ATI Radeon HD 5670 Graphics Card Reviewed

 

The ATI Radeon HD 5670 (~US$100) from AMD offers DirectX 11 ready hardware at the $100 price point, competing with the GeForce 9600 GT, GeForce 9800 GT, GeForce GTS 250, Radeon HD 4770, and Radeon HD 4850.

 

Features:

• 400 Shader Processors
• 20 Texture Units
• 8 Color ROPs
• 775 MHz Core Clock
• 1000 MHz GDDR5 Memory Clock
• 128-bit Memory Bus
• 4 Gb/s Data Rate
• 0.62 Compute Power (TFLOPs)
• 0.627 Transistors (Billions)
• 61W Maximum Power
• 14W Idle Power

 

Guru of 3D sees the Radeon HD 5670 as an excellent product for HTPCs:

“The Radeon HD 5760 is ideal for the lady's and gents that play games occasionally in a non-extreme way. It suits the regular PC user that that a lot of desktop work, or uses his/her PC as net or work PC. Next to that, and we have mentioned this several times now, the 5600 card series will be an excellent product for HTPCs. The sheer shader units count the GPU has embedded on it makes it very suitable for 1080P content playback with software like Media Player HT edition, in that software you can utilize and enable the shaders to post process image quality to a higher level. Next to that the embedded video processor (through UVD 2.0) will easily decode and accelerate your BluRay movies over the GPU. We can't wait to see some products with even more silent customized cooling.” [Guru of 3D | HD 5670]

 

HotHardware appreciates the Radeon HD 5670’s value performance and features:

“The Radeon HD 5670 will be available for purchase immediately at on-line retailers, in 512MB and 1GB flavors. If you're in the market for an affordable graphics card as an upgrade from an integrated solution or last-gen mainstream card, the Radeon HD 5670 is worth a serious look. AMD has just lowered the DirectX 11 cost of entry to below 100 bucks, and has done so with a product that doesn't skimp on features and offers very respectable performance for the money. That makes the Radeon HD 5670 a solid value in our book.” [HotHardware | HD 5670]

 

AnandTech feels that the Radeon HD 5670 is a "good enough card”, but still prefers an HD 4850:

“So where does that leave the 5670? The 5670 does surprisingly well against the 9800 GT. It wins in some cases, trails very slightly in a few more, and then outright loses only in games where the 5670 is already playable up to 1920x1200. From a performance standpoint I think the 9800 GT is ahead, but it’s not enough to matter; meanwhile the “green” 9800 GT shortens the gap even more, and it still is over 10W hotter than the 5670. The 5670 is a good enough replacement for the 9800 GT in that respect, plus it has support for DX11, Eyefinity, and 3D Blu-Ray when that launches later this year.” [AnandTech | HD 5670]

 

ExtremeTech compared the Radeon HD 5670 to the GeForce GT 240, and preferred the GT 240:

“Both the ATI Radeon HD 5670 and the PNY Verto GeForce GT 240 deliver modest gaming power for their $99 price. If your needs are simple—you're just looking for something to pep up your off-the-shelf (or off-the-download games) games, and maybe transcode some videos—either card should be sufficient. …

If you're choosing between a standard 5670 and a 512MB GT 240, we can solidly recommend the later. If, however, you plan on doing more serious gaming of any kind, or you want to play at resolutions much above about 1,680 by 1,050, you'd be better off spending just a little bit more for almost any other more powerful card. These cards have their limits—either should be an okay purchase for you as long as you don't make plans to exceed them.” [ExtremeTech | HD 5670]

 

Tom’s Hardware thinks that the Radeon HD 5670 will sell well if it goes down to the $80 price tag:

“It is this cutthroat ~$100 environment where the Radeon HD 5670 will be forced to sink or swim at $99. Here it will have to compete against the similarly-performing $80 GeForce 9600 GT, the slightly-faster $95 GeForce 9800 GT, the clearly-superior $110 Radeon HD 4770, and the vastly more attractive $110 Radeon HD 4850 / GeForce GTS 250. Purely from a performance standpoint, it would be madness to buy the Radeon HD 5670 instead of spending a couple dollars more for the Radeon HD 4850 or GeForce GTS 250. DirectX 11 isn't much of an issue here.” [Tom’s Hardware | HD 5670]

 

PC Perspective sees the Radeon HD 5670 the most well-rounded of next-gen GPUs:

“The new AMD Radeon HD 5670 graphics card is a great addition to the completely revamped lineup of graphics cards using ATI technology.  With it AMD has solidified DX11-ready hardware in the market for prices under $100 while moving features like Eyefinity and triple-LCD support to a wider user base as well.  The performance of the card is only on par with other $100 graphics boards like the GeForce GT 240 so we can't call it the runaway performance leader, but if you or someone you know is going to be looking for a GPU for under a Franklin, the HD 5670 is the most well-rounded of next-generation GPUs.” [PC Perspective | HD 5670]

 

As reviewed by a number of enthusiasts, the ATI Radeon HD 5670 is a good card for the regular desktop user, occasional gamer, and web surfer. This is also an excellent card if you are looking to build an HTPC.

 

Technorati Tags: amd ati radeon hd 5670

Best Bang Per Buck Gaming Processors for August 2009

Choosing the right processor (CPU) proves to be a daunting task. The deciding factor is usually games, since we don’t *really* need a very powerful processor for surfing and creating/viewing documents.

Tom’s Hardware makes the task of picking the right CPU easier with their recommendations:

Top Picks:

• Athlon 64 X2 5200+ [Brisbane, 65nm, 2.7GHz, AM2] (US$55)
• Dual-Core Pentium E5300 [Wolfdale-2M, 45nm, 2.6GHz, LGA 775] ($70)
• Athlon II X2 250 [Regor, 45nm, 2.8GHz, AM2+] ($80)
• Pentium Dual-Core E6300 [Wolfdale-2M, 45nm, 2.8GHz, LGA 775] ($80)
• Phenom II X2 545 [Callisto, 45nm, 3GHz, AM2+] ($90)
• Phenom II X3 710 [Heka, 45nm, 2.6GHz, AM3] ($100)
• Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition [Callisto, 45nm, 3.1GHz, AM3] ($100)
• Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition [Heka, 45nm, 2.8GHz, AM3] ($120)
• Core 2 Duo E7500 [Wolfdale-3M, 45nm, 2.93GHz, LGA 775] ($120)
• Phenom II X4 945 [Deneb, 45nm, 3GHz, AM3] ($170)
• Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition [Deneb, 45nm, 3.2GHz, AM3] ($190)
• Core 2 Quad Q9400 [Yorkfield, 45nm, 2.66Ghz, LGA 775] ($190)
• Core 2 Duo E8500 [Wolfdale, 45nm, 3.16GHz, LGA 775] ($190)
• Core 2 Quad Q9550 [Yorkfield, 45nm, 2.83GHz, LGA 775] ($220)
• Core i7 920 [Nehalem, 45nm, 2.66GHz, LGA 1366] ($280)
• Core i7 975 Extreme [Nehalem, 45nm, 3.33GHz, LGA 1366] ($1000)

The budget processors picked were the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ and Dual-Core Pentium E5300, both having two cores, and a 2.7 or 2.6 GHz clock. These can be purchased for about $55 (X2 5200+) and $70 (E5300).

