Phenom II info leaks out, AMD hints at something

[Cookie Monster]

Think there was a C0 stepping spotted in the wild i believe.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Negronpope
So, a really foolish question. If these processors are supposed to be out in the first quarter of '09, shouldn't we have already seen early spins of the silicon out in the wild by now? After all it's mid-November. So, why hasn't anyone seen these yet?

Because the people that have them aren't allowed to talk about them would be a good reason.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Negronpope
So, a really foolish question. If these processors are supposed to be out in the first quarter of '09, shouldn't we have already seen early spins of the silicon out in the wild by now? After all it's mid-November. So, why hasn't anyone seen these yet?

Because the people that have them aren't allowed to talk about them would be a good reason.

Ah, now why'd you go an interject reason and logic into this thread. You killed it if you hadn't noticed

Seriously though I can't recall (anymore, brain aging) how the runup to the X2 release went, were there leaks or not? With Phenom there was practically zilch, some said it was standard AMD to not leak good or bad benches before release, others said they didn't leak because the numbers weren't good.

Now with Phenom II we have same dilemma...no leaking because AMD doesn't allow it or because the results are not flattering?

I argue that it is simply because AMD doesn't allow it, Phenom II results would kill their Phenom sales as many would learn to much too soon before launch. Good or bad no one wants to walk into Best Buy and hear a sales associate say the Phenom rig is old tech because AMD is coming out with a cooler and lower power consumption processor in 60 days.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Ah, now why'd you go an interject reason and logic into this thread. You killed it if you hadn't noticed

Seriously though I can't recall (anymore, brain aging) how the runup to the X2 release went, were there leaks or not? With Phenom there was practically zilch, some said it was standard AMD to not leak good or bad benches before release, others said they didn't leak because the numbers weren't good.

Now with Phenom II we have same dilemma...no leaking because AMD doesn't allow it or because the results are not flattering?

I argue that it is simply because AMD doesn't allow it, Phenom II results would kill their Phenom sales as many would learn to much too soon before launch. Good or bad no one wants to walk into Best Buy and hear a sales associate say the Phenom rig is old tech because AMD is coming out with a cooler and lower power consumption processor in 60 days.

I would agree with you there. Especially with the chip coming after Christmas. It would harm their Christmas sales, although since they are selling Phenom systems dirt cheap I don't know how much it would harm sales.

We do have recent history with the 4800 Series video cards, where there weren't any leaked results until just before launch, and even then they were scarce. It wasn't because they were trying to hide bad performance then, since the performance was far better than expected. I hope the same is true here.

EDIT: I added an extra carriage return, due to some wise advice I once received

 

[JMapleton]

I hope this is true. It will be good to see Intel have some decent competition.

 

[Raqia]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Raqia
http://en.expreview.com/2008/11/18/a...html#more-1307

These are platform benches, so I don't think they're even using the same graphics cards in those gaming scores.

On the CPU tests, we're seeing what a 15% boost in clocks speed from 2.6 Ghz Phenom to the 3.0 Ghz Phenom 2 does: 40% scaling in POVRay, Quicktime encoding, and OfficeFX (whatever that is) scores seem pretty promising.

Welcome to the AT forums!

What is OfficeFX?

OfficeFX is a seamless software addition to Microsoft® PowerPoint® that lets you transform your traditional presentations into engaging rich media events. Whether novice or expert, if you know PowerPoint, you can use OfficeFX effectively in minutes. A few quick selections will instantly energize your presentations with dynamic 3D backgrounds, realistic lighting, shading, and a wide range of animations and transitions from subtle and sophisticated to eye catching and high impact. Using OfficeFX from directly within PowerPoint, your products, brands, and messages take on the polish of a professional broadcast or a high end corporate event, while you control the content in a tool you already know.

Text

I'm guessing the pov-ray test bench they run is not disk I/O intensive which is why they get the nice speedup above and beyond the clockspeed increase.

Looking at a fairly I/O bound bench like Nero Recode and things are a little more in-line with what you expect from the sheer clockspeed boost of 2.6GHz -> 3GHz. A 20% gain is nice, the extra 5% from IPC (faster L3$?) boost and all.

Thanks!

An AMD demo:

http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=6455

1.9v cited for the higher clocks is a bit ugly. The reasoning for why they're not releasing higher clocked parts seems sound; AMD can't afford a price / clock speed war. I just hope this doesn't end up being like the BS 3ghz Barcelona demo...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
While the Core 2 Extreme did overclock well (2.93 to 3.73), it wasn't an underdog. So he is totally right... The underdog from past history always pushes the envelope. Remember the PIII 1.13Ghz? AMD was destroying or at least on par during that time so they released a flaky chip in attempt to stay competitive. As I recall, the P4 1.4Ghz came out at that time and was a real stinker in performance. Most of the X2's highest bin (3.4Ghz? Or is it 3.2?) are pretty much at their limit.

