backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by SavagePotato.. on Jul 3 at 4:29 PM

AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition and 9350e @ Hot Hardware  (Source: Hot Hardware)
DailyTech's roundup of hardware reviews from around the web for Tuesday

AMD Phenom X4 Black Edition, 9350e, and 9150e Edition
@ Hot Hardware
@ MADBOXPC
@ AMD Zone

Notebooks
Dell Vostro Laptop @ SpicyGadget.com

Processors
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Overclocking Guide @ Hardwareoverclock Austria

Motherboards
Super Micro C2SBX+ @ Phoronix

Video
Sapphire Radeon HD 3870 Ultimate @ ASE Labs
XFX GTX 280 XXX Edition @ Metkumods

Cases
Zalman GS1000 @ XSReviews

Cooling
Thermaltake DuOrb CPU Cooler @ Futurelooks
Tuniq Ensemble 1200W @ OCC
SilenX iXtrema IXC-12HA2 CPU Cooler @ ThinkComputers.org
Zalman Reserator XT Liquid Cooling System @ HardwareLogic
SilenX IXTREMA Pro IXC-120HA2 @ Bjorn3D

Power Supplies
Type R II 680W Powe Supply @ Pro-Clockers
OCZ EliteXstream 800w @ DriverHeaven
Coolmax CUG950B 950 Watt Power Supply @ CPU3D
Coolmax CUQ-1350B 1350W Power Supply @ JonnyGURU.com
X-Spice Kira 530w Power Supply @ High Tech Reviews

Storage
Samsung MCBQE32G5MPP 2.5" 32GB SSD @ TweakTown
HighPoint RocketRAID 2640X4 @ TechwareLabs
Kingston Technologies DataTraveler HyperX 4GB @ TechwareLabs
QNAP TS-209 Pro Gigabit SATA NAS @ Benchmark Reviews
Pioneer PDCSO2BK Blu-ray Drive @ bit-tech

Printers
Samsung CLP-610ND Color Laser Printer @ Tweaknews.net

Peripherals
Microsoft Sidewinder @ FPSLabs
ASUS Xonar D2X Soundcard @ Guru3D

Consumer Electronics
Humax LGB-32DST 32in LCD TV @ Trusted Reviews

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
amd rewrites the book on overclocking...
By diablosinc on 7/1/2008 11:34:16 AM , Rating: 5
yeah, you didn't read that wrong. and it seems that most of the reviewers haven't read the phenom oc guide!!

its a different kind of overclock, folks. there are similarities between k8 & k10 oc methodologies, and of course your basic oc rules apply...but there are settings and options and rules that have only recently come to light through very patient enthusiasts figuring out the secret to successful k10 oc's.

i'm not saying that all you have to do is read the guide and magically you'll get your 9550 running @ 4ghz!!! no...that would be insipid. but if you're going to test the overclockability of a processor, would you really test it on a board that you describe as being "lackluster at best for overclocking"???

nor am i saying that "k10 is king", or anything so fanboyish. its clear, amd has no chance of taking any fancy hats away from intel in the performance arena with 65nm...and already there are questions about 45nm. and thats fine, and i'm comfortable with that...but i'm not at all comfortable with journalists who proport themselves to be "enthusiasts" turning in such shoddy, half-baked "reports". aren't "enthusiasts", by definition, supposed to exhibit "enthusiasm"?

there's an article out there about trying to oc the x3...guy got it from 2.4 to 2.7, went through an epic battle to do so, and he doesn't even like amd. THAT...is enthusiasm. he wrote it up as an epic battle, which ultimately he lost, and i swear to you, it was the most evocative, passionate tech review i've ever read. here's a guy admitting defeat at the hands of what he calls "the enemy"...but he's doing so with such zeal, such enthusiasm for the battle and the challenge.

in that light, amd has rewritten the book on overclocking. anyone who can apply thermal paste (and even some who can't!!) can get an intel into high overclocks...but only an enthusiast is going to accept the elegant challenge of what appears to be a losing fight, glowing with the prospect of victory in the face of overwhelming odds.

now if only the people who report on it could show such enthusiasm, or even bother with a little research. if you were writing a paper for school, you'd be expected to research your subject, yes? now...you're writing an article on overclocking intel c2d/q...would you use the same oc method you used for p4, or would you do some research and see if there were any new tips or tricks?

since i'm already up on my trusty crate o' irish spring, i'll close on this....remember always the definition of the word enthusiasm, especially as the word "fanboy" falls off of your fingertips. "fan" is short for "fanatic", and all fanatics are enthusiastic. so lets stop calling one another "fanboy", and start respecting one another's individual enthusiasms, eh?

discuss...




