Super XP said:

To be honest, I think its a managerial change thats required. They keep making bad decisions.

The monolithing quad core, why not have release Phenom as a dual core, and stuck 2 together for their quad, at least initially. With yeilds of duals, on an already matured fab process, they could have had them out the dorr over a year ealier (i.e. 'on time')

Good Point. AMDs CEO needs to retire or something because I really think he is to blame for riding the Athlon 64 way too long which in turn caught AMD by surprise when Intel released their monster Core design.

I do like the fact AMD came out with Native Quad-Core's. Their CPU architecture permitted them to do so. That IMO was a good decision. And just as you stated, because they ran into so many yield problems, sticking two Phenom Dual-Core’s together would have been very beneficial and just release a Native 6 and/or 8 core CPU instead. At least they would have 2 and 4 core CPU to compete with.

But instead they complicated it with a Native Quad-Core approach and eventually released them over 1 year late which in turn puts them behind.

AMD telling people that Native Quad-Core is the way to go does not sound good when Intel's Double Dual-Core's are faster.

But where AMD really screwed up was when they decided not to release Dual-Core Phenoms to compete with the Intel’s Core design. I am sure scaling a Dual-Core is a lot easier than trying to scale a Quad-Core.

Now AMD is trying to fight the Core 2 Duo/Quad along with the upcoming Nehalem with Phenom which was meant to compete against last year's Core 2 Duo.

Super XP said:

It might be if Phenom wasn't a single monolithic design. A dual core Phenom would amount to a quad core model with two processing cores disabled.. as such it would be subject to all the problems that come along with the quad core model. There really isn't any point in doing this either since they have the tri core models out and priced to compete with the core 2 duo. A dual core variant of phenom would be competing against Celerons and Pentium dual cores.

To add to that the Athlon X2's are AMD's offering they are nearly as fast as Phenom clock for clock core for core they are also smaller and a much more mature design so they can be clocked much higher. AMD is pretty much doing all it can given the products available to it.

But when you compare the Core 2 vs. the Pentium 4, the Core 2 is significantly much faster where as Phenom is faster than Athlon 64, but not as much as Core 2 is vs. the P4.

Super XP said:

Phenom being slightly more efficent than an Athlon 64 chip is completely negated by the fact that Athlon X2's are clocked as high as 3.2GHz where Phenom only goes up to 2.5GHz Phenoms efficiencies are not enough to make up for a 700MHz clock speed defecit.

I'm talking about clock for clock, Phenom is faster. The reason why Phenoms do not clock well is due to the SB600. It's broken, once the SB750 comes out, Phenom can reach well over 3.0 GHz no problem, and once AMD releases the 45nm parts, it should go even further in speed.

For the sake of argument I'll assume you're right and that the SB750 will allow much faster clocks with Phenom chips. But the fact remains that from what is available for purchase right now Phenom does not clock high enough to be a worthy replacement for the Athlon X2 in the dual core segment of the market.

Jim H said:

SB600 screws up Phenom’s clock generator, this is a proven fact. This is the main reason why some Phenom’s OC well while other do not. Once SB750 mobo’s arrive everybody with a Phenom based CPU should expect at least a 300MHz to 400MHz OC.

AMD still has problems scaling their current 65nm Phenom to good speeds and having SB600 based mobo’s in the market place does not help the situation.

Plain and simple SB600 is broken and should never have been released.

AMD 790FX to get a re-birth
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=...;Itemid=37
790GX overclocks Phenom to 3.4GHz
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=...;Itemid=37

Super XP said:

You could say the same for Phenom. They should have concentrated on a really decently performing CPU instead.

If they really wanted 4 cores, they should have went MCM with a die shrinked K8.

A CPU will not run 100% with a bad chipset. The SB600 is what makes all AMD chipsets bad. Once they release the newer SB750 I think things are going to change for the better in terms of OC'ability and overall system stability.

If you look at it very carefully, there really is nothing wrong with Phenom architecturally. Sure AMD could have done some things differently, but overall it’s a great CPU and runs great.
It may not be the fastest of the crop right now, but I really think Phenom was AMD’s temporary solution until Bulldozer arrives. They only need to start releasing faster parts and fast.
Hopefully Deneb at 45nm will do the trick.

To be honest, I'm not taking the BS that Phenom doesnt clock because of a chipset.

Anyway, the CPU connects to the north bridge, not the SB.

I've never seen a broken SB to affect CPU overclocking.

If it clocked well, regardless of the chipset, it would be available at higher speeds anyway

Then explain why for some reason the current SB600 affects the Phenom's clock generator. everytime you OC with a SB600 based mobo, for some reason the clocks never become stable and I've read its because of the clock generator.

The newer chipsets featuring the new SB750 does not have that problem and that you will be able to easily OC any Phenom past 3.00GHz with just a very minor bump in volts.

This info is not just coming from Fudzilla, everybody is talking about it including AMD and their AMDOverdrive utility which they seem to push onto people with Phenoms.
AMD 790FX to get a re-birth
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=...;Itemid=37

DublinGunner said:

I'm not sure I buy it either, I think the 2.6GHz 9950 with its 140W TDP says it all.

Just a Question, AMD Business Class, what makes a CPU business class???

low power consumption, and stability...

The whole business class thing was really just AMD trying to get some attention from the press.

Inexpensive too. They are usually bought in bulk from mostly Dell and HP. They run your Microsoft Office suite of software, IE, and maybe in-house developed software. These are also the platforms moving towards virtualization.

There is also a minority of business workstations for the professional CAD users (e.g. Photoshop, AutoCAD, etc.). You often find a mix of enterprise hardware in these like your SCSI/SAS hard drives and potentially more than one processor. Workstation computers many times more expensive than the typical business desktop.

There's nothing to do with the budget, AMD acquired ATI way back, every semiconductor company have their plans/architecture build up two-three years earlier, hence ATI was going towards what their plan was, and there was no need for extra money/expenditure.

So, the same applies for Phenom and upcoming processor/s, atleast for a good year and half.

I can't wait for the new upcoming Deneb 45nm Phenoms at 95w which will range between 2.70 GHz to 3.20 GHz+ coming in Q4 2008 as per AMD's road map.

Super XP said:


So they'll be going up against Nehalem. That should be a fun time for AMD.