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

AciDeX said:
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:
Click to expand...

AMD has been around yes, but not as an alternative to Intel x86 processors.
In fact, Intel outsourced production of 8086 and 80286 processors to AMD (because of the contract with IBM).
I thought we all knew that.
Intel has been around longer than just the x86 series of processors aswell. But that's not very relevant to this discussion.
AMD didn't enter the x86 market with its own products until 1991. By then the IBM PC platform was already 10 years old.

Ironically enough I actually have a Compaq PC with Intel 486 processor and AMD SCSI/ethernet controller (Lance).
 
Scali2 said:
AMD has been around yes, but not as an alternative to Intel x86 processors.
In fact, Intel outsourced production of 8086 and 80286 processors to AMD (because of the contract with IBM).
I thought we all knew that.
Intel has been around longer than just the x86 series of processors aswell. But that's not very relevant to this discussion.
AMD didn't enter the x86 market with its own products until 1991. By then the IBM PC platform was already 10 years old.

Ironically enough I actually have a Compaq PC with Intel 486 processor and AMD SCSI/ethernet controller (Lance).
Click to expand...

I used to have one of those cards.
 
Hm... it almost sounds too good to be true. I wonder if AMD is keeping it's word...
 
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...

Well no thats not all correct the k5 then k6 days lets not forget. they had many cpu's that were real work horse in them days k62 was i great cpu.
 
END said:
Well no thats not all correct the k5 then k6 days lets not forget. they had many cpu's that were real work horse in them days k62 was i great cpu.
Click to expand...

Neither was a commercial success (partly because they were very late to market, and partly because there were issues with motherboard/chipset compatibility and overall performance. They couldn't compete with the PII/PIII with new chipsets and 100 MHz FSB).
I don't think AMD's marketshare has ever been over 10% before Athlon arrived. In the K5/K6 days there was still Cyrix, which had better products and was more successful (got some OEM deals).
They peaked at about 25% during the golden days of Athlon64.
 
last i heard the 45nm cores were suppose to be exactly like the 65nm phenoms speed wise.. i know there was a plan for the later editions to be much quicker but your talking late 1Q 09 early 2Q 09 before we see those.. amd makes so many promises.. but then we have to wait 2 years before they actually show anything.. i want to stick with amd.. but not sure if i can wait any longer..
 
OldPueblo said:
The celeron 300a would disagree with you there.
Click to expand...

:D

The promise of a BP6 with dual 333->500 was 0s0 promising....

but with Windows NT it was useless for many games and usb devices.

I never had the PSU to run that bad boy, I was stuck at 2x333 or 500 with a single proc under '98.
 
Volcanon said:
Maybe 4.0 and 4.4 GHz OC'd, I'd believe that.

But 4 stock? No way.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree.

Me personally, I'd be happy to upgrade from my X2 6400+ if the Phenoms could get above 3ghz stock and run cooler than my 6400+. I'm not hard to please. :D @ 3.5ghz and above I'd be whipping out the wallet so fast it would make Newegg's head spin.
 
me too, but I am thinking of jumping ship here. looking like a 6 month wait at least. Intel is looking pretty good for the money.
 
Valset said:
me too, but I am thinking of jumping ship here. looking like a 6 month wait at least. Intel is looking pretty good for the money.
Click to expand...
Eh, do you really think you'll notice a tangible difference between a Phenom and a Core 2?

If you were building a new system I'd recommend Intel, but if you were coming from a dual-core Athlon on a good AM2+ motherboard, I'd probably recommend a good Phenom. No reason to throw out a CPU *and* a motherboard when you're not really gaining that much by it.

Yes, the Core 2 will win benchmarks, but will you notice the difference?
 
I find an AMD CPU clocked at 4.4 Ghz is unbelievable, but if this is true, then good for AMD. I do hope they make a comeback, seriously, they have been falling behind these last few years.
 
John Vuong said:
I find an AMD CPU clocked at 4.4 Ghz is unbelievable, but if this is true, then good for AMD. I do hope they make a comeback, seriously, they have been falling behind these last few years.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm hoping that these rumours are true. My 3800+ X2 is really bottlenecking my computer in some games. MMO's need CPU power. Even OC'd to 2.4ghz, my CPU is constantly running 100% on both cores causing fps dips.
 
maverick777 said:
Yea, I'm hoping that these rumours are true. My 3800+ X2 is really bottlenecking my computer in some games. MMO's need CPU power. Even OC'd to 2.4ghz, my CPU is constantly running 100% on both cores causing fps dips.
Click to expand...

That's always the point. If your CPU isn't running at 100% (especially in a single threaded game) that means that the devs aren't getting efficent CPU utilization from their programming. In UT3 my Core 2 is running at 100% but that doesn't mean it's "too much" for my system. It simply means their code was well written and fully taking advantage of available processor time.

OTOH, it would be nice to have other options again besides Intel. :) Good luck to AMD.
 
On January 8th, the fanboi collective will whip out their credit cards and pay tribute to the almighty Phenom II X4 940 – a 3GHz Deneb with 4x512KB L2 cache, 6MB of L3 cache and – targeting you-know-who with its unlocked cores. It’ll be an AM2+ part and will require a whole lot of cooling but AMD is promising 4GHz on air, upwards on liquids. The multiplier-locked Phenom II X4 920 will also launch, but clocking in at 2.8GHz.These will be the first - and only - AM2+ 900-series Phenom II parts, according to the data.
Click to expand...

Full Article: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/16/phenom-ii-athlon-x4-oh

So we might just see 4GHz on air after all... :cool:

And who knows what the AM3 chips may be capable of...

They should run just fine in AM2+/SB750 MB's, too... ;)

Can I say, "Told ya so" now... :p
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
That's always the point. If your CPU isn't running at 100% (especially in a single threaded game) that means that the devs aren't getting efficent CPU utilization from their programming. In UT3 my Core 2 is running at 100% but that doesn't mean it's "too much" for my system. It simply means their code was well written and fully taking advantage of available processor time.

OTOH, it would be nice to have other options again besides Intel. :) Good luck to AMD.
Click to expand...

Nonsense really.
Firstly, a stupid loop like while (true); will also get 100% CPU, even though the CPU is just spinning its wheels. Hardly a good measure for how efficient the code is.
Secondly it is often MORE efficient to not keep the CPU spining its wheels, but relinquishing control to the OS by putting your process in the sleep state until a certain event is triggered. Because you're not hogging the CPU, other processes can make use of the resources instead, which is more efficient.

Bottom line: there is no relationship between the CPU usage in Task Manager and the efficiency of the code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top