AMD has a new Phenom X4 processor lineup that consists of the 9850 'Black Edition', 9750, 9650, and 9550.
Features:
- Phenom X4 9850 'Black Edition' (US$235)
-
- 2.5GHz clock speed
- 512KB x 4 L2 cache
- 2MB L3 cache
- 2.0GHz HyperTransport Bus
- 2.0GHz memory controller
- Phenom X4 9750 (US$215)
-
- 2.4GHz clock speed
- 512KB x 4 L2 cache
- 2MB L3 cache
- 1.8GHz HyperTransport Bus
- 1.8GHz memory controller
- Phenom X4 9650 (OEM only)
-
- 2.3GHz clock speed
- 512KB x 4 L2 cache
- 2MB L3 cache
- 1.8GHz HyperTransport Bus
- 1.8GHz memory controller
- Phenom X4 9550 (US$209)
-
- 2.2GHz clock speed
- 512KB x 4 L2 cache
- 2MB L3 cache
- 1.8GHz HyperTransport Bus
- 1.8GHz memory controller
HardwareZone wasn't very pleased with the performance of the new Phenoms:
"... Seriously speaking, there is nothing to look-forward to with the AMD Phenom X4 processors with performance not far off from Intel's dual-core solutions. If you need performance, Intel's Core 2 Quad is the answer and they've got performance better than the entire Phenom series more than a year ago. If you're hoping that the future Phenom X4 9950 to have any positive impact, our testing tells us nothing of that sort. ... Don't misunderstand us; the Phenom X4 processor works fine and all, but it's just not living up to expectations set by AMD nor of any impact/consideration when compared with Intel's offerings . " [HardwareZone | AMD's New Phenom X4 9000 Series]
As of now, the Intel Core 2 Quad is the reigning performance champion in the processor realm. If you are already using an AMD platform rig, and looking to upgrade to a quad core processor, it would be best to wait for the next Phenom series that would hopefully sport 45nm process technology.
2 comments:
Sure, the AMD chips are lower performing, but I thought we all knew that already? The main selling point is that they're supposed to be better in terms of performance/price (9850 tests and reviews seem to point that it competes well with the Q6600 in both price and performance). And Quad is rather excessive in most scenarios, anyway, when it comes to software. Gamers, for instance, probably don't need much better than four 2.6GHz cores, anyway. The video card usually matters more, and the Radeon 3870s (dual-GPU and non alike) are showing some good, competitive performance with the latest drivers, and the 3870s, at least, are relatively cheap for the power.
When talking about AMD, especially of late, you can't just assume they're latest and greatest have knock-your-socks-off performance, but they're definitely going to be priced competitively and affordably.
For me, it was far more cost-effective to go AMD Spider than it was to go Intel/nVidia, and I can still run the latest and greatest games smoothly, so I'd say things are fine for AMD.
I definitely agree with you, MikeG.
AMD processors may not be winning any "Fastest" or "Most Overclockable" awards lately, but these CPUs still are winning the "Best Bang per Buck" war. And considering that the Phenom X4 processors were still manufactured using the older 65nm fabrication process, they did pretty darn well compared to Intel CPUs with newer 45nm process technology.
I also feel that only a minority of enthusiasts are buying the latest and fastest (usually, also the most expensive), and the majority is more after value for their money.
I'm excited about the recently released Phenom X3 CPUs. These 3-core processors would surely give the competition something to think about. (Maybe this *was* one of the major reasons for Intel's recently announced price cuts.)
Thanks for your comments, MikeG. I hope to hear more from you at Ced's PC!
Post a Comment