For the first round of benchmarks AMD isn't letting anyone else set up its systems for testing, but that doesn't mean we can't get a decent idea of how the
Spider platform's going to perform in the real world. ExtremeTech got to test a machine that AMD set up with a 2.6GHz quad-core
Phenom chip, but since those won't be shipping for a few months, they ET also downclocked the chip to 2.3GHz to give us a better idea of what AMD's hit the market with yesterday. The good news is that the sub-$300 2.3GHz chip should perform quite comparatively with Intel chips at a similar price point, but the 2.6GHz hasn't had a solid price set yet, and might have more trouble competing with Intel's GHz-happy line. We won't bore you with the benchmark nitty gritty, and you might want to wait for some true lab-based benchmarks before you make the jump, but it looks like AMD is headed in the right direction.
posted Nov 20th 2007 1:03PM
those quad core are sick.
They sure are. They seem to be coughing up poor performance.
I've tested almost all of these processors and platforms and boards.. Intel, up until the latest, while still doing better than AMD in benchmarks, were kind of faster in real world power-usage...
intel kicked ass in focused, single-thread calculations (video-encoding, for instance), but amd just did better overall... and for someone who constantly has 15+ windows open, with programs doing various stuff, they were better(again, until intel spilled the latest batches)... let's see if amd can now make it back to the top
those quad core are sick
Wasn't it just the other day when Engadget was saying AMD sucks? Now they're saying they're looking good...
"Read" link?
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2218301,00.asp
The Phenoms that are gonna be available at launch (2.2GHz 9500, 2.3GHz 9600 and 2.4GHz 9700) are all slower than the cheapest Intel Quad, the Q6600. And only the 2.2GHz 9500 is cheaper.
true, but Intel's solution is to just put 2 dual core processers on 1 chip, this is a true quad core
This is 2007 not 1997. GHz don't really matter all that much. That race has been over for quite some time
That doesn't really matter if it can't deliver the performance. Intel introduced they're first Quads a year ago, and they'r better than Amd's "true" quads. And then there's the fact that Intel has better yields for they're quads than AMD, BECAUSE of the dual Die design.
Back when i had an Athlon processor, AMD didn't advertise their processor with speed. The reason is that the processor speed for AMD was slower than Intel although the performance was the same.
Now, I truly believe processor speed is irrelevant. The FSB speeds climbing above 1000Mhz truly changed computer performance.
The fact that Intel and AMD have gone into the multiple core area is there concession of the speed game. Now it is up to software (operating systems and third party apps) to make the most of the multiple cores.
When I said speed, I didn't mean clock speed, I meant real world performance. The Phenoms are slower at REAL WORLD USAGE than the Core 2 Quads. It's only in some cases where the phenoms perform the same at the same clock speed. Otherwise, the 2,6GHz phenom 9900 performs worse than the 2,4GHz Intel Q6600 why costing more. Even the 2,3GHz 9600 costs more than the Q6600.
AMD FTW!
Also, don't have Engadget open in multiple tabs at once... the "Mac vs PC" guys will go absolutely crazy if you do! (had to note that somewhere...)
amen
I was just about to make a comment about that too. The ad crashed firefox 5 times (even with just 1 tab opened) before I realised what was causing the problem.
No problems here viewing the ad in Firefox on OS X. Maybe its cuz you guys are running windows? :P
Why any would use Firefox without adblock plus is beyond me.
@ Stumper
Laziness is beyond you then, I guess...
Oh and @ Me
Doesn't crash Firefox for me; just get this annoying babbling from everyone...
whats up with the get a mac ads to the top right ???
if I open a few tabs they are crashing both IE and Firefox !!!
is it only me or someone else is also having this prob ?
have to use adblockers I guess.
"The worlds most advanced operating system is here"
bullshit
It might be time to graduate from your toy browsers to something that actually works, such as Opera.
you might want to check that again mate... opera too caves in...
as a web developer I have 6 browsers installed in my machine.. but only use IE and Firefox most of the time for browsing. Its not that Opera sucks but I just dont like it. It is much of a personal preference :)
What ads? Nothing crashing here (Mandriva 2008).
My advice: Get a Mac.
Worth remembering that all 4 AMD cores sit on the same die, unlike the Intel cores. Even with lower overall clock speeds, there some speculation that the AMDs will enjoy some advantage from better internal communication between the cores.
I'll keep an open mind, if a closed wallet (for now).
Nobody cares how its done with multiple cores if Intel is still beating the crap out of AMD. Go ahead and buy yourself a 'real single die multi-core chip' but youll still be stuck with a shoddy inferior chip.
