GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

AMD Phenom 9900 Processor Hands-On

We take the AMD Phenom 9900 out for a spin. Find out about AMD's Spider platform and how the Phenom performs.

406 Comments

AMD has recently released the Spider platform, the first joint product launch resulting from the company's merger with graphics manufacturer ATI. The Spider platform consists of three new product lines: the ATI Radeon HD 3800-series GPU, the AMD Phenom CPU, and the AMD 7-series motherboard chipset. This is the first time AMD has been able to offer customers a complete processor, graphics, and motherboard system platform with AMD chips handling all three major functions. They also represent AMD's most advanced technology to date.

The ATI Radeon HD 3800 graphics chips offer more performance and more power efficiency than the Radeon HD 2900 series. The AMD 790 chipset line brings HyperTransport 3.0, PCI Express 2.0, and CrossFireX quad-GPU support to motherboard platforms. GPU updates and new chipsets are always welcome, but the AMD Phenom processor is the most anticipated part of the platform.

AMD earned a lot of credibility in the PC gaming community during the past four years because it was finally able to come up with a CPU design that could take the performance lead away from rival Intel. AMD's Athlon 64 line outperformed the Pentium 4, Intel's best offering at the time. Intel was able to recover the performance lead with its new Core 2 processor line, but AMD had established itself as a viable option among gamers and many looked forward to AMD's new processor, the AMD Phenom.

The AMD Phenom processor features what AMD calls a "true quad-core" design, which has all four processing cores on a single piece of silicon rather than two dual-core processing units side-by-side as Intel does to create its quad-core processors. Having all four processors on a single die allows all the cores on the Phenom chip to share a single L3 cache. Each core still has dedicated L1 and L2 cache, but the shared L3 cache helps improve multicore performance by reducing the amount of time it takes each core to access shared data.

The Phenom features a number of power-saving features designed to increase efficiency. The system can independently adjust the frequency of each core and dynamically disable unused parts of the CPU to reduce power consumption. The Phenom also has several thermal sensors that will automatically reduce the processor speed if heat becomes a problem, in case of CPU fan failure, for example.

The Athlon 64 has an integrated memory controller that helps reduce system memory access time, and AMD has continued supporting that feature in the Phenom by incorporating a DDR2 memory controller on the CPU die. The new integrated memory controller can handle DDR2 memory speeds, ranging from DDR2-400 up to DDR2-1066. AMD has also added HyperTransport 3.0 I/O data bus support, which greatly increases the amount of bandwidth available for data communications, provided that the processor is installed on an HT 3.0 capable motherboard. However, that does not mean that the Phenom will require a motherboard upgrade.

The Phenom is a Socket AM2+ chip, but it will work on current Socket AM2 motherboards. The backward compatibility support will allow current Socket AM2 Athlon 64 owners to upgrade to a Phenom processor without having to buy a new motherboard, but they might have to update the motherboard BIOS. Backward compatibility aside, AMD would still like customers to pick up an AMD 7-series motherboard to go along with every Phenom CPU.

The AMD 7-series chipsets all include Socket AM2+, HyperTransport 3.0, and PCI Express 2.0 support. The AMD 7-series includes three different chipsets: the AMD 790FX at the very high end, the AMD 790X at the merely high end, and the AMD 770 at the mainstream. The main difference between the chipsets is primarily the number of video cards each one supports. AMD 790FX motherboards will be able to support up to four video cards in CrossFireX configuration. AMD 790X boards will handle up to two cards, and the AMD 770 will be the chipset for single-card systems.

You can use the AMD OverDrive utility to overclock your CPU and memory

AMD will supply motherboard manufacturers with an AMD OverDrive utility that will let users tweak settings, such as CPU speeds, memory timings, and voltages. Experienced users will be able to take advantage of the granular options, but the application will also include an automated "Auto Clock" overclocking feature for beginners.

System Setup: Intel Core 2 Q6700, Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, Intel 975XBX2, AMD Phenom 9900, AMD Phenom 9600, ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows XP Professional SP2. Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 GTX, beta Nvidia ForceWare 169.09.
[Update: We listed the Intel Core 2 Q6700 and the Intel Core 2 E6700 incorrectly as the Q6600 and E6600, respectively, in the system setup. We have corrected the mistake and apologize for the error.]

