first real "gaming computer" I think, and actually first real 3D accelerator of any of my friends. Despite the headaches, still got a soft spot for that hardware.

Nonetheless, the K6's were very popular and common. Saw them everywhere.

Though after my nightmares with instability on several platforms, I went Intel at my next upgrade to P3 and haven't looked back since.

But saying they didn't have a decent role until Athlon is a little misleading.
 
game14 said:
Read about the history of AMD , thats why i said they have been around for a while. ;)
Click to expand...

Then you should have known that Intel had already developed 4 generations of x86 and was about to develop the fifth one, before AMD joined the party. So it's not all that surprising that people have used a number of computers before AMD was around, right?

game14 said:
Was just wondering what the first pc was u used.As far as i remember the first pc i had access to was an Apple in 1982 , cant remember the exact chipset though,wasnt even mine . Big huge ugly machine , cost around 10 grand that time and was way slower than a todays pocket calculator.
Click to expand...

With PC I mean IBM-compatible PC, as in a PC that uses an Intel x86 or compatible processor.
I've used various non-Intel CPUs before, like the Zilog Z80, MOS 6502 and Motorola 68k series. But since none of them were x86-compatible, they weren't a substitute for Intel's processors in a PC. In those days I had an 8088 PC for the serious stuff, and a C64 or Amiga for gaming and other audiovisual fun. You could buy 4 Amiga 500s for the price of one 8088 PC. But that wasn't because of the Intel CPU, I can assure you.
 
Menelmarar said:
They stepped it up big time in the consumer market in the K5-K6 era. K5 started to become a decent replacement.

K6 introducted MMX, and then later around the K6-2 and 3 that brought their 3DNOW instructions set which a handful of game companies integrated. I think I remember runnign a special version of Quake2 optimized for 3DNOW.

K6-2 400mhz + Diamond Viper V550, Riva TNT was my first OpenGL card, first real "gaming computer" I think, and actually first real 3D accelerator of any of my friends. Despite the headaches, still got a soft spot for that hardware.

Nonetheless, the K6's were very popular and common. Saw them everywhere.

Though after my nightmares with instability on several platforms, I went Intel at my next upgrade to P3 and haven't looked back since.

But saying they didn't have a decent role until Athlon is a little misleading.
Click to expand...

You're looking at it from the technical side. In which case I suggest you put those CPUs in perspective by comparing them to what Intel had on the market. You will have to conclude that AMD had more or less the same status as Intel's Celeron line: cheap budget CPUs, which enthousiasts like myself would never buy.

Aside from that, I was talking about the impact AMD had on the market, and therefore on Intel financially (we were talking about prices weren't we?). Even though AMD's products often had good price/performance, they didn't get much marketshare before the Athlon series, and as such had little or no impact on Intel's pricing strategy.
 
Scali2 said:
Then you should have known that Intel had already developed 4 generations of x86 and was about to develop the fifth one, before AMD joined the party. So it's not all that surprising that people have used a number of computers before AMD was around, right?
Right!

With PC I mean IBM-compatible PC, as in a PC that uses an Intel x86 or compatible processor.
I've used various non-Intel CPUs before, like the Zilog Z80, MOS 6502 and Motorola 68k series. But since none of them were x86-compatible, they weren't a substitute for Intel's processors in a PC. In those days I had an 8088 PC for the serious stuff, and a C64 or Amiga for gaming and other audiovisual fun. You could buy 4 Amiga 500s for the price of one 8088 PC. But that wasn't because of the Intel CPU, I can assure you.
Click to expand...

good old C64.
 
Menelmarar said:
They stepped it up big time in the consumer market in the K5-K6 era. K5 started to become a decent replacement.
Click to expand...
K5 wasn't a shining example. It was very late, hot and slow. The K5 disaster diverted resources from the K6, causing the K6 to be late, a problem that made AMD blow the opportunity of K6's strength (better 16-bit performance than the Pentium Pro, fixed in the Pentium II).

