EggXpert

It would be very funny, I know intel would be kinda p****d but that would be great news for all us of since intel will just go back and make something better, competition is a great thing. I personally hope phenom x2s beat core2duos cuz im tired of hearing about core2duos(lol)

Well I don't actually know how much different the phenoms are from the athlon 64 x2s, I know they have a L3 cache which sounds great and that there 65nm ofcourse
If you could post some more differences that would great...

from what I've been hearing, penryn isn'ta huge increase over conroe, so it looks like AMD might take the market this year! AMD really needs this win, this is the choke point, they will lose too much market share if this can't out do intel.

The suspense is killing me!!! I am loyal to neither AMD or Intel, I just want the best performing processor for the money. $400 is the high end of my price range.

It looks like right now the top AMD Phenom dual core CPU's "Kuma" to be released in the first quarter of 2008 will be in the 2.2 to 2.6GHz range. It will have 2 x 512MB of L2 cache and another 2MB shared L3 cache. It is on the 65nm technology which will be AMD's second go for desktop 65nm chips. They had plenty of time to develop and improve on the 65nm technology.

The top "Wolfdale" Intel Core 2 Duo Penryn chip will be the E8500 which is Intel first design on a 45nm technology. It will have 6MB of shared L2 cache and should go for right around the same price as the E6850 is currently. It is also clocked at 3.16GHz. It is really going to take a very efficient microarchecture from AMD to top Intel in the Dual Core market. I would be more than happy to admit which one performs better after the release and some benchmarks of those chips. I am leaning towards Intel in the Dual processor market but would be very happy to be surprised.

Personally, my eyes are on the quads though. That is where we will finally get to see a native quad "Agena" with a great microarcheticture vs a non-native quad "Yorkfield" with a great microarchitecture. We will get to see if the "Native Quad" 65nm design is able to outperform a "Non-native" quad design based on the 45nm tech and with more cache (12MB for everything but the lowest clocked/priced CPU which has 6MB).  My eyes, ears and mind are all over this. I don't root for either company, I just want the best. Either company may be producing a processor that I will possess in the future. I will be happy either way. I am tired of the hype, it is time to produce!!!

Aedion:

AMD really needs this win, this is the choke point, they will lose too much market share if this can't out do intel.

touche... AMD does need this win or it will be so hard for him to catch Intel...

I've always prefered AMD for their efficent design over clock speeds. Intel's run fast but they've always run HOT, I only have one Core Duo machine built for my wife and even though I have more than ample cooling in there it just eminates so much heat. I just can't help but see that as wasted energy and a shorter life for my components. I've always respected that AMD didn't rush to market with some overclocked heater just to have the fastest clock speed title. Not to mention they're cheaper.

I hope AMD's Phenom's mop the floor with Intel, in fact I'm counting on it. I'm still running on an Athlon 64 4000+ and refuse to upgrade to anything but another AMD.

Call me a fan boy, but there is a difference between working fast and working smart.

I just need them to work fast to come out with these already, hehe 

I guess I look at this all differently. 

Phenom may or may not beat out Intel.  I am not to concerned with it, because regardless the Phenom will still be an excellent processor. 

When it comes to new system builds for my customers, I break it all down to them.  I let them know which processor is technically better, which one is cheaper, and which one I feel would best serve them.  9 out of every 10 customers will never notice the difference between a Core 2 Duo and the closest competing Athlon 64 X2. It honestly only seems to be here on these boards where the real battle between the two emerges. 

Average home end customers don't care which processor gets the better 3D Mark scores.  They just want a good processor, and regardless if they go with AMD or Intel, they will get a good processor. 

Now personally, I am waiting to see what the Phenoms do, as I do care about the 3D Mark scores and top end performance.  But I am just one guy. 

Whatever the Phenoms do AMD surely hopes they are good.  While AMD is losing hundreds of millions a quarter Intel just announced net profits of $1.8billion last quarter.  Then again the big rumor out there is that IBM is looking into buying AMD, and that would even the financial field.  Can't say how likely that is but the rumor has been gaining steam.