In the other end of the scale, is the Core i7 975 Extreme, which features 3.33GHz, LGA 1366 socket, and a ridiculously high $1000 price tag. Only for the extremely rich.

For the mid-priced processors, it would be a good idea to target the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition or Core 2 Quad Q9400. These can be had for around $190.

Whatever processor you choose, keep in mind that the chipset of the motherboard or mainboard would also play an essential role for determining the overall efficacy and performance of your new system.

Happy choosing!

[Source: Tom’s Hardware | Best Gaming CPUs For the Money: August ‘09]

Technorati Tags: processor, gaming, cpu, best bang per buck

Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P: Budget AMD Socket AM3 / DDR3 Motherboard

Nowadays, DDR3 memory is slowly being the de facto standard of system RAM. One of the major hindrances of building an inexpensive AMD rig with DDR3 is the price of the motherboard.

X-bit Labs took a close look at the Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P (US$80) mainboard:

“According to the results of our test session, despite its modest price, this mainboard may become a good choice not only for inexpensive unpretentious platforms, but also for computer enthusiasts. It has adequate specifications meeting today’s needs, and flexible configuring options together with overall predictable behavior are just as good as those of more expensive Socket AM3 products. In other words, during our test session, we didn’t reveal any serious issues that could give anyone the reason to underestimate Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P. Especially, since it performs and overclocks just as good as Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P, for instance, that belongs to a much higher price range.” [X-bit Labs | Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P]

Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P Specs:

• AMD socket AM3 processors support (Phenom II X4, Phenom II X3)
• AMD 770 / AMD SB710 chipsets
• 4 x 1.5V DDR3 DIMM sockets, up to 16GB of system memory
• 1 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
• 4 x PCI Express x1 slots
• 2 x PCI slots
• 1 x IDE
• 6 x SATA 3Gb/s,with SATA RAID 0, 1, 0+1
• 8 x USB 2.0 ports at back panel
• 1 x Gigabit LAN
• 7.1 HD Audio
• ATX form factor, 30.5 cm x 21.0 cm

If you are looking to build a new AMD rig with a socket AM3 processor and DDR3 memory, it’s worth looking for the Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P.

Technorati Tags: amd, socket am3, ddr3, 770, chipset

ATI Radeon HD 4890 Graphics Card Reviewed

The ATI Radeon HD 4890 is one of many graphics cards in AMD’s Radeon HD 4000 series. It features:

• 55nm fabrication process
• PCI Express 2.0 x16 bus interface
• 256-bit GDDR5 memory interface
• Microsoft® DirectX 10.1 support
• Shader Model 4.1 support
• 800 stream processing units
• OpenGL 3.0 support
• ATI CrossFireX™ Multi-GPU Technology

HardwareZone reviewed the PowerColor PCS+ HD 4890 Battle Forge Edition card, and gave it a 4.5 out 5 rating:

“To sum up, the PowerColor PCS+ HD 4890 BF Edition is a very capable card. It offers decent performance and its cooler does the job. What we don't like, however, is that the cooler isn't that much less noisy than the reference model, and also the high power consumption figures (which is to be expected since it's overclocked). Even so, it is still one of the better Radeon HD 4890 cards around, and is definitely great value for money if your heart's set on a Radeon HD 4890.” [HardwareZone | PowerColor PCS+ HD 4890 Battle Forge Edition]

If you are interested in looking at what Nvidia has to offer in competition with the HD 4890, you could take a look at the GeForce GTX 275.

Technorati Tags: amd, ati, radeon, hd, 4890, directx 10.1

AMD Socket AM3 Phenom II Processors Reviewed

AMD Socket AM3 processors are now here. These are Phenom II CPUs that have support for both DDR3 and DDR2 memory.

Quad-cores:

• Phenom II X4 model 810
• • US$175
  • 2.6GHz
  • 4MB L3 Cache
• Phenom II X4 model 805
• • OEM only
  • 2.5GHz
  • 4MB L3 Cache

Triple-cores:

• Phenom II X3 model 720 Black Edition
• • $145
  • 2.8GHz
  • 6MB L3 Cache
• Phenom II X3 model 710
• • $125
  • 2.6GHz
  • 6MB L3 Cache

Common specs:

• Socket AM3 (can be used with most AM2+ motherboards)
• DDR2 or DDR3
• 2.0GHz memory controller

Guru of 3D put the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720BE on the test bench:

"... try to mentally place the price and performance of Phenom II X3 and X4 processors in the Core 2 Duo and Quad range. Then it all makes sense. This is where AMD is really competing with Phenom II. And in this product range they certainly are very strong. ... The one processor that for me personally shined was, interestingly enough, the Phenom II X3, the 720 BE processor. I too have that weird stigma about having three cores instead of four, as much as you do. But the results didn't lie ... the X3 720BE is a very competitive Phenom II processor clocked at 2.8 GHz with that luxurious 6MB L3 cache. For roughly 145 USD you can get this BE edition and as such it will allow you to easily overclock it towards 3500-3800 MHz on the most cheap air-cooler one can think of. Again, this particular processor will be placed on the shelves for a only 145 USD and as such this really is an awesome deal." [Guru of 3D | AMD Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720BE review]

AnandTech had a close look at the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720:

"When AMD launched the Phenom II X4 940 and 920 I called it a True Return to Competition. With the rest of the lineup now more fleshed out, it's truly a return to competition. At every price point that AMD targets, it has produced a CPU competitive to Intel's offerings. ... The performance benefits aren't worth it for Phenom II, so while AM3 sounds cool, it's not necessary today. Thankfully AM3 CPUs will work in AM2+ motherboards, so you aren't forced into a relationship with DDR3 if you're not ready." [AnandTech | The Phenom II X4 810 & X3 720: AMD Gets DDR3 But Doesn't Need It]

PCPerspective reviewed the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720:

"This AM3 launch will be a disappointment to some, mainly because there is not a high end part that goes with it, nor do we see a massive increase in performance per clock by going to DDR-3 memory. It is still an immature, though stable, platform. Performance will eventually get up there once the motherboard guys figure out the new memory controller and AMD provides potential micro-code updates. ... The X4 810 is a nice part which will make quite a few folks happy. It does not run really hot, it does not pull all that much power, and it certainly performs well considering the price it is at. In most tests, in comparing to previous results from the Phenom 9950, it was about 5% faster overall than its predecessor at that same speed. ... The X3 720 is probably the most interesting part that this release is seeing. The three cores, slightly lower power consumption, better overclocking performance, and the performance of 3 cores for less than the price of a competitive dual core from Intel. Triple cores still have not seen a lot of acceptance from users and OEMs alike, but this particular product might turn a few heads. In most of the single threaded applications, the X3 720 fared about as well as expected against the Core 2 part." [PCPerspective | Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720 Processor Review]