By eye smite on 7/1/2008 1:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you and very well said.


AMD...
By FaceMaster on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: AMD...
By FaceMaster on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: AMD...
By ksherman on 7/1/2008 9:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, didn't see Intel go out of buisness when AMD reigned them in for years.


RE: AMD...
By Rev1 on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: AMD...
By Rodney McNaggerton on 7/1/2008 10:20:09 AM , Rating: 5
You're a smelly pirate hooker.


RE: AMD...
By Parhel on 7/1/2008 10:25:23 AM , Rating: 5
With few exceptions, AMD had the performance or price/performance lead from 1999, when they introduced the Athlon, until 2006, when Intel introduced the Core 2.


RE: AMD...
By SavagePotato on 7/3/2008 4:29:23 PM , Rating: 1
You like that core2 duo? How bout those new Yorkfeild quads?

I know I do, and I know I wouldn't be seeing them in existence if AMD hadn't put a smack down on P4 with the athlon64.

Like multicore? that was an AMD innovation as well.

Intel was asleep at the wheel and quite content to keep selling netbust to whoever would buy it. Their friendly to the enthusiast overclocking stance only came along after yet again, AMD trumped them in the enthusiast space so badly in that respect too.

Everyone owes AMD a round of thanks for their contributions to the microprocessor world.

I currently use an intel processor. However I would love to see AMD get competitive again because you know what? I personally don't like the idea of paying $2000 for top level Intel chips, and that's just about what they are at already.

Notice yet how Intel's tic tac toe strategy became tic tac tock tick tack toe with yorkfeild when there was no need to release it on time? and when they did it was enthusiast insane level pricing only? Sadly that will likely be the exact same thing with Nehalem.

Intel needs some competition ore things will be going back to the days of obscene prices and little innovation.


RE: AMD...
By B3an on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: AMD...
By Mitch101 on 7/1/2008 10:39:05 AM , Rating: 5
The performance is actually quite good but you must run multi-threaded applications to see the benefits. Running a single threaded application the procs still do well but that defeats the purpose of a multi cored CPU. In fact a lot of multi threaded server applications run better on a quad AMD over Intel's top of the line. Not all but enough to say that the Phenom is actually a very good CPU depending on the purpose of the box.

Bang for Buck AMD processors are priced very well and for the HTPC paired with a 780G motherboard AMD has a excellent product.

For the record I am running a dual core E8400 Intel as my main machine but I am looking at building a 45watt dual core with a 780G motherboard for a nice under 100 watt HTPC.

Get over being a fanboy its bang for buck and building for your specific application.


RE: AMD...
By B3an on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: AMD...
By B3an on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: AMD...
By Mitch101 on 7/1/2008 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 4
Performance wise the AMD chips within 100mhz perform fairly close to the Intel counter parts on an IPC level.

Price wise the AMD chips are priced well and within reality of their performance.

The phenoms are an improvement over the previous architecture. Maybe not an Intel killer but performance is clock for close pretty close to Intel's current lineup. AMD's just dont clock as well. Why is that?

Without SSE4a, 45nm, and High-K, AMD doesn't get the overclocks/performance Intel chips currently have an advantage with. But I guess your OK with comparing 65nm cpu's to 45nm cpu's as if AMD was pricing CPU's way out of their performance categories.

Sorry I don't take guff from a guy who spells his name with a number because he thinks its l33t.

Go work on your A+ certification.


RE: AMD...
By eye smite on 7/1/2008 2:27:40 PM , Rating: 3
No, because you put your own spin on the facts so they read how you want them to.

My guess is you didn't read the benchmarks very closely. When intel's and amd's are at the same clockspeed, amd holds it's own against intel. Do they beat them? Occasionally. Does it matter? Not really.