We tested the 2.6GHz quad-core AMD Phenom 9900 against the 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Core 2 Q6700 to see how the two processors compared on a clock-for-clock basis.

The Intel Core 2 Q6700 turned in the better numbers in all of our tests. The Intel chip may have had an extra 60MHz to work with, but that's not nearly enough clock speed to account for the size of the performance gap. We also included the Intel Core 2 E6700 to see if we could spot any performance differences between dual-core and quad-core. The extra cores seemed to help most in the 3DMark06 CPU benchmark, the Valve Particle test, and the Crysis physics test.

The current Phenom chip design has a bug, or erratum as AMD prefers to call it, that may cause the system to hang in rare instances, such as while running in virtualization mode with high utilization across all four cores. All Phenom processors, including the Phenom 9700 and 9900 shipping in mid-to-late Q1 2008, will have revised cores with an erratum fix in place. Motherboard manufacturers will soon release new BIOS updates to resolve the issue in current Phenom processors, but the fix will result in some performance degradation.

AMD stressed to GameSpot that the problem is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that users will be able to use the AMD OverDrive utility to disable the errata fix to get full performance out of the processor. The Asus motherboard we tested did not have a BIOS fix, but we did not notice any system instability when we benchmarked our Phenom engineering sample using the motherboard's shipping BIOS. Please keep in mind that our test results show the Phenom running at full power without any errata fix limitations.

Judging by the benchmark results, it looks like AMD will need to increase clock speeds or lower the price of the Phenom to stay competitive with Intel, and it looks like AMD is doing a little of both. AMD has told GameSpot that the Phenom 9900 will sell for "below $350" when the chip arrives next spring. In comparison, the Intel Core 2 Q6700 currently retails for just under $550, but we wouldn't be surprised if Intel cuts the price to give the Phenom 9900 a warm welcome. AMD will also ship a 2.4GHz Phenom 9700 at around the same time for "below $300." Consumers can currently find the 2.2GHz Phenom 9500 and 2.3GHz Phenom 9600 in retail for about $250 and $275, respectively.

The AMD Phenom certainly isn't the Lebron James, Intel-killer many had hoped for, but it also isn't a Kwame Brown-like disappointment. The numbers show us that the CPU is competitive. If AMD can increase the clock speeds and keep the price affordable, the Phenom could very well develop into a star.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 406 comments about this story
406 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for p0rkp1e74
p0rkp1e74

269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By p0rkp1e74

happy gamers is the end result of the companies pushing the limits of what a cpu can do.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for igl
igl

215

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By igl

Q6700 ?! where is the Q6600? 6700 is twice as expensive and only 200mhz more. This looks like intel paid you make them look better, instead of a wise choice of cpus to buy.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Zhoutai12
Zhoutai12

158

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Zhoutai12

I'm currently using Intel's CoreDuo, but soon enough AMD is going to get level with Intel .. lets face it. But would it matter to us who wins at the end? This isn't English Football ^^ Let them battle it out, It would only mean things would get cheaper, and better. Are we not ... Happy?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Mercenary-73
Mercenary-73

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

Edited By Mercenary-73

Oh nice

Upvote • 
Avatar image for LahiruD
LahiruD

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By LahiruD

AMD's Phenom 9900 (2.6GHz) below $350 & Intel's 9450 (2.66GHz) is about ~$320. So who will win ? 2.6GHz vs 2.66GHz ? In this test Q6700 is faster than Phenom 9900. (10FPS+) & we also know that Q9450 (2.66GHz) will be 10-20% faster than 2.66GHz Quad (I mean Intel's Q6700....) So who's the winner ? Intel

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jntshumaker
jntshumaker

51

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By jntshumaker

HAH, what can you get from intel for 300 dollars? you can get the dual core 6850, which blows most intel extremes out of the water and beats quad cores in tests, do some research before you make statements like that.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for u8nogard
u8nogard

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By u8nogard

Interested to see future chips that the Phenom creates.. Good article.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for oldart
oldart

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By oldart

As I read the part in the article about upgrading, I (for a fleeting moment) considered the possibilities. I imagined that sleek, fast, engineering marvel in my aging computer. The comparison in my mind was that of someone dropping a Ferrari engine into the old family mini van. Hmm maybe it's time for a new computer, any suggestions?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MrGordons
MrGordons