Tom's Hardware tested the Phenom II X4 810 and Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition:

"If you take Socket AM3 out of the picture, the new Phenom IIs mainly serve to fill in and update AMD's processor lineup with its 45 nm technology. Because they drop right into AM2/AM2+ motherboards, you could almost ignore the fact that they sport 938 pins and just be happy AMD is augmenting the mid-range and entry-level nooks in the Phenom family with chips loaded with more cache, higher clocks, and significantly improved scalability. ... What does make sense is the Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition on an existing AM2/AM2+ setup, leveraging cheap DDR2 memory. Gone are the days of Core 2 Duo's dominance over the value-oriented gaming market. Now that AMD has its hat in the ring, there's a lot more to like about the oddness of three cores." [Tom's Hardware | Socket AM3: AMD's Phenom II Gets DDR3]

HardwareZone reviewed the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720 Black Edition:

"... the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720 'Black Edition' that we tested did not give us any surprises. Their results were in line with our expectations given what we have seen of the X4 940/920. Moreover, the X3 720 looks to be quite an interesting model, using its extra core to keep up with the Intel dual-cores and at the same time, making use of its higher 2.8GHz clock and larger L3 cache to edge ahead of the X4 810 for those non multi-threaded scenarios. Though we haven't tested its overclocking potential, having one less core usually allows for a better chance of further overclocking this Black Edition X3." [HardwareZone | AMD Does DDR3 - The AM3 Phenom II]

X-bit Labs had a close look at the Phenom II X4 810:

"... the main advantage of Socket AM3 processors is their flexible memory controller that can work with both: DDR3 as well as DDR2 memory. That is why you don't have to use the newly announced mainstream Phenom II processors in Socket AM3 systems. They will work perfectly fine in the existing Socket AM2+ or even Socket AM2 infrastructure. ... As for the AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor we discussed today, it is another incarnation of AMD's strategy to be offering higher performance at a lower cost. Our tests showed that its performance is comparable to that of Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200, while its price is a little lower. As a result, AMD currently has a great alternative to all least expensive quad-core Intel processors starting with the Core 2 Quad Q9400 model. In other words, AMD made a very significant step to offering a competitive lineup of processors that we have every reason to recommend as a good buying choice." [X-bit Labs | Meet Socket AM3: AMD Phenom II X4 810 CPU Review]

RegHardware reviewed the 2.6GHz X4 810 and a 2.8GHz X3 720 Black Edition:

"Our main finding is that DDR 2 and DDR 3 deliver the same performance with Phenom II, and it doesn't matter whether you use DDR 3 at 1333MHz or 1600MHz. If you're running your CPU at stock speeds then DDR 3 saves some 10W, but when you overclock the CPU the difference in power draw is negligible. ... The introduction of DDR 3 doesn't make a fundamental difference to Phenom II, but the new Socket AM3 processors deliver plenty of bangs for your buck and put AMD right back in the game." [RegHardware | AMD Phenom II Socket AM3 processor]

ExtremeTech tested the AMD Phenom II X4 Model 810 socket AM3 processor:

"From a buyer's perspective, the Phenom II model 810 is priced a little lower than Intel's Core 2 Quad Q8200. In most consumer and office applications, the two platforms essentially achieve performance parity. The exception, of course, is digital photography. If you're heavily into digital photography, you'll want to remain firmly in the Intel camp. ... The Phenom II model 810 represents a reasonable buy currently-but we expect its overall lifespan to be somewhat limited." [ExtremeTech | AMD Socket AM3 CPUs Ship--Phenom II 810 Review]

The best feature I see about these new Socket AM3 processors is that they don't necessarily need to be used with an 'official' AM3 motherboard. Most AM2+ motherboards would work just fine, although of course you'll still be using DDR2 memory (which at present DDR3 prices, is a financial advantage).

These AM3 processors are indeed good news to folks who are looking for more value for their money. Those already running an AMD system with an AM2+ mobo just upgrade to the new processors without the need to upgrade to a new chipset. If you then decide to upgrade to a DDR3 system, you can do so later on.

IceRocket : amd, ddr3, phenom ii, socket am3

AMD Phenom II X4 45nm Processors Reviewed

The new AMD Phenom II X4 processors have arrived. Initially, two models are available:

AMD Phenom II X4 920 at $236 (2.8 GHz)
AMD Phenom II X4 940 at $278 (3.0 GHz)

Features:

• Codename: Deneb
• Socket AM2+ - 940-pin organic micro Pin Grid Array (micro-PGA)
• L1 Cache (Instruction + Data): 128KB x4 (64KB + 64KB for each core)
• L2 Cache: 512KB x4 (quad-core); 512x3 (triple-core)
• L3 Cache: 6MB Shared L3
• 45-nanometer SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology
• One 16-bit/16-bit link @ up to 3600MT/s full duplex; or up to 14.4GB/s
• I/O Bandwidth
• Integrated DDR2 memory controller-up to 17.1GB/sec dual channel memory bandwidth PC2 8500 (DDR2-1066) ; PC2 6400 (DDR2-800); PC2 5300 (DDR2-667); PC2 4200 (DDR2-533); PC2 3200 (DDR2-400) DDR2 unbuffered

Guru3D was pleased with the Phenom II X4 processors, and gave them its 'Great Value' stamp of approval:

"AMD is back on track for sure. Now before we really dig into the conclusion, let's get one thing out of the way first. Make no mistake, AMD is still a step behind Intel. Intel recently introduced Core i7 and we've shown it throughout this review, among that processor series is the Core i7 920 processor, priced close to today's tested Phenom II X4 940. And again; make no mistake, the Intel Core i7 920 processor on average is simply faster. Especially in most desktop applications, hyper-threading kicks in hard for Core i7. It's however also a much more expensive upgrade." [Guru3D | AMD Phenom II X4 920 and 940]

Tom's Hardware gave it its seldom-granted Recommended Buy award:

"Compared to AMD's first quad-core processor, the Phenom, its Phenom II successor offers great improvements, particularly in the area of energy consumption. With all due respect to Intel and the performance milestones it has achieved, the Phenom II offers a better energy consumption profile than either the Core i7 or Core 2 Quad platforms. ... In the overall competition, where the first line of attack appears in the price segment between $250 and $400, the AMD Phenom II processors place smack in between the already fading Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, and the new Core i7 920 CPUs. Above all, a complete Core i7 system costs more than a Phenom II because that Intel configuration requires a high-end motherboard and triple-channel DDR3 memory." [Tom's Hardware | AMD Phenom II X4]

HotHardware gave the Phenom II X4 940 its Recommended stamp of approval:

"The new Phenom II X4 920 and 940 are easily the most powerful desktop processors released from AMD to date. They performed well throughout our entire battery of benchmark tests, besting AMD's previous flagship CPU, the Phenom X4 9950 virtually across the board. Unfortunately, the new Phenom II X4 920 and 940 could quite keep pace with Intel's Penryn-based Core 2 Quads or Nehalem-based Core i7s. The Phenom II X4 managed to pull ahead of the Q9400, Q9650, and i7 920 on a few instances, but overall Intel's platform was still faster. The gap has closed quite a bit, however." [HotHardware | AMD Phenom II X4 940]