If you think that Intel wasn't the CPU underdog the day they released the C2D, you need to do some research. Read a few of the first benchmarks/articles about it. The authors were saying things like "Yeah, this chip is from that Intel", or "Believe it or not, Intel has actually made a CPU worth buying", etc. Most of us didn't even believe the first few C2D benchmarks, Intel had been so shitty, for so long. At that point in time, Intel was at least as big of an underdog as AMD is now, at least as far as performance.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Raqia
An AMD demo:

http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=6455

1.9v cited for the higher clocks is a bit ugly. The reasoning for why they're not releasing higher clocked parts seems sound; AMD can't afford a price / clock speed war. I just hope this doesn't end up being like the BS 3ghz Barcelona demo...

It's funny, you captured my thoughts and the chronology of them almost perfectly. Lets have hope, but reserve expectation for reality.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
While the Core 2 Extreme did overclock well (2.93 to 3.73), it wasn't an underdog. So he is totally right... The underdog from past history always pushes the envelope. Remember the PIII 1.13Ghz? AMD was destroying or at least on par during that time so they released a flaky chip in attempt to stay competitive. As I recall, the P4 1.4Ghz came out at that time and was a real stinker in performance. Most of the X2's highest bin (3.4Ghz? Or is it 3.2?) are pretty much at their limit.

If you think that Intel wasn't the CPU underdog the day they released the C2D, you need to do some research. Read a few of the first benchmarks/articles about it. The authors were saying things like "Yeah, this chip is from that Intel", or "Believe it or not, Intel has actually made a CPU worth buying", etc. Most of us didn't even believe the first few C2D benchmarks, Intel had been underperforming for so long. At that point in time, Intel was at least as big of an underdog as AMD is now, at least as far as performance.

 

[aigomorla]

The entire C2D lineup was the underdog.

The Yonah generation CPU first shown on desktop is what made people go OMGWTFBBQ on C2D.

B4 that the X2 Athlons were dominating the board in every aspect.

So myo is correct.

The original C2D... E6400 E6600 X6800 were the underdogs when they first came out.

I personally would like to see AMD come out competitive... however, after using almost all the platforms out there....

AMD has a lot of catching up to do, but it looks like they got something right.

As for intel, i am all done with i7's.

I want a Intel Atom Smart Phone. !!
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2...rp_willcom_atom_first/

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Raqia
An AMD demo:

http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=6455

1.9v cited for the higher clocks is a bit ugly. The reasoning for why they're not releasing higher clocked parts seems sound; AMD can't afford a price / clock speed war. I just hope this doesn't end up being like the BS 3ghz Barcelona demo...

It's funny, you captured my thoughts and the chronology of them almost perfectly. Lets have hope, but reserve expectation for reality.

Can somebody help me with the math?

5Ghz, 1.9v....Ummm.... 300 watts?

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

5Ghz, 1.9v....Ummm.... 300 watts?

It is 6GHz actually at that voltage. It was 1.6V for 5GHz.

Either way, it will be nice to see how it does in 6 weeks when it is released.

P=IV, so you need to know how much current it draws at load to calculate the power it is drawing. Or you could go I^2*R if you know the impedance.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
While the Core 2 Extreme did overclock well (2.93 to 3.73), it wasn't an underdog. So he is totally right... The underdog from past history always pushes the envelope. Remember the PIII 1.13Ghz? AMD was destroying or at least on par during that time so they released a flaky chip in attempt to stay competitive. As I recall, the P4 1.4Ghz came out at that time and was a real stinker in performance. Most of the X2's highest bin (3.4Ghz? Or is it 3.2?) are pretty much at their limit.

If you think that Intel wasn't the CPU underdog the day they released the C2D, you need to do some research. Read a few of the first benchmarks/articles about it. The authors were saying things like "Yeah, this chip is from that Intel", or "Believe it or not, Intel has actually made a CPU worth buying", etc. Most of us didn't even believe the first few C2D benchmarks, Intel had been underperforming for so long. At that point in time, Intel was at least as big of an underdog as AMD is now, at least as far as performance.