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MrGordons

when they said 'Spider platform' i thought it would have 8 cores...oh well

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Icarusmk3
Icarusmk3

121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

Edited By Icarusmk3

@Biggm4tt77 Guys, the comparison scores they are showing are marginal at best...10-20 points? It doesn't make a big difference in the long run when you compare the 2 quad core cpus. Only thing is they are comparing last gen q6700 to AMD's latest and greatest. They aren't comparing Penryn to the Phenom. Plus if we refer to: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10648&page=7 As you can see the Phenom 9900's primary advantage (when compared to a q6600) is its using integration power with the Crossfire platform. So basically AMD is only good if you are going for the really high end stuff, not only do you "have to" buy their chip, you have to buy their motherboard and a pair of HD3870s in order to see some tangible results. Considering you can buy a Q6600 for just under $300 nowadays and the fact that the best "bang for your buck" video cards isn't the HD3870 but rather the 8800GT 512MB, I really don't see the point in going with the Spider package and limit myself to buying only AMD. It is the Ad Hoc advantage that helped IBM Compatible PCs to beat out Apple, if AMD's going the route of "buy AMD or get weak performance", then I'd rather stick with the "superior" Intel / Nvidia combo. * Side note to AMD fanboys, I've been using AMD for the past 3 computers I've had, the only reason why I went Intel this time was simply because of the vast differences when Intel introduced Core 2 Duo. Unless AMD is able to find some way to either make their package more "universally" powerful (rather than limiting themselves with only AMD/ATI parts), they will definitely continue to lose market shares to Intel and Nvidia. Their long term goal of integrating everything sounds great on paper, but the underlying flaws in their implementation will definitely be a put down to gamers who wants the biggest bang for their buck.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for BloodMist
BloodMist

32973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By BloodMist

If it's 200 bucks cheaper than the Intel, i'd definitely go for the AMD instead then.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Netherscourge
Netherscourge

16364

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Netherscourge

I've never had problems using AMD and ATI products. They've always been great, affordable and flawless. I don't care if Intel's products just BARELY tops-off AMD's. AMD's are much cheaper and that's where they win.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Biggm4tt77
Biggm4tt77

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Biggm4tt77

Guys, the comparison scores they are showing are marginal at best...10-20 points? It doesn't make a big difference in the long run when you compare the 2 quad core cpus.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wrattman91
wrattman91

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By wrattman91

hey i would buy it long as its cheap i hav been running amd chips in all my pc and they rock, was thinking bout gettin quadcore but i will just wait till the phenom comes out, and hopefully its a world wide realise casue i really cant bothered importing

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bluebusiness
bluebusiness

541

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By bluebusiness

Flikr do you know why we care about having a cool cpu? Heat can cause malfunction in the CPU so ofcourse lower temperatures help, maybe a little, but they help. This is a game site, and game sites have computer fanatics or "geeks", they like having to control their computer in every way, and if running a cool CPU seems useful and painless task to do, then they do it! Also you pointed out that if a core ran at 1000degrees it wouldnt make a diff, i guess you are exaggerating a little, but even if you are, that is not even remotely close to the failure temperature of cores. Many CPUs fail at around 70 degress celsius and others at higher temperatures, but if you start going above the CPU fails and can be damaged permanently. Let alone 100-200 degrees will damage your CPU but 1000? thats gnna fry youre whole computer, melt through the ground and burn someone to death on the first floor. Obviously you do not know much about CPUs, neither do I if i compare myself to others in this forum, but before saying things that are just ideas do some research, and maybe you wouldn't have ppl responding to you negatively.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for IBEX333
IBEX333

553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By IBEX333

More upcoming CPU price drops for both Intel and AMD !! Sweeeeett!!! Who cares who is better? Intel or AMD... I don't give a damn. The important thing is all this competition will make the prices fall like crazy. I'll finally get that Q6600 for cheap.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for balloni_
balloni_