AnandTech picks the Phenom II X4 940 over the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400:

"Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock speed to keep you happy in the long run. ... If you have a Socket-AM2+ motherboard with BIOS support for Phenom II there's no question - Phenom II is the best upgrade path for you. If you are trying to build a new system from scratch, I'd suggest waiting for either the Socket-AM3 CPUs or see what Intel does with its pricing later this month." [AnandTech | AMD Phenom II X4 940 & 920]

HardwareZone sees that the Phenom II can compete with the lesser Core i7 models:

"Once AMD frames the argument as a platform comparison, the Phenom II as part of the Dragon platform actually looks quite competitive with Intel's lesser Core i7 models. While the top Phenom II X4 940 is expected to retail for US$275, making it comparable in price to the Core i7-920, the cost of the motherboard and DDR3 memory pushes the Core i7 setup much higher. The Phenom II X4 920 meanwhile is at US$235. So you can either save some money for less performance or if you're willing to fork out a similar amount, upgrade the graphics, hard drive and even memory on the AMD setup to arrive at a similar or better performance level." [HardwareZone | AMD Phenom II]

X-bit Labs believes the new Phenom II X4 processors only bests the previous generation Phenom X4:

"However, all the changes in the AMD quad-core processor lineup seem significant enough only when compared against the previous generation Phenom X4, and not against their competitors. It took AMD way too long to switch to 45nm manufacturing technology and launch their Phenom II X4. They missed the window of opportunity and the launch of Phenom II X4 doesn't have the desired effect on the market. The new Phenom II X4 doesn't look too impressive against the background of contemporary Core 2 Quad and especially Core i7 CPUs. The results of our tests show that the top Phenom II X4 processors can only be worthy rivals to the Core 2 Quad CPUs from the "junior" Q8000 series. Unfortunately, Phenom II X4 cannot yet do better than that." [X-bit Labs | Phenom II X4]

ExtremeTech finds the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition with a good price/performance ratio:

"Still, at its price, Phenom II is a reasonable alternative to Intel in most segments. We would generally avoid it for photo or video work, but for general productivity and gaming, it's a pretty cost effective answer to Intel. ... The bottom line is that AMD has finally caught up with Intel's last generation-sort of. So if you're looking to build a system that offers good price/performance and a relatively low entry cost, the AMD's Phenom II makes a fine choice. But if you want maximum performance, you'll want Core i7." [ExtremeTech | AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition]

PC Perspective sees the Phenom II to appeal to budget enthusiasts:

"Enthusiasts who lean towards AMD will have another toy to play with, and one they should have a good time hanging out with. The price is certainly right, and the base performance competes well with similarly priced Intel parts. We also have a good selection of motherboards that should appeal to the budget enthusiast, as well as higher end products that offer features comparable to high end Intel based boards for significantly less money. ... For the first 45 nm product out of the gates, AMD has at least executed on time and in a fairly efficient manner. I have not heard any rumors of major issues with the new design (eg. No TLB type errata), and the initial products are coming out at an aggressive clockspeed and thermal envelope." [PC Perspective | AMD Phenom II X4 940]

Comments on Overclocking:

"Value for money, that's what you need to remember, and the Dragon combo CPU/Mobo/GPU without doubt offers that. Also, and I just have to mention this, a pleasant surprise was the level of overclocking. If you make sure you have a decent cooler (we used the OCZ Vendetta 2 btw), it should be fairly easy to reach 3.7 - 3.8 GHz clock frequencies. Likely with decent water-cooling we'd end up at 4.0 GHz. So there's definitely some overclocking headroom as well. And most definitely more headroom to work with compared to the previous generation products." [Guru3D]

"With all of the information AMD has already revealed regarding the Phenom II's overclockability, we were eager to see what our particular chip could do. We didn't use any exotic cooling for our overclocking experiments, opting instead to see just how far the chip would go with a stock AMD PIB air cooler installed. With only a minor bump in voltage to 1.575v, we were able to take our particular CPU to almost 3.8GHz using the stock air cooler alone. That speed was achieved with an 18.5x multiplier and a 202MHz base clock; the components were installed in a basic mid-tower. The AMD Overdrive utility shown in the screenshot above did not report clock speeds correctly, but assuming thermal readings were correct (we don't think they were), the chip ran at about 50'C while overclocked." [HotHardware]

"The clocking situation improved greatly with our 940 once VCore rose to a final 1.52V. We actually hit 4GHz but needed 1.58V to do it. This resulted in a few crashes due to temperatures, but we also noticed our particular CPU sample just was not stable at 4GHz+ even with additional voltages and cooling. The results for the two Intel processors are simply superb in this particular test with the 9950BE managing a respectable 30% improvement in clock speeds, matching that of the Phemom II percentage wise." [AnandTech]

"With the expected greater overclocking headroom of the new Phenom II, one could find more enthusiasts jumping onto this platform. Taking the new chip by itself, despite its improvements over the original Phenom, it's not going to threaten the Core i7 directly performance-wise. Its greatest achievement is its reduced power consumption, especially when idle. Going to 45nm has been significant, not only in pushing up the clock speeds but also in lowering heat/power consumption. As we have seen, these excellent numbers have come from AMD's 125W Phenom II models. The upcoming 95W AM3 versions could feature more impressive power draw figures." [HardwareZone]

"So, new Phenom II X4 processors do have very good frequency potential: the top model overclocked by 26% with air cooling only. So, the new AMD processor seems to be quite fit for overclocking experiments. However, we would like to make sure that potential Phenom II X4 owners keep in mind: 3.8GHz frequency will not let a CPU on Stars (K10) microarchitecture work as fast as overclocked Core 2 Quad from the same price range could." [X-bit Labs]

"We initially ran into some pretty severe difficulties in overclocking the 940. ... When we set the BIOS memory settings to "Auto", which ran the memory at DDR2-800 speeds, we finally managed to push the model 940 to 3.5GHz with excellent stability, using the Arctic Cooling Freezer 64. With a more robust cooler and more voltage tweaking, we might have gone higher." [ExtremeTech]

"My results did not reach the 6 GHz heights that AMD showed off last month, but considering how poor of an overclocker I am, my results are quite respectable for air cooling and a minimal amount of effort. Using stock voltage I was able to take the Phenom II X4 940 to 3.5 GHz on air cooling. My final overclock was at 3.8 GHz with a voltage of 1.45v. This is pretty close to the 4 GHz mark that AMD says is quite achievable with a good portion of their parts on air cooling. Again, I am not the world's greatest overclocker and I am not a big fan of frying processors. 3.8 GHz with minimal effort is a nice accomplishment, and certainly the 3.5 GHz mark at stock voltage is probably the real winner here." [PC Perspective]

The bottom line is that the new AMD Phenom II X4 processors are not the "Core i7 killers" a lot of people hoped them to be. Despite that, the Phenom II, partnered with a 790GX chipset motherboards, prove to be a good budget enthusiast platform. Overclocking is more feasible with the Phenom II, when compared to the previous Phenom X4 processors, but the Core i7 processors are still easier to overclock.