The bottom line is, not many people care about which is the faster cpu, they care about how much they can go to the store and spend on an oem system that they'll be happy with. Only 2% of the population in the USA care about which is faster, so what is that.............like 6 million people total. I guarantee you if you ask a salesperson at Circuit City or Best Buy whether people are buying computers based on the cpu or how much it costs, they'll tell you cost everytime. That's only reason intel was able to victimize all us techs with the crappy celerons to begin with, HELLO??????


RE: AMD...
By Accord99 on 7/1/2008 5:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the record I am running a dual core E8400 Intel as my main machine but I am looking at building a 45watt dual core with a 780G motherboard for a nice under 100 watt HTPC.

A ~3GHz Wolfdale has been measured by a number of sites to consume around 30W under full load.


RE: AMD...
By maroon1 on 7/1/2008 10:57:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I agree with you about the performance. The Phenoms are bad, even for price/performance. The Intel Q6600 still has better performance than ALL AMD Phenom X4's but is also cheaper than the X4 9850 2.50GHz or 9750 2.4GHz for instance.


I totally agree with you.

I want to add, that Intel quad cores are have lower power consumption, and run cooler than Phenom

Even the 9350e (which have TDP of 65W), consumes more power than Q6600 in the actual tests. Not to mention that Q6600 performs a lot better at same time, so Q6600 is a easy winner in performance per watt battle

http://www.hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1173/...

quote:
These are facts, but fanbois dont like facts and will rate you down anyway.


And yea they will rate down by post as well. Some fanboys don't like to see these facts


RE: AMD...
By maroon1 on 7/1/2008 12:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
will rate down by post as well.


I mean my post.

Sorry but I can't edit my comments


RE: AMD...
By jordanclock on 7/1/2008 11:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm looking at the Hot Hardware benchmarks and the Q6600 isn't faster than ALL of the Phenom X4s. It's faster than a few, but the only benchmarks where it is faster than ALL of the X4s is Crysis, which is at 800x600 and I'm sure everyone knows how GPU limited that is at realistic resolutions, and Cinebench, where it beats the 9950 by a couple of hundred points.

Looking at Newegg shows that the prices aren't too bad for the kind of performance you get. A q6600 (retail) on Newegg goes for $215. A 9850 goes for $235. I really don't see these kinds of numbers as a hands-down win for Intel.

AMD is still viable. Very viable. In an HTPC, AMDs CPU/Mobo combination is holding great. In game machines, the performance is just fine. In rendering boxes, it depends on your benchmark, which to me says it is perfectly competitive.

Would I buy an AMD processor right now? No. I chose Intel because, at the time, it was my cheapest route. If I had an AMD box prior, I'm sure I'd still have one now.

My biggest complaint with AMD right now is the lack of cheap, low-end Agena based processors. Intel has Core 2 throughout the entire line up, from top to bottom (well, Pentium is now the very bottom) so it makes it easier to really compare various processors in the line up. With AMD, the Athlon X2/Phenom overlap is blurry. Especially when price is a concern.

Right now, AMD is in a position to become competitive across the board, but it wouldn't be easy. They would need to scale up production to lower prices, find a way to make a competitive sub-2Ghz Agena (or their next core) and really find a way to market the Phenom X4 for what it's worth and stop relying on their name alone.

Wow... That was just supposed to be a quick reply...


RE: AMD...
By maroon1 on 7/1/2008 12:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A q6600 (retail) on Newegg goes for $215.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

It is now $209.99, and it was $199.99 yesterday


RE: AMD...
By Targon on 7/1/2008 8:29:55 AM , Rating: 3
What you(and many others) don't think about is the price/performance perspective across all product ranges. Sure, AMD is having problems competing at the high end, but in the low end of the market, AMD makes a decent processor. There may be a higher margin at the high end of the market, but when the majority of processors are in the low to mid range, it's not bad.

AMD does tend to be better about not forcing people to buy a new motherboard(due to chipset limitations), which makes AMD based systems a bit better when it comes to total cost of ownership when you upgrade your systems rather than just replacing them. The current 125 watt processors being the only exception, but that may not be an issue once the 45nm process versions start to show up.

When it comes to integrated graphics(I know, most who read this don't bother), AMD has a huge edge right now, which may compensate for lower overall CPU power for some people.

I agree that AMD NEEDS to release higher-speed Phenoms, or to release a new processor that can properly compete with Intel, but that doesn't mean that AMD is out. Can you really say that a $530 tower with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ dual-core processor and 3 gigs of memory is a bad deal in this day and age?