Gametech:

I've always prefered AMD for their efficent design over clock speeds. Intel's run fast but they've always run HOT, I only have one Core Duo machine built for my wife and even though I have more than ample cooling in there it just eminates so much heat. I just can't help but see that as wasted energy and a shorter life for my components.

Obviously you used the previous generation of the Core Duo's for this.  The last generation of the Core Duo's was very cool running.  My E6850 runs cooler than my 4600. 

 

WOW!!!!

If IBM were to purchase AMD/ATI, it would nearly doom Intel for good.   

 

I don't think it would doom it but it would mean Intel would no longer have a giant financial advantage.  I would say they would be more equals.  Plus IBM does have processor building experience so it is not like they would get AMD and have no plan.

yes, the cell processor is a great example of IBM's microprocessor technology.

Ahh yes, it would be great if IBM got AMD, it would definitely give AMD the extra push they need

Aedion:

yes, the cell processor is a great example of IBM's microprocessor technology.

Also the xbox 360s xenon was designed by IBM
And the Wii and gamecubes cpus were desgned by IBM

And all up until about two yearsago, all Macs were on IBM PowerPC processor. 

Wasn't aware of the similarity, though I do own a PS3.  Apparently, no matter which console you use, IBM wins...

I am just wondering about Phenom pricing, I would really like to get my hands on one but I doubt ill wait for the Phenom and it probably will be pricey at first.

lets face it anything is faster than whats in my sig now (im in the process of upgrading emonster is my in-between machine) and i am dying to get a new machine after parting out my 939 which was really fast.

AMD has always been the leader in getting the most bang for your buck Intel may lead the pack but the difference from most of the benchmarks between Intel and AMD ive read isnt enough to persuade me yet. 

 

Phenom out-performs Core2Duo! Phenom them goes and out-performs Core2Quad!!!!

YES! The crowd cheers!!!

...and then the AMD engineer woke up...

Really, it sucks for perfectly good people and projects to have to settle for 2nd place.. but at least AMD isn't Crusoe/Transmeta! :D

CheapAsianGamerGuy:

Phenom out-performs Core2Duo! Phenom them goes and out-performs Core2Quad!!!!

YES! The crowd cheers!!!

...and then the AMD engineer woke up...

Really, it sucks for perfectly good people and projects to have to settle for 2nd place.. but at least AMD isn't Crusoe/Transmeta! :D

lmao, hey its possible for phenoms to outperform core2duos, even though I doubt it myself :(
but never say never....

I am not a big AMD fan but I want them to survive. It is looking dicy however.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119272909111763667.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

 

No benchmark and no reviews hard to say that the phenoms got the upper hand, right now I just wait for the reviews to come.  By the way Phenoms coming out at this year or Q1 of 2008?

prtuc2:

No benchmark and no reviews hard to say that the phenoms got the upper hand, right now I just wait for the reviews to come.  By the way Phenoms coming out at this year or Q1 of 2008?

Theres supposed to be a phenom x4 quad core out this year

personally, i think (my opinion based on previews) that penryn vs phenom will be VERY close (for similarly priced processors and at stock clock) with penryn squeaking out a small lead overall

...but then again, just my guess...

Just for reference... Penryn isn't supposed to compete with Phenom. Penryn is actually a die-shrink (2nd Generaton) of Intel's Core2Qaud (Kentsfield) line, at 45nm instead of 65nm.

As 65nm Quad Core CPUs, Phenom is supposed to compete with the Kentsfield CPU's, which are being OBSOLETED by Penryn.

Penryn is the name of the next microarchitecture from Intel. They will have dual/quad core desktop chips, dual/quad mobile chips and even some server chips. We are talking about 35 different processors. From what I have read, the dual core Phenoms (at least for the first iteration of Phenom) are actually Quad core chips with 2 of the cores disabled. Intel has the advantage in that it takes 2 dual core chips and fuses them together. This is what will give them better yeilds - it is much easier to create a wafer with a higher yield with dual core chips that it is for AMD to create "native" quads on the 65nm technology.