If you need to build a new system now, going with the Phenom II platform would be the one with the best value. If not, it would be best to wait for the soon to arrive AM3 socket processors.

IceRocket : amd phenom ii x4 45nm am2+

AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Processor Reviewed

AMD recently released its Athlon X2 7000 series processors. Initially, three (3) models make up the series: Athlon X2 7550 2.5 GHz, Athlon X2 7750 2.7 GHz, and Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7 GHz (Black Edition, features unlocked multiplier).

Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Features:

• Codename: Kuma
• Socket AM2+
• 65 nm production process
• Stars (K10) Microarchitecture
• 2 Cores
• 2.7 GHz Clock frequency
• L1 cache: 2 x 64+64 KB
• L2 cache: 2 x 512 KB
• L3 cache: 2 MB
• Dual-channel DDR2-800/1066 SDRAM Memory Controller
• 3.6 GHz HyperTransport bus frequency
• 1.8/2.0 GHz Integrated North Bridge frequency
• 95W TDP
• 450 mln Transistors

"What also really impressed me was unexpected, the ease in overclocking. As stated in our article, we used an uber low-end standard stock air cooler on the processor and still were able to clock it to 3200 / 3300 MHz. I would not be surprised to see many of you clock this puppy to 3.4 - 3.7 GHz fairly easy with nothing more than proper air cooling, and sure, that again brings more value to the table. ... None the less, with the Athlon X2 series 7000 AMD brings mature, stable and extremely affordable processors to the market. It'll be fast enough for most modern applications on a Vista platform, and as such comes very recommended. Also I just realized what an excellent and affordable processor this would be for a HTPC. Very nice." [Guru3D | AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE review]

"Objectively speaking, new Athlon X2 7000 series processors will hardly be able to improve AMD's market standing at this time. The thing is that even though the top Athlon X2 7750 from the Kuma generation turned out faster than the top Brisbane CPU, the advantage is not very significant overall. On average the improvement makes only 3-5%. Moreover, other Athlon X2 7000 series models will not be able to offer any improvement over the already existing Athlon X2 from 5000 and 6000 series. ... Unfortunately, Athlon X2 7000 have the same problem as the Phenom CPUs: the combination of low frequency potential and high power consumption do not let us see the progress that we could have seen otherwise." [X-bit Labs | AMD Launches "Phenom X2": AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Review]

One of the most interesting aspects of the Athlon X2 7750 (and the other two Athlon X2 7000 series processors) is its pricing: the Athlon X2s will be cheaper than comparable processors (in terms of stock performance) from Intel. Those who need a dual core system can benefit from immediate savings on the processor when going the Athlon X2 7000 series route.

IceRocket : 7550, amd athlon x2 7750, black edition, kuma

AMD IGP Chipset Comparison: 780G, 740G, 8300, 8100

HardwareZone compared 4 IGP motherboards for AMD AM2/AM2+ processors. The reviewed motherboards were:

• AMD 780G chipset: Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H (US$80)
• AMD 740G chipset: Gigabyte GA-MA74GM-S2 ($54)
• NVIDIA GeForce 8300 mGPU chipset: Zotac GeForce 8300 ($85)
• NVIDIA GeForce 8100 mGPU: Zotac GeForce 8100 ($58)

"... it's hard to argue against the AMD 780G for either power/heat or its graphics prowess. ... On that same note, the AMD 740G is definitely not for the HTPC enthusiast. HD video playback suffered from the lack of dedicated hardware while the graphics performance was mediocre when compared to the 780G. It's likely to be cheaper than the 780G so that could be its selling point, though even then, we aren't too keen to recommend it - especially not for the HTPC seekers." [HardwareZone | AMD IGP Chipset and Motherboard Showdown]

"Between the Gigabyte 740G and the GeForce 8100, it's a tougher choice and frankly, both are not that appealing, but we'll have to say the GeForce 8100 does come out slightly better for both graphics performance and HD video playback. To conclude, we'll recommend paying more for the beefier chipsets like the GeForce 8300/8200 or the AMD 780G for low-cost HTPC fulfillments." [HardwareZone]

When building an HTPC (Home Theater PC), the best route as of now is either go for the GeForce 8300/8200 or the AMD 780G chipset. Also, if you intend to build a low-cost PC based on the AMD AM2/AM2+ processor, and have plans to add a discrete graphics card later (as the budget permits), the mentioned mainboards are a nice solution.

IceRocket : 740g, 780g, 8100, 8300, amd igp chipset

ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 Graphics Cards Tested

HotHardware compared two graphics cards based on the ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2. The cards were:

• Asus Radeon HD 4870 X2 Top (EAH4870X2 TOP)
• MSI Radeon HD 4870 X2 OC Edition (R4870X2-T2D2G-OC)

Tom's Hardware also compared four graphics cards. The cards reviewed were:

• Asus Radeon HD 4870 X2 Top (EAH4870X2 TOP/HTDI/2G/A)
• HIS Radeon HD 4870 X2 (H487X2F2GP)
• MSI Radeon HD 4870 X2 OC Edition (R4870X2-T2D2G-OC)
• Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 X2 (HD4870 X2 G2 GDDR5)

ATI Radeon baseline Specs:

• Codename: R700
• 2x1024 MB GDDR5 Memory
• 750MHz GPU Clock
• 4.1 Shader Model
• 3600MHz Memory Clock
• 2x800 Stream Processors

"As expected, the Asus EAH4870X2 TOP and MSI R4870X2-T2D2G-OC both outperformed a reference Radeon HD 4870 X2, nearly across the board. The only instance where the factory overclocked Asus and MSI cards didn't clearly outpace the reference card was in the CPU bound 3DMark06 default test. In the SM 3.0 / HDR tests build into 3DMark06, however, the Asus and MSI cards came out on the top. Overall, the Asus EAH4870X2 TOP finished just ahead of the MSI R4870X2-T2D2G-OC due to its slightly higher GPU and memory frequencies, but the performance deltas were minimal." [HotHardware | Overclocked Radeon HD 4870 X2 Shoot-Out]

HotHardware gave both cards, the Asus and MSI, its Recommended stamp.

"The Radeon HD 4870 X2 has a good cooling solution with both of its graphics chips running at full clock speed when the performance is needed. It gets clocked down when running in 2D mode and it comes with 2 x 1 GB of fast graphics memory for high-resolution environments with lots of visual detail. AMD has certainly done a very good job." [Tom's Hardware | Radeon HD 4870 X2: Four Cards Compared]

Tom's Hardware gave the Sapphire its best-buy recommendation. Likewise, the Asus (for fan profiles and overclocking) and MSI (aggressive thermal profiling, resulting in lowered GPU temps) were also recommended.

IceRocket : amd, ati, radeon hd 4870 x2

AMD Processor Roadmap 2008 to 2011

AMD recently released its updated processor roadmap, showing products that will show up this year (2008), and until 2011.