Said Jerry Sanders of the K6 vs Pentium Pro Comdex demo it staged in November 1996, which also minimizes the K5 and prior CPUs:
Newsweek 1997 interview said:
"This is uncharted territory for us," Sanders says. "We've never had even equivalent performance with Intel before."
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for AMD, the Pentium II came out a month after the K6 and that cemented AMD's second place status until the Athlon. :p
 
Scali2 said:
You can't really compare cost of PCs back then with the ones today. Everything was more expensive... harddisks, monitors, printers, etc. And there was plenty of competition there.
So you didn't buy as high-end, you generally waited a year or two before you bought a new generation of CPUs. These days the CPUs follow eachother up much quicker, so the prices drop quicker aswell. But that has more to do with the market being much larger, and a much bigger demand for 'bargain basement' systems for grandma and grandpa and all that than AMD being around.

Bottom line is, back then you could buy a very good gaming machine for about the same price as today. My budget for buying a new PC hasn't really changed in the last 15 years or so. Always around 800-1000 euros.

In fact, AMD's most expensive desktop CPUs are less than $200. I've never bought a CPU that cheap. So in the pricerange where I usually buy my CPUs, AMD really doesn't affect anything.
Click to expand...


I, on the other hand am on the other side of the coin. Never spend more than $500 on a new PC. I don't game (that's should be left to a dedicated game machine like my 360), so I don't have waste 3-$400 on a graphics card to every year. Much prefer the value I get from AMD, and don't kid yourself. We wouldn't be enjoying the innovation and prices we are today without them.
 
a2vr6 said:
I, on the other hand am on the other side of the coin. Never spend more than $500 on a new PC. I don't game (that's should be left to a dedicated game machine like my 360), so I don't have waste 3-$400 on a graphics card to every year. Much prefer the value I get from AMD, and don't kid yourself. We wouldn't be enjoying the innovation and prices we are today without them.
Click to expand...

nor with out gaming
not much else pushes a consumer PC like games
if not for PC gaming multi CPU PCs with 2GB+ RAM and huge GPUs would still be the realm of high end workstations
 
Elios said:
nor with out gaming
not much else pushes a consumer PC like games
if not for PC gaming multi CPU PCs with 2GB+ RAM and huge GPUs would still be the realm of high end workstations
Click to expand...

Let's not kid ourselves, gaming is a big market but there's plenty of other things pushing technology at the CPU level (gaming would be mostly video level I'd think). Server technology that trickles down to a desktop form factor, all the rendering done for 3D stuff be it movies or military or weather simulations, etc.
 
My grandfather was sold a 386 PC (and he paid top dollar for it) in 1989 that turned out to have an AMD chip in it.

He paid Intel prices..

Lots of unscrupulous shops were doing it back then.
 
dook43 said:
My grandfather was sold a 386 PC (and he paid top dollar for it) in 1989 that turned out to have an AMD chip in it.
Click to expand...

Impossible.
AMD didn't put any 386 processors on the market until 1991.

It was however pretty common to sell 386 and 486 PCs with AMD processors instead of Intel, and not telling anyone. The price difference was generally not very large anyway. AMD didn't have 386s until Intel's 486 was out for years, so Intel was dumping its 386 processors anyway. Same story with 486 and Pentium.
 
Scali2 said:
Impossible.
AMD didn't put any 386 processors on the market until 1991.

It was however pretty common to sell 386 and 486 PCs with AMD processors instead of Intel, and not telling anyone. The price difference was generally not very large anyway. AMD didn't have 386s until Intel's 486 was out for years, so Intel was dumping its 386 processors anyway. Same story with 486 and Pentium.
Click to expand...

You might be right, I don't have the original invoice. :D
 
Very impressive if true. I just look for the best bang for the buck and if the Phenom FX is it then I will be going the AMD route again.
 
Scali2 said:
AMD wasn't around for the first years that I used PCs. Big deal.
Click to expand...

3480.jpg



Here at work we have a few rows of the old school circa: 1983 IBM 3480 auto scratch cart drives. The other day one had failed and the service tech pulled out one of the controller boards. To my suprise the boards were littered with AMD logo's before they were even "well known" as as a microprocessor company. Most the manufacture lables on the chips themselves indicated that they were manufactured by AMD by having an "AM" followed by a serial number. I was able to take the busted parts home, just as a memorial that AMD has truley been around forever. I've shown a few friends and we all certainly get a kick out of it. :cool:

And to stay on topic; If the 45nm Phenom comes out to even +3.0Ghz sign me up! I'm just about to snag a 9950 BE, but if these launch soon I may just grab a fast dual core to get me buy till they come out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top