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By balloni_

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bluebusiness
bluebusiness

541

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By bluebusiness

Dude. I know AMD is going to fight back. They are going to lower the prices and increase the core clocks. Yes intel might fight back but why are they? They wnna stay in the game because they are scared. AMD is not getting worse and worse they are just having mishaps and struggling at the same time. In the future, AMDs new platform of all 4 cores on one die is going to payoff. People always look at a current situations, and that can be understandable, but try and predict the future a little. No one thought Intel was going to beat AMD when it had its single core Athlon 64s... but they did with the dual cores. Its a rivalry between the two, and I respect both companies, but AMD is definately still in the game and most likely will come out on top at times, so will Intel.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for beckoflight
beckoflight

848

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 63

User Lists: 0

Edited By beckoflight

Well if you look at tom's hardware ... you will se that the AMD surpasses the best intel QX outhere in processing ( unrar , mpeg etc.) but in games its a little below a Q6600 .... but if you want it to use it for work its a much better choice & olso its one li 1.2% slower than a Q6600 in games .... anyway i'm loooking foreword to se more of the AMD family of Quad Core's ....for now i use a E6700 !

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MiltoxBeyond
MiltoxBeyond

175

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MiltoxBeyond

Paabss. Obviously you don't know much, because a good overclocker could take the AMD cpu, which is half the price as the Intel, and make it run faster for a lot less money.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xgalacticax
xgalacticax

2225

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By xgalacticax

i guess the core 2 Q6700 remains the best. Four cores in one chip sounds good though

Upvote • 
Avatar image for evermore27
evermore27

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By evermore27

I would still take this over the Intel one at the moment, just because of heat issues i've always had with Intel, but I am curious to see what the new Intel CPU is goona be like.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for johnnych_cr
johnnych_cr

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By johnnych_cr

well I guess is better than Intel's 1K dollars CPU.....

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c41957f09fc0
deactivated-5c41957f09fc0

173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

flikr: You are sorely mistaking in so many ways, but I guess you're entitled to an opinion, even if it smells like trolling. First - more than 2 GB makes sense if you are , let's say, a graphic designer, or working in CAD/CAM programs - unfortunately the 32-bit OSs out there don't support more than 4 GB RAM total (incl. GPU RAM), so looking forward we'll have to use 64-bit OSs - like vista 64-bit - in order to be able to use more than 4GB ram. Oh, and games are becoming more RAM demanding, don't expect 2 GB to be pure gaming bliss forever. Multicore systems makes sense in a lot of ways - take UT3, in which multicore systems get definite fps boost - and scales nicely up to 4 cores. And generally the system gets snappier, when it has more cores to distribute work to. Like running your AV scan while playing games. Many work-related programs are beginning to use the additional cores (like 3D programs, the Adobe suite etc.) Generally speaking, it already makes sense with a lot of RAM in your computer and multicore CPUs.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for paabss
paabss

1001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By paabss

lol!! i like it wyhen people said" almost same perfomance as intel, godd job amd!!" LOL almost? hahaha take a look at the number again, in every comparisoon AMD comes last and we r talking about AMD new chips vs AMD 1 year old chips,!! wow!! AMD is gettin worse and worse, just like ATI cant surprass NVIDIA 1 year old 8800 series with it new cards, people talk about money, but when u r a PC gamer u really dont have a limit to spend, Processor are important and the better processor u get the more power u will have, AMD is in a huge hole, Intel is gonna release new processors and this old processor will have a 60% price cut! ouch!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for 666NightsInHell
666NightsInHell

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By 666NightsInHell

ATI and AMD stuff is just a little slower in some applications but price is twice LOWER, i never pay 250$ or more for 2-3 fps

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Razzi65
Razzi65

243

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Razzi65

wht abt PS3??? lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Upvote • 
Avatar image for annarex
annarex

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

Edited By annarex

Good for amd they are thinking for new ways to battle with Intel they are not wining but they are doing they best.In the past Amd has defeated Intel maybe it can again but in the future.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gaz-420
gaz-420

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

Edited By gaz-420

@flikr First of all, if you have a 64bit OS, you can have more than 2GB of RAM, and yes, we will be seeing games very soon that use more than 2G of RAM, and Multi processors. It will become the norm. When I run Crysis in 64bit, I am using over 2G of RAM and both Cores. Give it a year, and alot of games will be doing the same. Quake also supports multi cores, which it has for a long time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MichaelGeorge70
MichaelGeorge70