We will begin to see 45nm processors next year (2009), in the form of "Deneb" (4 cores, 8M cache, DDR2/3) and "Propos" (4 cores, 2M cache, DDR2/3) for the desktop. Notebook processors, on the other hand, will have "Caspian" (2 cores, 2M cache, DDR2) and "Conesus" (2 cores, 1M cache, DDR2). For 2010, two mobile processors will be introduced: "Champlain" (4 cores, 2M cache, DDR3) and "Geneva" (2 cores, 2M cache, DDR3). On 2011, 32nm processors are slated to be released. These are "Orochi" (4 cores, 8M cache, DDR3), "Llano" (4 cores, 4M cache, DDR3), and "Ontario" (2 cores, 1M cache, DDR3).

IceRocket : amd processor, caspian, conesus, deneb, llano, ontario, orochi, propos

5 Mainstream Quad-Core Processors Compared

X-bit Labs recently compared five mainstream processors: four Core 2 Quads from Intel, and one Phenom X4 from AMD.

Phenom X4 9950 Specs:

• Codename: Agena
• 2.6GHz Clock Frequency
• 2000MHZ Bus Frequency
• 4 x [64KB +64KB] L1 cache
• 4 x 512KB L2 cache
• 2MB L3 cache
• AM2+ socket
• 65nm production process
• 125/140 W TDP
• Retail price: $174

Core 2 Quad Q6600 Specs:

• Codename: Kentsfield
• 2.4GHz Clock Frequency
• 1067MHZ Bus Frequency
• 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache
• 4 x 4MB L2 cache
• no L3 cache
• LGA775 socket
• 65nm production process
• 95 W TDP
• Retail price: $183

Core 2 Quad Q8200 Specs:

• Codename: Yorkfield
• 2.33GHz Clock Frequency
• 1333MHZ Bus Frequency
• 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache
• 4 x 2MB L2 cache
• no L3 cache
• LGA775 socket
• 45nm production process
• 95 W TDP
• Retail price: $193

Core 2 Quad Q9300 Specs:

• Codename: Yorkfield
• 2.5GHz Clock Frequency
• 1333MHZ Bus Frequency
• 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache
• 4 x 3MB L2 cache
• no L3 cache
• LGA775 socket
• 45nm production process
• 95 W TDP
• Retail price: $266

Core 2 Quad Q9400 Specs:

• Codename: Yorkfield
• 2.66GHz Clock Frequency
• 1333MHZ Bus Frequency
• 4 x [32KB +32KB] L1 cache
• 4 x 3MB L2 cache
• no L3 cache
• LGA775 socket
• 45nm production process
• 95 W TDP
• Retail price: $266

"One of the best choices among low-cost quad-core processors is still the old 65nm Core 2 Quad Q6600. Intel has dropped its price so significantly lately that is remains in the spotlight despite its age and relatively high power consumption. Especially since in some applications such as 3D games, for instance, it manages to perform as fast as a more expensive Core 2 Quad Q9300 thanks to large L2 cache. Its overclocking potential is also pretty encouraging. It doesn't require a specific mainboard: you can almost always push its frequency 1.5 times up with just an efficient cooler." [X-bit Labs | Comparative Tests of Inexpensive Quad-Core Processors]

"... the only drawback of Core 2 Quad Q6600 is its relatively high heat dissipation and power consumption, which makes it unfit for quiet and low-power systems. The new Core 2 Quad Q8200 will suit much better for them. Despite much smaller L2 cache, this CPU is pretty fast and outperforms the fastest processor of Intel's competitor - AMD Phenom X4 9950. As a result, Phenom X4 family may be of interest only to those users who want to get a quad-core processor real cheap, but are ready to put up with low overclocking potential, low performance and high power consumption." [X-bit Labs]

AMD fans don't have much of a choice right now, having only the Phenom X4 9950 (or the 2.2GHz X4 9550) as their choices. Intel fans, however, can choose between the Core 2 Quad Q6600 (good performance and overclocking potential) or the Q8200 (for low heat and power consumption).

IceRocket : 9950, amd, intel, q6600, q8200, q9300, q9400, quad, x4

Best Energy-Saving Processor: Intel Atom or Via Nano?

Currently, there are two legitimate players competing for the Low-Power Energy Saving platform: the Intel Atom (with the Intel 945G chipset) and the Via Nano (with the Via CN896 chipset).

Tom's Hardware compared the Atom and Nano, and mixed a non-production AMD Athlon 64 2000+ (with the AMD 780G chipset) as well.

"Intel's Atom has one definite advantage over the two other solutions-the power requirement stays within very controllable boundaries, which means that the delta between idle power and peak power is very small. If you know your performance requirements then you can be sure that Atom will be the lowest power solution, although not necessarily the most efficient one when more performance is required. The VIA device benefits from its integrated random number generator and hardware encryption support, which is both favorable for networking and security appliances." [Tom's Hardware | Atom, Athlon, or Nano? Energy-Savers Compared]

For best performance and best features, the VIA platform was the clear winner, but unfortunately, has a significantly higher peak power.

Tom's Hardware suggests that desktop users should look at other options, such as a mainstream chipset paired with a low-end dual-core processor. Going this route could probably give you a compromise of low-power consumption, better efficiency, and some flexibility (you can change the processor since it is NOT soldered on to the motherboard).

Technorati : 780g, 945G, CN896, amd, athlon, atom, efficient, energy, intel, nano, via

AMD 790GX Integrated Graphics Chipset Reviewed

The AMD 790GX is an integrated graphics chipset that has the following features:

• HT 3.0/5,200 MT/s Processor Interface
• PCI Express 2.0/26 lanes/2x8 Graphics support
• RV610 integrated core (same with AMD 780G)
• DirectX 10.1 / OpenGL 2.1
• 700 MHz Graphics Clock
• DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI, VGA Display Outputs
• Hybrid CrossFireX, CrossFireX Multi-GPU support
• SB750 Southbridge (AMD 780G uses SB700)
• A-Link Xpress (4 x PCIe 1.1) Interconnect
• RAID 0, 1, 10, 5 support (AMD 780G lacked RAID 5)

Tom's Hardware compared the Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H (790GX) with the Gigabyte MA78GPM-D2SH (780G) and ASUS M3N78 PRO (GeForce 8300) motherboards:

"... The SB750 is AMD's real strength here. Otherwise, we'd probably go for the inexpensive 780G with a Radeon HD 3870 or 4850. But with ACC and RAID 5 support wrapped up into AMD's new southbridge, the company finally has a platform to tie the assets it acquired from ATI into its own processor lineup. Naturally, it helps that the onboard RV610 core is now running at 700 MHz and aided by side-port memory. The main story here is ACC and what AMD is doing to make its processors more attractive in the face of a formidable opponent." [Tom's Hardware | AMD 790GX: RV610 For Enthusiasts?]