Anandtech has actual lab benchmarks, not staged-run-our-benchmark-while-we-make-sure-you-don't-discover-our-"tweaks" AMD-sanctioned affairs.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153
AMD , 4 processors, single DIE
Intel ....4 procs , 2 DIEs
AMD WINS ....
and yeah Engadgetnet (the apple suckups ) ......remove that ad ( mac vs pc ) ---- its screwing up and crashing browsers ....worldwide
Thank you. And here I was thinking REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE was what mattered.
So, they win because they have a single die? I think not. People don't buy design. They buy performance, which AMD does not have at this point.
@ Yem and Jon
What makes you think that they do not have performence ? Have you used a laptop / desktop with an AMD proc. There is virtually no diff . To a common user ( which is about 80 % ) , it would not make any difference . AMD gives more value for money ( any day ) + now with the ATI , it provides laptops with graphics cards at lesser prices . They are providing more , whereas INTEL ( which you think are the only performers ) .......use its BRAND name to charge us + the cheap tactics its been using to overshadow competition ......
AMD maybe small , but will come through .......will come ...slow and very steady
boooo!!! an AMD restricted setup... full of crap!
A little late to the party Engadget. Most sites had the benches finished yesterday morning and had concluded that AMD is in otherwise serious trouble given that the Phenom's can't even beat the Q6600. One site even overclocked their Phenom 9600 to 9900 speed (2.6Ghz) and even that was getting beat by the Q6600 in a lot of test. AMD has failed completely and the benchmarks put out today and yesterday prove it. Clock for clock AMD isn't even competitive with Intel's 65nm and will be even less so when the full 45nm desktop range comes out in Jan. The only hope they have is that the B3 rev will allow them to clock their parts higher than Intel, which IMHO will likely be impossible. So the last resort will be to sell their at lower price point where they are competitive and since they're not already doing that one could assume that they can't afford to. So, so long AMD and I hope for all of us that someone large company with a lot of money to waste buys you up.
The problem is that, AMD cannot be bought out. Intel still owns the rights to the x86 license that AMD holds, and if another company buys/merges them, Intel has full rights to terminate the x86 license, making said buyout/merger pointless.
- JM.
Hmmmm... we must be reading different reviews. This is from Tom's Hardware:
"AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors. The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel's Q6600 in our benchmarks. On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor. Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money."
"Looking into the future with the Spider platform, AMD seems to be the less expensive than Intel, since the chip giant has already announced that its current high-end platform X38 will be incompatible to the next generation of high-end CPUs at the beginning of next year. In the end, if you're looking to make the most of a long-term investment, AMD is without a doubt the better platform choice."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/
If you knew any better you would've looked up the pricing yourself, just like I did. The Q6600 can be had for only $265 and the Phenom 9600 for $292. So that would make the Phenom 9600 13.5% slower and 10.18% more expensive.
Next time, do your homework.
$ for $ AMD has always out performed Intel.
AMD = Best bang for the buck.
The slower AMD's Are more expensive than the faster Intels...
the results thus far are dissapointing. I really hope the phenoms pick up in performance by release. since I switched to AMD, I haven't looked back, but if the future is the lower performance phenom, I might be in trouble.
AMD has priced their processors at exactly where they need to be - about 13% below Intel. What AMD says the prices are to be and what sites have reported at the moment are two very different things, but when the dust clears, there should be a similar price/performance ratio. Also, we all knew many months ago that the Phenom processors weren't going to do anything amazing against Intel's processors. Barcelona, anyone? Roughly the same architecture. However, with AMD stating at yesterday's press conference that they would be aiming for 45nm in 2008, things are looking somewhat up. Although the performance on these chips are lacking, if I were AMD I would just regard the last year as a giant mistake and move on as fast as possible.
And as for yields, AMD will have very similar yields, if not better yields, to Intel, as they'll just turn off one of the cores and make it a Phenom X3. Simple. They sell it for cheap and profit off of it regardless. A good way to get rid of stale bread.
"AMD has priced their processors at exactly where they need to be - about 13% below Intel."
They are not! The 9600, while performing worse than the Q6600, costs more.
"...but when the dust clears, there should be a similar price/performance ratio."
Thats, of course, after AMD realises they released underperforming processors and drops the price, like they did with the 3850 and 3870 before those were released.
"Barcelona, anyone?"
I agree with you there. Those were decent performers. However, Intel is still on the ball with new Xeon processor releases that will deal a heavy blow to AMD.
"And as for yields, AMD will have very similar yields, if not better yields, to Intel, as they'll just turn off one of the cores and make it a Phenom X3."
Most companies do that already. They underclock poor processsor builds, cut off cache, etc. Their plans are nothing new. And, quite frankly, you dont work at any of those fabs, so you, nor i, have the slightest clue as to the success of those fabs, so no speculaton, k.
If I may quote Tom's Hardware:
"The AMD Phenom 9500 (2.20 GHz) will sell for only $248, while the Phenom 9600 (2.3 GHz) comes with a price tag of $279.