69

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MichaelGeorge70

flikr core 2 is amazing i just upgraded form a p4 ht 3.2ghz 2mb lv2cache to a e6750 2.66ghz 4mb lv2 and on a game like neverwinter nights 2 i used to memorise all the tips now i cant even read halfway through them, as for ram you spot on only real difference is the clock speeds, and latency timers

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gaffyh
gaffyh

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By gaffyh

AMD seems to be getting worse and worse...i used to stick by AMD and ATI, but most games i played ran poorly and some never worked...i'm glad i switched to Intel and Nvidia

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bob_geldof221
bob_geldof221

3259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By bob_geldof221

intel leapfrogging amd in term of output of power on anything with two cores or more...the end for amd? did used to buy only amd but at the moment intel is by far the leader love my Q6700.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for flikr
flikr

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By flikr

another thing, anything more that 2gigs of memory right now is a total waste, there is a little thing called ctr-alt-delete, press it, it brings up your task manager, click the performance tab, see that little thing called "memory usage", that's how much memory you are using, as long as you have that much memory or greater, you will not benefit from more memory, notice all the benchmarks in games where 2/4/6/8 gigs give you same fps, that is why. So stop trying to increase your e-penis by boasting you have 4/6/8 gigs of memory, all you are doing is making it cheaper for me to buy my 2 gigs of memory on newegg.com where it is half the price of what you pay at best buy, also, there is no real advantage to having a dual core cpu, let alone a quad core, only a few games even support 2 cores so your wasting your time

Upvote • 
Avatar image for L_i_o_n
L_i_o_n

292

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By L_i_o_n

if u want to be stupid buy this phenom, or if u want to be smart, wait for intel to release something even more powerful, as they usualy do.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KikkoHC
KikkoHC

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By KikkoHC

This is just pitiful effort from AMD to compete against Intel's core2duo...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jediclone66
jediclone66

52

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jediclone66

the intel line still seems to be better i love my qx6700

Upvote • 
Avatar image for flikr
flikr

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By flikr

I would just like to point out that everyone's fascination with "power consumption". WHY THE F DO YOU CARE? The total power cost of running a cpu is about 50 cents per month. Lets say a processer uses 3watts of power. And your are like "oh my god is uses too much power you suck intel, amd only uses 2WATSS. Congrajuf'inglations you will save 20 f''in cents per month. Why do you care? Another thing is how "cool" it runs. Again why the f do you care. It has become some kind mindless geek talk about cpu's. It is a cpu, you use to make it run your computer fast. If it uses 20gigawatts of power and heats up to 1000 degrees farenhight, why would you care?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for thenewau25
thenewau25

2058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 28

User Lists: 0

Edited By thenewau25

well? not much of a difference...expect the prices!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rkangel
rkangel

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By rkangel

1. I support AMD because they keep competition going + processors are good. 2. To bad for quad cores processors because very very few take advantage of them, if any. 3. Programming in multi threads is a B***H. Thats why the cell is so hard to program for + they are assymetrical. The cell would be horrible for Desktop and not cost effective for game developers. It would have been nice if somehow they allowed the 4 cores to work as one, two, and four when needed. From what Ive learned, when an application/game doesnt take advantage of multi cores, only one core does the job while the other hangs for additional applications or background programs. Sure thats less stress on individual cores, but its not faster as in GHz speed. Then again you have to take heat and power consumption into account so ... whatever.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sean_ph
sean_ph

116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sean_ph

a lot of the comments here show the dissappointment of some people about DAAMIT's latest chip. for me, im not entirely dissappointed since i knew a month or so ago that the Phenom really wasnt that phenomenal to begin with. im not saying its slow, its actually much faster than any of DAAMIT's prior chips. its just that it isnt as fast as the Chipzilla's older chips, much less the newer ones. that being said, i will stand by my earlier statement that for DAAMIT to compete with Chipzilla this round, DAAMIT has to do either or all of these things: a. lower the prices and make their offerings truly bang for the buck b. lower power consumption even further c. both a and b combined other than these things, i don't know what else DAAMIT can do to keep up with Chipzilla's Core 2 ace.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for razu_gamer
razu_gamer

