AMD's fastest Phenom X4 9850 desktop CPU tested, Intel points and giggles like brat
By Thomas Ricker 
posted March 27th 2008 5:45AM
posted March 27th 2008 5:45AM
Today's benchmark day for AMD's fastest desktop processor -- the Phenom X4 9850. Free of the nasty TLB (Translation Lookaside Buffer) bug, the stage is now set for a head-to-head with Intel's best. While it's a significant step forward for AMD, the 9850 proc hardly compares with Intel's best quad-core desktop CPUs. Nevertheless, as PCPer says, "any enthusiast or gamer looking for a ~$240 processor is going to have a fantastic experience with the 9850." We're just happy to see AMD back on track and ready to compete. Now get to it AMD, faster clock speeds and 45-nm processes please? Intel needs someone banging at the door to keep Moore's Law from becoming Moore's Recommendation.
Update: Oh, by the way, the 2.5GHz X4 9850 is now shipping.
Update: Oh, by the way, the 2.5GHz X4 9850 is now shipping.
Read -- PC Perspective
Read -- Hot Hardware
Read -- X4 950 now available
I a budget build Price per performance, AMD usually wins. This is good for all. I use both Intel and AMD now.
Good to see they haven't bombed out just yet. Someone needs to step up the battle to get better competitive pricing and drive the prices down a bit.
Its kinda sad actually.
AMD really needs to get some kind of miracle.
A Core 2 Quad 2.66GHz can be had for 250. And it outpaces and obliterates the performance of this processor.
I meant 2.4 GHz.
Whoops.
I bought a Phenom9600 to stick in my latest PC.
I must say, Im happy. I know the Intel counterparts are probably faster, but AMD has been good to me over the years, and this was definitely affordable.
I cant complain of many, if any, problems. Its a solid chip, OCs fine, and works.
It definitely holds its own with Crysis, and still lets me run AIM, Flock, and xFire in the background.
If I were to put together another gaming machine, Im not sure I would go AMD, but for a highend office PC, definitely.
The Phenom Series offers more than enough power for the average user.
You make a great point which highlights that today's games, even Crysis, are GPU-limited, not CPU-limited. In other words, the GPU matters more in games than the CPU. Buy the Phenom X4 9850/2.5G at $229 and a $500 graphics card, not an Intel Quad/3.0G at $1,000 with a crappy graphics card.
I am an AMD fan and currently use an Athlon X2. I think for the price, AMD processors are the best choice for the average user, but if you want real power, even I say go Intel. I am impressed with some of the performance numbers. I really hope that AMD can pick it up and give Intel a run for their money. Although I am loyal to AMD for desktops, I prefer Intel for mobile for a number of reasons. This processor is a step in the right direction, but they still need much more. Come on, AMD!
What mares is that AMD has all those great stories on paper, with their 'real' 4 cores and their hypertranport 2 and still their best effort with all that stuff that is supposed to be so much more advanced can't beat intel, and that just makes you feel they are doing something wrong.
They should do like intel did and get some israeli ingenuity in their camp, some practical thinking that looks at the real world too.
Or you could buy a q6600, which is still faster, but will actually overclock. And it will overclock quite a bit, with 3.6ghz completely doable.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that without the competition then everything slows down or comes to a halt. I support AMD because when they make a processor i know it will work and not give me problems (use and FX55) unlike the many problems i have had before with Intel until i switched to AMD. i also recall that for the longest time AMD was in the lead and Intel couldnt even catch up. and im sure that AMD will catch up and surpass Intel agan :)
Intel might produce the better processors right now, and I have bought an E6750 but that doesn't stop me from buying AMD as well. To be perfectly honest I couldn't tell a huge difference between that and my TL-58 powered laptop even though they are in theory worlds apart. The only time I noticed the difference was when I overclocked them, and your average consumer hasn't even heard of overclocking. Add to that the fact that I have an Athlon xp 2400+ running a computer with vista with no percievable slowdown and you get the impression that it doesn't make a difference what brand you buy, you're not going to notice the difference.
I like AMD and Ati because there fighting against a giant: Intel,Nvidia and Microsoft act as one big monopoly lovers club, there very close and they kill any competition just for there own greed. I hate monopoly's because this possition is far more importand for them than anything else. AMD and Intel are like apples and bananas, there both nice in the way they are. It's just what you like most for any reason. I just love my Spider system from AMD with 2 Ati R3870x2, because it's dam'n cool and I think it's a nice concept. As for the concept of compatibilty is far more importand than if a benchmark got's a few points or 3 fps more or less for hundreds of dollars more. Any has his/hers own reason why he/she thinks this or that is better, some are smarter than others. :-)
I looked forward to spend $200 upgrading my motherboard just for this chip, and for it then to be crap and slow in a year's time!
That's unless it works with my asus AM2 mobo which I doubt it does. While Mark's comment about brand loyalty is true, I find it very irritating having to upgrade the motherboard and rebuild the whole PC again every year or two.