Phenom (Agena FX, Agena, and Kuma) was designed to compete with Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. Intel having already a sturdy design with the Conroe, was able to be a step ahead of AMD . Now the Phenom's will have to compete with not just Conroe/Kentsfield, but also Wolfdale/Yorkfield. AMD's ability to produce another evolution of Phenom on a 45nm die shrink may come after the release of Nehalem first generation CPU's which are the second release from Intel on a 45nm process (completely redesigned from the ground up). The Nehalem release has been mentioned to be scheduled for the 2nd half of 2008.

I don't think AMD Kuma (dual core) is going to compete very well with Wolfdale. The quads are another story and nothing but speculation at this point - here we get to see "native" vs "non-native" duke it out. This is the battle I have been waiting for.

Anandtech did a virtual preview of the Phenoms using AMD server processors and this is what they found. Looks like AMD will be able to compete with Intels Quads but not beat them. As their final word says below, it's gonna be really tough for AMD because producing these phenoms will cost them more but to stay competitive they will have to reduce the costs, making this price war even worse for them. Which of course really sucks, I hope they can get out of this without being bought out or something.

Source:  http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3092&p=1

You see, we've known for a while that Barcelona was going to do well for AMD on the server side. AMD is far more competitive there than in the desktop market, mostly thanks to its Direct Connect architecture, something Intel won't be able to duplicate until the end of 2008 with Nehalem. Barcelona will improve clock-for-clock performance over Opteron and is a drop in replacement for Socket-1207 servers with nothing more than a BIOS update; the Enterprise world couldn't be happier.

Things are different on the desktop; AMD hasn't been competitive since the launch of Core 2 in the Summer of 2006 and we're very worried that even after Phenom's late-year launch, the market still won't be competitive. While that's great for consumers today, the concern is that a non-competive AMD will bring about a more complacent Intel, which we do not want. We want the hungry Intel that we've enjoyed for the past year, we want ridiculous performance and aggressive pricing, and we won't get that without an AMD that can fight.

But AMD won't tell us anything about how Phenom will perform, other than that it will be competitive with Conroe/Kentsfield. So the goal here today is to get an idea of exactly how much faster Barcelona (the same core that'll be in Phenom X4) will be compared to the Athlon 64 X2.  

We can't draw too many sweeping conclusions based on the data here today, but here's what we do know:

- Gaming performance is much improved with Barcelona over K8, this is most likely a result of the improvements to the SSE engine and the wider front end of the core.

- Encoding performance is improved (again SSE128 rearing its head), but 3dsmax saw an unexpectedly large performance improvement.

- With a 10 - 15% increase in performance on average, Phenom should be more competitive than K8 was on the desktop (as expected).

Here's where things get complicated; we knew Phenom/Barcelona would be faster clock for clock, it was only a matter of how big of an improvement we'd get. If we are to believe that 15% is the best we'll get on average, taking into account that Penryn is around 5% faster than Conroe, the updated architecture from AMD alone isn't enough to really compete with Intel. In other words, price matters.

We saw how competitive AMD became after the first round of price cuts this year, but after the second set Intel went back to dominating. The trouble for AMD this time around is that Phenom is a much larger chip than the outgoing Athlon 64 X2, whereas Intel's Penryn family will actually be smaller than Conroe. AMD is already losing a considerable amount of money each quarter, so fabbing a larger chip at the same price as current CPUs will only make the situation worse. However, Intel can afford to continue to keep its processors as aggressively priced, especially moving to 45nm.

To put it plainly: Phenom/Barcelona make this price war more difficult on AMD, while Penryn makes it easier on Intel. What's the end game? Is there a solution? We're not sure, all we know today is a starting point for Phenom expectations.

Just saw a video post by ish178 on the AMD new processor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYvupXNmaKQ.  Looks like new performance level has been reach just assuming.