RE: AMD...
By FaceMaster on 7/1/2008 9:04:06 AM , Rating: 1
The AMD 64 X2 6000+ bit's the problem. It's almost as if AMD can't actually release something better than their old processor line up.


RE: AMD...
By BSMonitor on 7/1/2008 9:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you really say that a $530 tower with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ dual-core processor and 3 gigs of memory is a bad deal in this day and age?


Yeah, it is. I can get a Q6600 system from dell for that much. And it will own the X2-6000.


RE: AMD...
By Mojo the Monkey on 7/1/2008 9:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD does tend to be better about not forcing people to buy a new motherboard(due to chipset limitations), which makes AMD based systems a bit better when it comes to total cost of ownership when you upgrade your systems rather than just replacing them.


Yeah, tell that to my socket 939; very short lived. I stand by the rest of your post, but I think intel is kind of firing back with the longevity of the 775. I'm actually impressed with them, for a change.


RE: AMD...
By Parhel on 7/1/2008 10:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Socket 939 had a pretty good run. It was the top-tier for 2 years. Intel, though they don't change sockets as much, changes chipsets and removes backwards compatibility. You can't put a socket 775 Pentium 4 into a current Intel branded board, so it's as good as a socket change.


RE: AMD...
By P4blo on 7/1/2008 10:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yeh AMD had those suckers on the run for some time. I'm glad to say I bought an Athlon X2 at the time and loved it.

What's totally crap and unfair to AMD was that Intel spent this time paying off it's customers so it didn't lose market share. I would wager that AMD benefitted very little in the long run from the brilliance of those chips compared to the Netburst and that's why I'm fully behind these investigations into Intel's ugly business practices.


RE: AMD...
By 325hhee on 7/1/2008 10:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD does tend to be better about not forcing people to buy a new motherboard(due to chipset limitations), which makes AMD based systems a bit better when it comes to total cost of ownership when you upgrade your systems rather than just replacing them. The current 125 watt processors being the only exception, but that may not be an issue once the 45nm process versions start to show up.


I have to strongly disagree with you Targon. I'm still an AMD user, but let me say, I went from a 754, to a 939, to an AM2 and now to an AM2+, oh and wait, AM3 is around the corner.

I'm an AMD supporter for a number of reasons, mostly financial, their chips cost less than Intel so does their motherboards, but AMD has lied to us, they said we would not need another board after 939, then they said the AM2 will be fully compatible with the Phenom, which they recant, and even when the AM2+ was out they still said that was not the final solution, AM3 is going to be the next chipset.

Intel for once, got their motherboards right, they've been on 775 for the longest. You can't argue that fact, yes they have improved the 775 MBs with faster frontside bus, and faster memory support as well as new boards come out with DDR3 support. But the facts are, it's still 775 and if you really want the faster support, you'd upgrade the motherboard. BUT you're not forced to.

I'm hopping my AM2+ is going to give me the longevity it's supposed to, or I'm going to have to switch camps. My 754 was the first blow, no X2 support, my 939 fell short of no phenom support, my AM2 is gathering dust now. And I just look at all the money I spent on these boards, it makes me cry. Gaming boards are not $100. If they were, it wouldn't bother me so much.


RE: AMD...
By emboss on 7/1/2008 1:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
Although any LGA775 chip will fit in any LGA775 socket (physical compatibility), in most cases it won't work properly (or at all) unless it's paired with the right revision (electrical incompatibility). There are at least 8 major variations, shown below with a more or less randomly selected example motherboard from Gigabyte.
1) Prescott-only, 533 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-8I845GE775-G
2) Prescott-only, 800 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-8IP775
3) Prescott-only, 1066 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-8I955X Pro
4) Core 2 65nm compatible, 800 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-8I945GZME-RH
5) Core 2 65nm compatible, 1066 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-G1975X
6) Core 2 45nm compatible, 1066 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-P31-S3L (note that GB claims that all their P31 boards do 1333 MT/s FSB, kinda, sorta, as long as you don't mind stability issues)
7) Core 2 45nm compatible, 1333 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-P35-DS3R
8) Core 2 45nm compatible, 1600 MT/s FSB. Eg: GA-X48-DQ6
There may be some boards that do 1333 MT/s but don't support 45nm CPUs. But they're not common enough to turn up on a casual search.