AnandTech previewed the 790GX:

"The 790GX Northbridge is actually a 780G that has its stock core clock speed increased from 500MHz to 700MHz along with a graphics core name change from Radeon HD 3200 to HD 3300. Sideport Memory, now called Performance Cache, is a "requested" feature on the boards that improves IG performance about 5% on average, sometimes less, sometimes more. The SB750 Southbridge is basically a SB700 with RAID 5 operation and the new ACC interface. Mix the two parts, stir, and you have the highest performing integrated graphics solution on the market today." [AnandTech | AMD 790GX - The Introduction]

The bottom line is that if you are decided with going with the AMD chipset route for your system build, the 790GX is the right choice if you need RAID 5, and are interested in some overclocking (thanks to the Advanced Clock Calibration).

Technorati : 780g, 790gx, 8300, amd, chipset, graphics, igp, integrated, nvidia, overclock, review, test

Integrated Chipsets: AMD 780G vs. Nvidia GeForce 8200

When planning an AMD rig build using integrated chipsets, the usual question is which chipset to use: AMD 780G or Nvidia GeForce 8200?

Features common to both chipsets:

• 940 pins AM2+ processor socket
• HT 3.0 (1.8 GHz) CPU interface
• DDR2-667/800/1066 Dual Channel DDR2 memory support (up to 8GB)
• Gigabit Ethernet
• 12x USB 2.0
• 5x 32 Bit PCI 2.3 support
• 6x SATA/300 w/ NCQ
• Blu-ray, Betamax/HD-DVD HD video
• Direct X 10.0, Shader Model 4.0
• D-Sub, DVI-D and HDMI w/ HDCP
• HDMI 1.3

AMD 780G Features:

• dual chipset design
• AMD Sb700 Southbridge
• PCIe x4 (2GB/s) chipset interlink
• 26 PCIe 2.0 Lanes PCIe support
• 0, 1,10, JBOD RAID modes
• Radeon HD2400 (RV610)-based graphics core
• 40 Graphics stream processors
• Crossfire X possible (Option: Radeon HD 2400/3450)
• ATI Avivo HD video decoding

Nvidia GeForce 8200 Features:

• Single chipset design
• 19 PCIe 2.0 Lanes PCIe support
• 0, 1,10, 5, JBOD RAID modes
• GeForce 8400 GS (G86)-based graphics core
• 16 Graphics stream processors
• Hybrid Graphics-only (Option: GeForce 8400 GS/8500 GT)
• Power Saving: HybridPower switches off discrete graphics in 2D
• Nvidia PureVideo HD

"Both chipsets have reached a level of integration, performance and efficiency that is far above what most of us associate with the term "integrated chipset". The AMD 780G and Nvidia's GeForce 8200/8300 include all features and interfaces for a modern desktop solution, multimedia system or HTPC. ... They don't deliver less performance than high-end chipsets, and they even come with decent graphics engines, which are excellent for office and multimedia, and for playing HD video from Blu-ray in FullHD resolution. ... If you don't specifically want to run dual, three-way or quad graphics, or need more sophisticated platform features such as hardcore overclocking options, these motherboards do in fact suffice - and they still provide a nice upgrade path for graphics. Nvidia was more consistent in executing its platform strategy with Hybrid Power, while AMD offers better video features (Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD, Display Port) and FullHD video decoding efficiency." [Tom's Hardware | AMD and Nvidia Platforms Do Battle : Hybrid Graphics Platforms to Fire Up Multi-GPU Rendering?]

So, it boils down to what to choose. As the above article states, the 780G won in video (FullHD video decoding), while the 8200 won in graphics (Hybrid Power implementation).

Fudzilla.com tested four 780G and one 8200 motherboards:

"While AMD might not be the gaming platform of choice, it is a good choice for HTPC. Geforce 8200 consumes less power compared to 780G, but AMD still has the superior graphics-power and the better multimedia support. Using a 45W TDP CPU such as the AMD Athlon X2 4850e, this configuration is the best possibility to go for." [Fudzilla | Four 780G and one GeForce 8200 tested]

If you are more inclined to choose the chipset with the lower power consumption, the 8200 should be your best bet (Further reading: IGP Chipset Power Consumption Compared). Also, it's also helpful to note that some Linux users tend to experience less video driver compatibility problems with Nvidia graphics than ATI ones, in case you are looking to use a Linux distro as your operating system.

AnandTech tested six (6) motherboards with integrated graphics. The chipsets were: GF8300, GF8200, AMD 790GX, AMD 780G, Intel G35, and Intel G45:

"... it is difficult to declare a true winner at this time, especially given the fact that the new NVIDIA chipsets are launching shortly. However, if we had to choose one chipset for primary HTPC usage, it would be the NVIDIA GeForce 8200. The GF8200 offers 8-channel LPCM output, no hassle 1080P/24 fps playback capabilities, modest pricing, and a relatively low power envelope when paired with an appropriate processor such as the Phenom X3 8750 or Phenom X4 9350e." [AnandTech | AMD 780G vs. Intel G45 vs. NVIDIA GeForce 8200]

As of now, it seems the GF 8200 and AMD 780G chipsets are the ideal choices, with the GF 8200 more favorable for HTPC usage.

Technorati : 780g, 790gx, 8200, 8300, amd, chipset, g35, g45, geforce, graphics, igp, integrated, nvidia

Radeon HD 4870 X2 Previewed

The Radeon HD 4870 X2 (~US$500), a graphics card code-named R700, features two (2) RV770 GPUs. The RV770 GPU is used by the Radeon HD 4870 and 4850.

Features:

• 800 x 2 Stream Processors
• 40 x 2 Texture Units
• 16 x 2 ROPs
• 750MHz Core Clock
• 900MHz (3600MHz data rate) GDDR5 Memory Clock
• 256-bit x 2 Memory Bus Width
• 1GB x 2 Frame Buffer
• 956M x 2 Transistor Count
• TSMC 55nm Manufacturing Process

AnandTech and ExtremeTech both had a hands-on preview of the Radeon HD 4870 X2.

"... We can say that, for those who want to game at the extremely high end, 4870 X2 with it's 2GB of on board RAM will be a more consistent solution than 2x 512MB 4870 cards in CrossFire , as evidenced by our Race Driver GRID test. ... The 4870 X2 will be AMD's proving ground. This preview shows what might be, what could be ... but we must wait for final hardware and final drivers before we can honestly evaluate the card for what it is. Let us hope AMD knows how important having pervasive compatibility really is for this launch. " [AnandTech | ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 - R700 Preview: AMD's Fastest Single Card]

"Our early look at the performance of the Radeon HD 4870 X2 (code-named R700) is at once exciting and disappointing. ... our early tests only reassure us that there's good reason the R700 card isn't out yet. ATI simply has more work to do. Naturally a high-end dual-GPU card like this will scale better at the highest resolutions and with the highest AA settings, but there's little reason for it not to scale at all, or scale very poorly, at medium-grade resolution like 1680x1050 or 1440x900. ... On the other hand, some tests do indeed show tremendous scaling and overall performance at all settings. " [ExtremeTech | Radeon HD 4870 X2 Performance Preview]

It would be quite exciting to see how the Radeon HD 4870 X2 "final product" will perform. I'm sure AMD/ATI is working diligently to make the R700 fly to the production phase.