Taking a look at online stores reveals that the asking price there is about $118 higher than AMD's recommended price. However, bearing in mind that these same stores also still list the Phenom 9700 with 2.40 GHz - which has been pushed back to 2008 - we can expect to see prices drop rather quickly.
For reference, Intel sells its smallest quad-core CPU, the Intel Core 2 Q6600, for around $323."
That is what I mean by "once the dust clears." And perhaps you have addressed this, I cannot say I have looked at what the price of the Q6600 is. But if these are the SRPs of both, then AMD is priced relatively well.
You're correct, I dont work in the fabs, and I cannot possibly know what yields are like. But if I can't speculate, neither can anyone else as to whether a single-die architecture will lead to a smaller yield. :p
But in all honesty, I'm not saying that AMD has done an amazing job with Phenom. I think they need to re-evaluate where they are and, if at all possible (I dont know if it is) skip a generation of processors and attempt to hit Intel head-on. Phenom is way late and their 45nm processors will be too, though perhaps not quite as late. I do like AMD alot, I've always enjoyed their products. But I too can recognize who has the better product here.
Q6600 at newegg for 279.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017
If the 9600 is going for 279.99, then it already lost due to poor performance against the Q, and needs a price drop. The 9700 is the processor that is really competing with the Q6600, as they have similar performance (but more often than not, loses in benchmarks to the Q6600). I really couldnt care less what AMD sets the price at, or Intel. What i care about is what comes out of my pocket when i go and buy.
I should have elaborated on the fab comments a little more instead of coming off as being harsh. The Q6600 are in stock all over the place. Intel still has to bring more variety to their Q series, instead of keeping most as extremes. So its clear Intel isn't having a problem manufacturing Q series chips, and they really shouldn't, as they are 2 separate cores. More transistors on a single die can bring lower yields (especially if you just started to manufacture them). While AMD is taking a decent approach at shutting down one core to keep manufacturing up, it doesn't guarantee their yields will be greater than Intel. In fact, nothing really does except the quality of the actual fab. So, if you don't work for one or the other, or don't have any knowledge of how well the fab's are doing, then you cant say one is better than the other. And quite frankly, if Intel is dumping out truckloads of processors due to poor fab's, if they still cost what they do, perform how they perform, and last the length of time they last, then who cares?
Just to clarify, my comments were not directed to attack you, but to the blind comments proclaiming this was a successful launch. This was a disaster. A brand new product should be able to beat existing and "old" technology, at a price point that makes it worth the upgrade. The Phenom launch does none of that.
Honestly, these are some of the stupidest and blindest comments i have ever read on this website.
AMD has a winner? How can they when their processors lose to intel processors (namely, the Q6600) in most benchmarks and all the while, still cost more than the Q (why dont some of you actually look up the prices before you make false claims).
AMD offers the best bang for your buck? Yea, they did. With the prices they set or the phenom's, they sure are out of that category.
ATI is a strong graphics provider? While i agree that they have some excellent cards that, on paper, look to destroy the competition, in real-world benchmarks, they consistently lose. The 8800GT, while being 30-40 dollars more, offers substantially better performance out of the box against the 3870. Isnt that worth that small amount of change? And, when new games are released, they are optimized for Nvidia right off the get go, and dont require 2-3 driver optimizations months later before performance is where it should be.
They use a true quad-core!!!! I, and anyone who knows anything about computers would conclude that no matter what they use to package their dies, if it doesnt perform better, who gives a f*ck?
I really wanted them to blow me away with this release, so i could jump back to AMD, but this has got to be the most disapponting processor release in recent history. If your new architecture cant de-throne something that has been out for a year, then who cares? Intel is almost ready with their die-shrink and refreshed architecture. If AMD cant meet and beat intel now, then they have no chance.
Time to check your sources and update your knowledge, folks.
Some reviewers accepted AMD's invitiation to go to a nice resort in Tahoe and drank free booze and hug out with hot chicks while AMD marketting people ran staged testing on the hardware and software of their choice to make Phenom look as best as possible.
Some people, who really cared about AMD and the computer industry, refused to be bought out and ran independent test and brought out somber results.
Sure AMD USED TO offer better performance at lower price. Welcome to 2007. Core 2 Duo changed all that and AMD has unable to reverse the trend afterward.
Many people, including myself, cheers for AMD who is the underdog, but I am not a blind fanboy and AMD WILL get the criticizm it deserves.
Its like ford vs Chevy. pretty much the same truck but the one that your daddy owned is obviously far more superior to the other, but in actuality its not. i don't believe in benchmarks today. they are very inconsistent. AMD out performs Intel in one benchmark, but the reciprocal happens in another. I prefer AMD just because i have always had AMD and they have never failed me. I dont shit on you just because you like Intel, so please dont shit on me