Obviously you misunderstood my post. The Core 2 Duo was clock for clock much faster than anything AMD had out in the market when it was released. It doesn't matter if Intel 'was' the underdog with the subpar Netburst arch... The fact that the chip released much faster clock for clock than the AMD X64, meant that they didn't have to push the envelope to max. Therefore, they didn't have to try and release a 3.6Ghz part in order to compete with AMD. They had a respectable 2.93Ghz part that destroyed anything AMD had for the desktop market. I highly doubt that AMD will release a 3.0Ghz CPU that will destroy The i7 @ 3.2Ghz, thus making AMD push the envelope as far as possible to play 'catch up' or match the kings performance. So again, it doesn't matter who WAS the underdog, what matters is that if the chip IS an underdog. So, no Myo, you are incorrect and same with Aigo.

And... why are you quoting yourself?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Phynaz

5Ghz, 1.9v....Ummm.... 300 watts?

It is 6GHz actually at that voltage. It was 1.6V for 5GHz.

Either way, it will be nice to see how it does in 6 weeks when it is released.

P=IV, so you need to know how much current it draws at load to calculate the power it is drawing. Or you could go I^2*R if you know the impedance.

Would be nice to have the numbers, but based on the 8384 Opteron specs the voltage is 1.35V and the power consumption is 75W. So we expect current (I) to be 75/1.35 = 55 Amps.

But I prefer to just consider the relative scaling of dynamic power consumption.

P = A*C*f*V^2

Again assuming a 2.7GHz Shanghai at 1.35V has an ACP of 75W...for the shanghai chip (yes a generous over-simplification) we get an AC of 15.24.

Assuming this AC holds true while scaling the CMOS to the temps and voltages under consideration:

P = 15.24 x 5 x 1.6^2 = 195W ACP for the 5GHz chip at 1.6V, which is pretty nice. The amperage comes in at 120 amps (ouch).

P = 15.24 x 6 x 1.9^2 = 330W ACP for the 6GHz chip at 1.9V, which is also pretty respectable. But the amperage would be 330/1.9 = 175 amps...that mobo is gonna be sizzling!

Incidentally...as Phynaz laid out the initial conditions (5Ghz 1.9V) the ACP would come out to be 275W which isn't too far off from his ball-park quip.

 

[Phynaz]

Thanks for running the numbers. I'm sure for you that is simple math, but it's way over my head. It's why I gave up on CIS and went into business instead. Just today I floored one of my employees when I told him I've never written a program in my professional career.

Just wish you guys got the respect you deserve.

 

[aigomorla]

300W...

ummm IDC thats a bit too much for your phase unit even.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
300W...

ummm IDC thats a bit too much for your phase unit even.

Waaaaay too much. My unit maxes out around discharging 250W for 24/7 operation. Can do about 275W for short runs (<30minutes).

But 300W would evaporate all the refigerant in a matter of minutes, temps would skyrocket from -30C to 100C in about 20s once the refrigerant evaporates. I know, my poor QX6700 got to experience it when I tried 1.65V at 4.2GHz. Perfectly stable for days so long as I didn't prime95 it.

But a 5GHz Phenom II...that would be a tasty overclock on vaporphase. Depending on the price of a BE, I may drag out that vapochill unit and play around again.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Phynaz

5Ghz, 1.9v....Ummm.... 300 watts?

It is 6GHz actually at that voltage. It was 1.6V for 5GHz.

Either way, it will be nice to see how it does in 6 weeks when it is released.

P=IV, so you need to know how much current it draws at load to calculate the power it is drawing. Or you could go I^2*R if you know the impedance.

Would be nice to have the numbers, but based on the 8384 Opteron specs the voltage is 1.35V and the power consumption is 75W. So we expect current (I) to be 75/1.35 = 55 Amps.

But I prefer to just consider the relative scaling of dynamic power consumption.

P = A*C*f*V^2

Again assuming a 2.7GHz Shanghai at 1.35V has an ACP of 75W...for the shanghai chip (yes a generous over-simplification) we get an AC of 15.24.

Assuming this AC holds true while scaling the CMOS to the temps and voltages under consideration:

P = 15.24 x 5 x 1.6^2 = 195W ACP for the 5GHz chip at 1.6V, which is pretty nice. The amperage comes in at 120 amps (ouch).

P = 15.24 x 6 x 1.9^2 = 330W ACP for the 6GHz chip at 1.9V, which is also pretty respectable. But the amperage would be 330/1.9 = 175 amps...that mobo is gonna be sizzling!

Incidentally...as Phynaz laid out the initial conditions (5Ghz 1.9V) the ACP would come out to be 275W which isn't too far off from his ball-park quip.