Technorati : 4870, amd, ati, graphics, hd, radeon, x2

AMD Phenom X3 8750 Tested and Overclocked

The Phenom X3 8750 is a processor from AMD that has the following features:

• 2.4GHz
• AM2+
• three cores
• AMD Balanced Smart Cache, a shared L3 cache of up to 2MB between the cores (in addition to 512K L2 cache per core)
• HyperTransport technology
• Integrated memory controller bypasses a discreet memory controller for faster, more streamline memory access to DDR2 system RAM

ExtremeTech put the Phenom 8750 head-to-head with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400:

"AMD has an excellent argument for going with a CPU with an odd number of cores. The triple-core equipped CPU performed admirably most of the time. ,,, If you consider that it runs at a mere 2.4GHz compared to the 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo we tested it against, you must conclude that the extra core had, at the very least, some positive effect on the benchmark results. ... at its factory frequency, it's a solid contender in the midrange CPU market-something AMD hasn't been able to brag about in a very long time. " [ ExtremeTech | 8750 Review ]

Then the Phenom 8750 was overclocked:

"The battle was finally over. I threw up my white flag, once again a victim of a Phenom CPU with very little factory overspec to speak of." [ExtremeTech | 8750 Overclocking]

So is the Phenom X3 8750 worth it? I say yes. Just don't have your hopes up on having a decent overclock.

Technorati : 8750, amd, overclock, phenom, processor, test, x3

Three New Phenom X4 Processors Tested

Recently announced were 3 new Phenom X4 CPUs: 9950 Black Edition (2.6GHz, US$235), 9350e (2.0GHz, US$195), and 9150e (1.8GHz, US$175).

All 3 processors feature:

• 4 cores
• (64KB + 64KB) x 4 L1Cache
• 512KB x 4 L2 Cache
• 2MB L3 Cache
• Integrated Dual Channel (up to DDR2-1066) memory controller
• AM2+ packaging
• 65nm SOI process technology
• "Agena" processor codename

The 9950 Black Edition consumes 140 Watts maximu, while the 9350e and 9150e, being the energy-efficient Phenom X4s, consume no more than 65 Watts.

AnandTech.com tested the Phenom X4 9950, 9350e and 9150e processors:

"... AMD's CPU division is finally competitive again. The return to competition isn't because of an increase in performance or architectural changes, it's simply through very aggressive pricing. ... The Phenom X4 9950 BE and 9850 BE are reasonably competitive with the Q9300 and Q6600, although we would still opt for the Intel solutions thanks to lower power consumption and significantly better overclocking potential. ... The Phenom X4 9550 is the sweet spot of AMD's product line and it does do well against Intel's dual-core E8400, as do the X3 8650/8450 against Intel's E7200. " [AnandTech | AMD's Phenom X4 9950, 9350e and 9150e]

HardwareZone.com tested the Phenom X4 9350e and 9150e , and found them to be 'Energy Efficient'at the expense of performance :

"... we can only think of one scenario where the new Phenom entrants would be of potential value and that's when you consider AMD's balanced system slogan, exemplified by AMD's mainstream Cartwell platform. Such a platform would marry an AMD 780G motherboard with a low TDP quad-core processor like these new Phenoms and make for a powerful, yet compact little system to play your Blu-ray movies or equivalent HD video content, with decent gaming potential thrown in. ... As we found in our real-world games testing, the minute you consider discrete graphics for better game performance, an AMD-based system would only hinder your overall graphics performance. So for the performance-concerned enthusiasts, you would do well to stick with an Intel processor. " [HardwareZone | Energy Efficient CPUs Ahoy!]

If you are looking to build a new quad-core system, and care less with overclocking, the Phenom X4 9950 BE looks to be a good processor, being at par with the Q9300 and Q6600 Intel CPUs.

Technorati : 9150, 9350, 9950, amd, black, cpu, edition, phenom, processor, review, test, x4

Build an Energy Efficient PC

Tom's Hardware has a great guide on energy efficiency, discussing about ways to save power at different levels: technology, component, product, and user.

"Selecting the right components is important in building an energy efficient machine. If you go for an old Pentium D instead of the current Core 2 Duo processor, you will get two processing cores in both cases and even higher clock speeds with the Pentium D. The old Pentium generation is based on the NetBurst architecture, though, which is considerably slower than the Core 2 family (including the Pentium Dual Core, which is a stripped down version). Despite its deficient performance, the Pentium D will still consume much more power than a Core 2 processor under all possible conditions. Clearly, selecting the right technology is very important." [Tom's Hardware | Tom's Energy Efficiency Guide]

The guide also suggests some component choices for your next PC build.

AMD System:

• Gigabyte GA-MA78GM with AMD780G Chipset motherboard
• AMD Phenom X4 9100e processor

Intel System:

• ECS G33T with Intel G33 Chipset motherboard
• Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

Other components:

• Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ (1 TB) hard drive
• Western Digital WD10EACS hard drive
• Radeon HD 3870 graphics card
• GeForce 9600 GT graphics card
• Silverstone ST50EF Plus (500 W) power supply unit

It's interesting to see that Tom's Hardware chose an AMD780G Chipset motherboard for the AMD system. I'm sure that Nvidia fans may opt for a motherboard with the NVIDIA GeForce 8200 chipset, but unless we have the concrete numbers as to which chipset is more efficient, we may just have to go with subjectivity on this matter.

Other than that, I'm sure that the components mentioned in the article would be a good guideline for your next energy efficient PC build.

Technorati : amd, build, efficient, energy, intel, pc

IGP Chipset Power Consumption Compared

AnandTech takes a quick look at the power consumption of three chipsets that feature an Integrated Graphics Processor (IGP). The mainboards tested were the Gigabyte MA78GM-S2H (AMD 780G), ASUS P5E-VM HDMI (Intel G35), and Biostar TF8200 A2+ (Nvidia GF8200).

Processors used for the tests were the following:

• AMD Athlon LE1600 and Intel Core 2 Duo E2200 (minimum spec processors)
• AMD 4850e X2 and Intel E7200 (middle ground performance)
• AMD Phenom 9550 and Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (entry-level quad-core processors)

"... the results today should provide a better indication to each platform's power requirements with a variety of CPUs likely to end up in these boards and applications that tend to stress those same processors. Unless the next NVIDIA driver set increases power consumption, then we have a surprise winner between the latest IGP chipsets from the big three. The next question we will answer is performance per watt and those results are likely to lead us down another path." [AnandTech | IGP Power Consumption - 780G, GF8200, and G35]

The motherboard that had the lowest power consumption was the Biostar that featured the Nvidia GF8200 chipset. This was true, regardless of what processor it had on.

As AnandTech puts it, Power Consumption is something to consider, when looking to build a quiet PC rig with integrated graphics on the motherboard.

Technorati : consumption, igp, integrated graphics, mainboard, motherboard, power