Phenom "B3" is out

[Sharktooth]

It took a while, but finally, with the release of the "B3" stepping, AMD can compete with Intel (http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_9850_B3_Revision/?page=4) in the clock per clock performance war.
Also some competition will surely help the prices...
Read on: http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_9850_B3_Revision/

[lucassp]

Actually the performance in x264 is very good. But it still looses in other benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3272&p=10

[dragongodz]

in the clock per clock performance war.

sorry but people do not pay the same per clock so it is irrelevant. price to price with performance is the only thing an actual buyer cares about in that regard. the phenoms pricing is looking pretty good in that way.

But it still looses in other benchmarks.

however if someone is on a budget, and lets be real the vast majority are, then even if it is slower for some things the fact it is also cheaper helps make up for that.

[IgorC]

Other important factor is power consumption.
It will be interesting to see if AMD made a progress in it.

[lucassp]

No...and I can't understand why. Phenom has less transistors than Q6600 (450M vs 582M), they're both on 65nm but the Phenom needs more power and the temps are higher.

[Sharktooth]

the B3 requires even more power at full load. cool'n'quite does a damn good job at keeping the idle temps below the intel 65nm counterparts though.
seems the intel high-k tech is better than the amd SOI...
however as its vice president said, AMD is committed to enhance power saving techs so expect huge improvements from the next die shrink.

Actually the performance in x264 is very good. But it still looses in other benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3272&p=10
optimizations... actually x264 is optimized almost equally for both intel and amd cpus. while other "intel sponsorized" softwares may not be properly optimized for amd cpus.
the same thing happens in nvidia sponsirized games. ati/amd have always to find workarounds in drivers to make their cards have decent performance.

[burfadel]

Yes, apparently the Intel Compiler was not only just optimising the software for Intel CPU's while negating those optimisations when AMD cpu's were used, but also designing the compiler in such a way as to be less stable on AMD cpu's. That was a claim made a couple of years ago that I haven't heard much on since.

A great example of this is a couple of years ago with the p4 vs the athlon 64. With all non intel compiler compiled programmes the athlon 64 beat the Intel, however on the Intel compiler compiled programmes the p4 snuck ahead, with the AMD's performing surprisingly low for doing similar things to the other non Intel compiler compiled programmes! Athlon 64 in my opinion was significantly better, especially in the cost/performance relationship.

There are many people out there that are either Intel or AMD fanboys (or fangirls), that only buy either for the fact that they believe the product they're buying is superior regardless of the facts right in front of them.

Companies who wanted value for money computers in the past, as an example, bought Intel Celeron's which were priced the same as the Athlon's (or k6's going further back), even though the AMD's were not only better performing for the equivalent CPU but were also cheaper for the equivalent CPU.

A fact of point is that the original Celerons did not have an L2 cache, which meant they were a chronic joke. They were so slow and sluggish by the standards of the time. The AMD's left them for dead and in same cases were actually cheaper.

I'd love to see the AMD cpu's performing on par or even better than the Intel's. its good to have competition because it increases development of ever superior CPU's. Without competition there would still be development, however at a slower pace that balances the best profit margins. Might I also add competition keeps the prices down, consumer's need both Intel and AMD, and Ati and Nvidia, otherwise in the end its only the consumers that will be left disadvantaged.

I really hope AMD bring out better phenoms before the years end, as the next generation Intel CPU's will be due out next year along with a new socket. If these CPU's, possibly being 4 and 8 cores instead of 2 and 4 as current, outperform the Core 2's significantly then AMD will be in some serious trouble if their CPU's continue to be outperformed by the current Core 2's.

Before it seems that I am an AMD fanboy, I usually buy the best performing CPU, at the moment that means I have an Intel. However, people are comparing whats supposedly the equivalent CPU, when they should be comparing the equivalent build price of the computer (as you really need to include the cost of the motherboard as well). The AMD's probably aren't as far behind in this respect than what outwardly seems the case.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Can't scoff at the x264 performance. If there's a opteron version of the Pheonm along soon, I see exciting potential for cheap dual socket octocore systems for us encoding nerds :D

~MiSfit

[IgorC]

the B3 requires even more power at full load. cool'n'quite does a damn good job at keeping the idle temps below the intel 65nm counterparts though.

From the link that you gave the most cold AMD cpu is hotter in idle mode than Intel at full load.
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_9850_B3_Revision/?page=8


Top AMD vs Top Intel quadcore CPUS:

AMD Phenom B3 (Idle) consumes 232 Watts
Intel QX 9650 (Load 100%) consumes 206 Watts.

And it's total system power. Particular difference between only CPU powers is even bigger.

[Dark Shikari]

Core 2 performance has improved as of late with x264 though... so depending on what revision you use between about 690 and latest, you may get quite different results.

[delacroixp]

Companies who wanted value for money computers in the past, as an example, bought Intel Celeron's which were priced the same as the Athlon's (or k6's going further back), even though the AMD's were not only better performing for the equivalent CPU but were also cheaper for the equivalent CPU.
I guess price and performance are not the only issues. Reliability, service and brand-name also play their part.

Many companies (and individuals) are loyal to Intel because they've got long-term endurance and consistency. AMD has tended to be a 'flash in the pan' or 'one night wonder' at times.
Most jeans, instrinsicaly, have the same material quality but brand names like Levi © can demand higher prices.

AMD has still some way to go in delivering a consistently better product !


:):devil::D
Pascal

[Sharktooth]

From the link that you gave the most cold AMD cpu is hotter in idle mode than Intel at full load.
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_9850_B3_Revision/?page=8


Top AMD vs Top Intel quadcore CPUS:

AMD Phenom B3 (Idle) consumes 232 Watts
Intel QX 9650 (Load 100%) consumes 206 Watts.

And it's total system power. Particular difference between only CPU powers is even bigger.
QX 9650 is 45nm. however yes, you're right i confused the rows.

[Sagittaire]

It took a while, but finally, with the release of the "B3" stepping, AMD can compete with Intel (http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_9850_B3_Revision/?page=4) in the clock per clock performance war.
Also some competition will surely help the prices...
Read on: http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_9850_B3_Revision/

At the same clock Q6xxx produce always better result than phenon and Q9xxx is by far better. And I don't speak about O/C potential. With Q6600 (easy to make O/C at 3.2 Ghz) you have potentialy better CPU than all the other phenon (O/C limit at 2.8 Ghz). The clock potential limit for Intel CPU is by far better too (at ~4.0 Ghz for Intel vs ~3.0 Ghz for AMD).

[Inventive Software]

That'll change when AMD gets their 45nm process sorted. ;)

[delacroixp]

That'll change when AMD gets their 45nm process sorted. ;)
We hope so... competition can only be a good thing !


:):devil::D
Pascal

[Sharktooth]

new and more complete review: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom9850/
the old b2 phenoms were tested with the TLB patch disabled (using AMD OverDrive utility).

[Inventive Software]

Something I spotted on that page:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7411/amdkitchenlr0.png

But anyway...

Provided AMD can shrink it even further, I can see them being competitive to Intel at last, but they need another "big leap" to make it seem worthwhile to me.

[Sharktooth]

LOL, i've blacklisted almost all ads sites so i cant see those funky things :D
However, phenoms b3 are appetible CPUs right now. for a lower price than a q6600 you get a comparable performance CPU with unlocked multipliers and an idiot-safe overclocking software.