4131

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By razu_gamer

For the next computer it is an AMD phenom, Radeaon whatever and AMD 7 series motherboard. No more Heroes *cough* I meant compatibility issues.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for superdavex3
superdavex3

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By superdavex3

i've been boycotting intel since they moved their headquarters to china. for me, its amd all the way!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gfile
gfile

1565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

Edited By gfile

Yes...this powerful processor has showed up on the market after i bought AMD X2 6000:cry: , so i wonder(coz i have spend big amount of money recently building my POWER PC) can i plug it on my n570 board?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Zharay
Zharay

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Zharay

Even though the idea of encompassing both gpu and cpu architectures on a single chips sounds like a really good idea, I think I'd rather have it just purely cpu based for pure performance. The processor will be KILLER in a laptop however. Much more energy efficient then Intel's offering, AMD will probably see a great market for those chips. But as a mainly desktop gamer, I need as much performance as the chip is willing to give. @ vincentga Wow you must be very misinformed. While it is true that the today's processors are actually falling behind due to the majority of users running them on 32-bit OSs, there are 64-bit OSs for all platforms (Windows, Apple, and Linux all have this as either it's own version of the operating system or bundled with the OS natively). This allows for memory of up to 16 terabytes (16384 gigabytes) maximum in ram, and a wide "roadway" for processors to access and process data. Being backwards compatible is slowly becoming less of an issue as there is now much more space and power to emulate and run older code while conforming to newer standards. And I have no clue what your going at for HD. HD is purely what your video card and monitor (or TV) are capable of. Nearly all current gen video cards can process video up to and well above 1080p. If your computer cannot perform at these resolutions then yes, YOU will need new hardware, but not the industry as its doing fine. There are also now solid-state drives (basically giant usb drives) that can almost instantly load data. They are expensive and new, but if you build a system for speed, then waiting for your hard drive to load then your system is either bogged down or just plain slow. The CPU cache is for its own processing and calculations. If you mean shared video memory, then thats your motherboard's design, and yes it does suck. Intel and Microsoft do have a large lead but they are far from monopoly. Intel has a hard time keeping AMD from holding the server processor market, and Microsoft has it's hands busy against Linux and Apple both making considerable gains since Vista was launched. You may want to read on Wikipedia and sites like HardOC for information. Your kids may benefit a huge amount if you yourself knew the current state of the PC market.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ele975
ele975

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

Edited By ele975

Strangely i knew that Intel would win this battle, but i bet AMD ain't done, prolly in the next 2 - 3 or 4 months, they're developing another Quad-Core

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vincentga
vincentga

49

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Edited By vincentga

Hi everybody, People talk a lot about multi-core. But they forget that they don't have real Operating System for them (Microsoft, Apple, Linux, etc. suck). Also hardware (motherboard) are base on old technology. So, like for TV HD (we need ALL components to perform HD to appreciate this technology, and TV programs too), Multi-Core need a real Operating System and a new hardware (motherboard). We wait again all time from Hard Drive. And all CPU need his own memory. Share memory suck. But for now Microsoft + Intel have monopoly. Hope my kids will know other things...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for IsmirZone
IsmirZone

1173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By IsmirZone

Some of you need to stop with the PS3s Cell proccessor comments. The Cell Proccessor is nearly if not 2yrs old since it was developed. The one in the PS3 is not running one of the eight cores that the Cell has. As for the new AMD I wonder if they will bring out a 3.0Ghz version sooner or later. Still the price of AMD proccessors is always reasonable.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for uberjannie
uberjannie

1762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By uberjannie

ewjim : or not.. If you had software that would be developed for the platform, maybe.. But doubtful even then. You really should read something about this subject.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for elfboy69
elfboy69

277

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By elfboy69

I'm kinda sorry for AMD. I sold my 4200+ system about 3 months ago and got a E6420 and OC it to 3.2GHz. I was really hopping that their new Phenom CPUs would set Intel back some and lower the prices. But with a 2.6GHz Phenom x4 being a little slower than a Q6600 at 2.4GHz it doesn't look like AMD will take the crown this year.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dubk
dubk

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dubk

I think this is a step in the right direction for AMD, though they will definitely need to step up clock speeds. I would be interested to see a black edition release of the phenom, which will hopefully be announced in the near future.

Upvote •