AMD Phenom FX-80 {4.0Ghz} and FX-82 {4.4Ghz}

[(Spork)]

AMD is back baby! 4.0GHz processors, Intel will be blown out of the water for a couple of quarters.

ROFLMAO what

[CrashG]

Can't beat them for price though X2 cheap as chips and still powerful compared to intel. For price of Core 2 quad Q9300 or Q6600 locally i got a 5600+ 2.8GHz dual core + 3870 graphics card for less then the intel cpu alone. most people are paying premium for "power" which probably generally speaking goes unused or isn't needed

But you're comparing a Dual Core (X2) to a Quad Core (Qxxx). It's not too surprising that it was cheaper. :rolleyes:

Edited August 29, 2008 by CrashGordon

[Impact]

I'll stick with my Intel :)

[gwai lo]

Come on the P4 (Prescott and some northwoods) were notorious for producing tons of heat... That was then.

Also, slight pet peeve..but the fan is quiet. Processors don't really make noise..

processors don't make noise. It might be a shoddy fan or something.

How's this such a difficult concept? My P4 3.0C @ 3.6 on XP-90 + Panaflo probably sounds the same as your rig.

[S7un7]

AMD is back baby! 4.0GHz processors, Intel will be blown out of the water for a couple of quarters.

.....I had a good laugh at what you said and the fact that your username, "Skulltrail", is Intel related.

[notuptome2004]

Here is a good question for someone more or less question on what they think

AMD has what they call true-quad core design with each core having its own pipeline rather then sharing a single pipeline between 2 cores Now intels quad is a dual 2 core in 1 housing rather then 4 distinctly separated cores with separate pipelines so instead each dual core in intels quad design shares a single pipeline so do you think AMDs phenom design would be better in the long run with less of a bottleneck for those who might stress the chip hard.

[gwai lo]

Nehalem's design isn't like that though, which changes the whole thing for me. Multithreaded applications today run faster on Intel's chips still and as software is improved to the point where this design is stressed, Nehalem will be mainstream (I doubt we're going to have some kind of software revolution in the next few months where multithreaded programming becomes much more common).

[roadgeek9]

Wow, a 4 GHz CPU - FINALLY! And it might match up to a 5 GHz? Wow!

[ObiWanToby]

Here is a good question for someone more or less question on what they think

AMD has what they call true-quad core design with each core having its own pipeline rather then sharing a single pipeline between 2 cores Now intels quad is a dual 2 core in 1 housing rather then 4 distinctly separated cores with separate pipelines so instead each dual core in intels quad design shares a single pipeline so do you think AMDs phenom design would be better in the long run with less of a bottleneck for those who might stress the chip hard.

Is Penryn still the dual dual core design?

[Matrix XII]

If AMDs broken the 4GHz mark (at stock level) intel should have some competition. I wouldnt rule AMD out yet

Yeah 4Ghz stock is quite impressive. I wonder what people are going to OC those to?!

[gwai lo]

Probably not much further, physical limitations should still be a factor.

First off we know that the pipeline of Deneb isn't going to change drastically, think Netburst here. Next, AMD's 45nm isn't as mature as Intel's..and I'm sure there are some other things. Anyway, just based on what little I know about this, it doesn't seem like the MHz are just going to roll in for AMD.

[Ci7]

wow i am suprised ! at least some moves from AMD sides since core 2 release amd is like errrm cursed performnace wise lol

but still doesnt make sense comparing unreleased Quadcore cpu with 2 year old quadcore

oh comn ! it should be at least compared to some penryn chips which at least the last chips released .... by intel

anyway after a month kentsfield would be as extinct/obsolete as the dodo bird !

ahh yes ! the yet unreleased Core i7 ! that would be coming

i would expect phenom FX to arrive around January next year which give ....

and i dont care who the chip is made slaped dies or whatever which matter me * higher performance*

which core 2 Quads destroyed everything in there path

and i dont care if amd slaped four cpu dies in one package !! as i said ....

for a reminder AMD is planning slapped (six core die )12 core slapped cpu next year ....... so lol at amd fans

[wellofsouls]

Is Penryn still the dual dual core design?

yes, it's still sticking up two dual-cores to get a quad-core.

Nehalem will be the one to change that on Intel's side.

[MR.T]

Anything that gives AMD some more funding/time to sort its **** out is good news to me. Dont get me wrong I'm running a Intel E8400... but I'm still an AMD fan :wub:. Its crazy that there is really only one brand choice for people who are looking at a gaming rig.

[wellofsouls]

Anything that gives AMD some more funding/time to sort its **** out is good news to me. Dont get me wrong I'm running a Intel E8400... but I'm still an AMD fan :wub:. Its crazy that there is really only one brand choice for people who are looking at a gaming rig.

Ditto. Even if I'm not an AMD fan for their processors, I'm still an AMD fan for their efforts to pull down the Intel processor prices drastically ;)

[Squall-Leonhart]

Sorry, guys, but the images the linked site provided are fakes. they were initially used elsewhere to show a 2.2Ghz deneb overclocked to 4Ghz. However the faker forgot to adjust the voltage from stock voltage.

The only valid overclock on engineering samples is 2.2Ghz to 3.44ghz, and 2.4Ghz to 3.6Ghz.

Stock voltages are below 1.2v, overclock to 3.4 and 3.6 required a bump to 1.475. Knowing that, its not likely that 4Ghz stock would be @ 1.168v.

[Genius]

if AMD can put some pressure on Intel, it's all better for us

[Squall-Leonhart]

if AMD can put some pressure on Intel, it's all better for us

I'd personally buy the Phenom anyway. i'm not after 5 less seconds in SuperPI, and the Phenoms have proved to be more effective for my own interests.

[wst50]

Atom? Read up on Athlon64 2000+ for power consumption.

Sheesh, that's a nice set of numbers. But my Atom N270 system is using just under 10W at the moment (At most I use ~17W, that's playing a 3d Java game, music, aMSN, and a couple of other tabs open. Still, despite being a subnotebook, it's Atom powered)

I think AMD made a mistake buying ATI at the time. They split their resources too much and there were old whispers of a new Intel proc with 1 or 2 cores (The Core Solo and Duo) for a few years before that. If they had focussed on making something that would match/better the Intel proc (Intel has a better name so can get away with more), then maybe they could have gone into ATI. (Though, would AMD have had enough to buy ATI once Dx10 was released?)

I remember the good old K8 vs. Prescott days, ahh, the memories.

Edit:Weird bug thar

Edited September 4, 2008 by wst50

[Digitalx]

But you're comparing a Dual Core (X2) to a Quad Core (Qxxx). It's not too surprising that it was cheaper. :rolleyes:

i was comparing a dual core processor and graphics card to the price of a single quad core.

[TEX4S]

yeah....tsupersonic, and mnmesisca - my post was soo-ooo off base.... apparently the Board of Directors for AMD dont think so - since they ousted the CEO, and the CTO is on his way out.... I mean sheesh -- what was I thinking saying they havent had crap for years.....

My knowledge of CPUs ?? well I may not know as much as Gwai Lo, or some of the others - but I DO know you are gonna be hard pressed to find someone in the industry who wont say AMD is in a huge amount of trouble and dont see any light at the end of the tunnel - seen their losses last Q ?

Yeah.... I am clueless :rolleyes:

I might have exaggerated things a little to prove a point - but my point cant be argued