A good 16 way phase power mobo can handle 240A flowing through it. Asus already confirmed this.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
While the Core 2 Extreme did overclock well (2.93 to 3.73), it wasn't an underdog. So he is totally right... The underdog from past history always pushes the envelope. Remember the PIII 1.13Ghz? AMD was destroying or at least on par during that time so they released a flaky chip in attempt to stay competitive. As I recall, the P4 1.4Ghz came out at that time and was a real stinker in performance. Most of the X2's highest bin (3.4Ghz? Or is it 3.2?) are pretty much at their limit.

If you think that Intel wasn't the CPU underdog the day they released the C2D, you need to do some research. Read a few of the first benchmarks/articles about it. The authors were saying things like "Yeah, this chip is from that Intel", or "Believe it or not, Intel has actually made a CPU worth buying", etc. Most of us didn't even believe the first few C2D benchmarks, Intel had been so shitty, for so long. At that point in time, Intel was at least as big of an underdog as AMD is now, at least as far as performance.

Enthusiasts felt this way, but the general public had no idea and continued to happily buy "Intel inside" machines from Staples and Best Buy. Intel might have been the underdog on sites like this, but I think if you look at their market share and overall economic condition, Intel has always been the top dog.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
While the Core 2 Extreme did overclock well (2.93 to 3.73), it wasn't an underdog. So he is totally right... The underdog from past history always pushes the envelope. Remember the PIII 1.13Ghz? AMD was destroying or at least on par during that time so they released a flaky chip in attempt to stay competitive. As I recall, the P4 1.4Ghz came out at that time and was a real stinker in performance. Most of the X2's highest bin (3.4Ghz? Or is it 3.2?) are pretty much at their limit.

If you think that Intel wasn't the CPU underdog the day they released the C2D, you need to do some research. Read a few of the first benchmarks/articles about it. The authors were saying things like "Yeah, this chip is from that Intel", or "Believe it or not, Intel has actually made a CPU worth buying", etc. Most of us didn't even believe the first few C2D benchmarks, Intel had been so shitty, for so long. At that point in time, Intel was at least as big of an underdog as AMD is now, at least as far as performance.

Enthusiasts felt this way, but the general public had no idea and continued to happily buy "Intel inside" machines from Staples and Best Buy. Intel might have been the underdog on sites like this, but I think if you look at their market share and overall economic condition, Intel has always been the top dog.

I have to agree with this. Even when Intel was the underdog, they really weren't the underdog. You know what they say, no one ever got fired for buying Intel. Even though AMD may have had a very competitive to even faster product if you looked around the work place 5-6 years ago I bet you'd have a hard time finding many AMD powered machines (generally speaking of course).

 

[RallyMaster]

I eagerly await a single chip Opteron quad.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster
I eagerly await a single chip Opteron quad.

Here you go. For the new fangled Shanghai Version.

Here is one if you want the low priced Barcelona version.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Martimus
P=IV, so you need to know how much current it draws at load to calculate the power it is drawing. Or you could go I^2*R if you know the impedance.

Would be nice to have the numbers, but based on the 8384 Opteron specs the voltage is 1.35V and the power consumption is 75W. So we expect current (I) to be 75/1.35 = 55 Amps.

But I prefer to just consider the relative scaling of dynamic power consumption.

P = A*C*f*V^2
Again assuming a 2.7GHz Shanghai at 1.35V has an ACP of 75W...for the shanghai chip (yes a generous over-simplification) we get an AC of 15.24.

Assuming this AC holds true while scaling the CMOS to the temps and voltages under consideration:

P = 15.24 x 5 x 1.6^2 = 195W ACP for the 5GHz chip at 1.6V, which is pretty nice. The amperage comes in at 120 amps (ouch).

P = 15.24 x 6 x 1.9^2 = 330W ACP for the 6GHz chip at 1.9V, which is also pretty respectable. But the amperage would be 330/1.9 = 175 amps...that mobo is gonna be sizzling!

Incidentally...as Phynaz laid out the initial conditions (5Ghz 1.9V) the ACP would come out to be 275W which isn't too far off from his ball-park quip.

Thanks, that is much more useful than my equation in this instance.

The real reason I started hanging out here, was because I haven't designed any circuitry in over three years, and there were people who actually had a technical knowledge of the things I was interested in here. I was hoping it would help me to retain my knowledge, and maybe remember some of the things I forgot.

It hasn't been all that successful, as there aren't many technical discussions going on here on a regular basis, but little snippets like this are nice to read through on occasion. It makes me remember when I was an Electrical Engineer in more than just title only.