There's also some variation in power requirements: there's 5 PCG levels I know of (04A, 04B, 05A, 05B, 06) and there's a quite limited ability to mix and match between two different versions processor/board wise. I didn't try and break out any of the main 8 groups above, because finding PCG data requires trawling though the CPU support lists, which is painful. This is what makes some boards able to support 45nm dual-cores, but not 45nm quad cores (for example the 945GC board from Asus).

quote:
[...] if you really want the faster support, you'd upgrade the motherboard. BUT you're not forced to.


Say what? Unless you want to be limited to a small range of budget/cut-down versions of a chip, you have to have a board that supports Intel's current favourite FSB. You can't take a 1333 MT/s CPU and make it run at full speed in a motherboard that only supports a 1066 MT/s FSB. If the multipler was unlocked on Intel's chips so that you could crank it up when running on a slower FSB what you said would be correct, but unfortunately it's not.

In the case of AMD - there's nothing apart from lazy board vendors preventing you from using your Phenom in an AM2 board. Some board vendors were a little slow to get updated BIOSes out on release, but last time I checked most AM2 boards from the major manufacturers had Phenom support. From an electrical and physical point of view, AM2 and AM2+ are compatible in both ways (AM2+ CPU in AM2 board, AM2 CPU in AM2+ board). AM2+ is literally AM2, with a few extra features that can be taken advantage of by an AM2+ CPU and which are ignored by an AM2 CPU.

AM3 is an unavoidable compatibility problem. You can still use an AM3 CPU in an AM2/AM2+ board without a problem (again, board vendor BIOS updates permitting). It's just you can't use an AM2 CPU in an AM3 board, since the AM2 CPUs simply don't have a DDR3 memory controller. In fact, that AMD is making the effort to allow AM3 CPUs to run in AM2 boards shows that they care about socket stability.

So, you can use AMD's 2009 CPUs (and probably even their 2010 CPUs, assuming they're still alive then) in a board bought in early 2006. I wouldn't call that a particularily bad run. Intel has released at least 5 socket variations already in this period (all the Core 2 variants in my list above), and has at least one more coming up for Nehalem.

There's many things Intel does better than AMD - which is why I'm typing this on a Q6600 rig - but socket stability is not one of them.


RE: AMD...
By maroon1 on 7/1/2008 1:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD does tend to be better about not forcing people to buy a new motherboard(due to chipset limitations), which makes AMD based systems a bit better when it comes to total cost of ownership when you upgrade your systems rather than just replacing them. The current 125 watt processors being the only exception, but that may not be an issue once the 45nm process versions start to show up.


Phenom is worse then Core 2 quad, so people who upgraded to Phenom have upgraded to a processor that it is already inferior to Intel Quad !

People who have the old Intel 965 motherboard can upgrade to Q6600 and Q6700

And people who have P35 can upgrade to Yorkfield in the future when the price drops


RE: AMD...
By insurgent on 7/1/2008 9:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
As much as you'd like to think you matter, you don't. Intel is the clear choice for the enthusiast but for the rest that makes up the bulk of the market, it's not as clear cut.


RE: AMD...
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/1/2008 9:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thins get even more confusing if you take the overclocking crowd that wants to buy cheap low-mid end CPUs and overclock the hell out of them.

Q6600s are really cheap now and almost none of them overclock to less than 3ghz, leaving almost anything stock in the market behind. (I've got my cheapo b3 at 3.2ghz right now... g0s go even higher with many of them topping out at more than 3.4ghz, always talking about air cooling because if you talk about water or phase change, the whole point of saving money by overclocking becomes a moot one)

One of the problems with AMD is that they can't capture this segment of the market as all but the highest end phenoms don't cope with overclocking as well as intel's offerings do, and, clock for clock, their performance is also behind that of intel's. So at the same price point, you can in some cases get an Intel chip with at equivalent performance to a phenom (that is, a lower clocked intel cpu performing as good as a higher clocked phenom) and has much better overclockability for those who care doing so.

Good thing as that AMD's 4870 video card, while not directly competing in the high end, is one hell of a nice card and for a price which is a fraction of the gtx280 and even cheaper than the gtx260, it can perform right between the two of them.

AMD by now can't come with a better CPU design right out of the hat, and Intel has some great chips already in the oven so AMD's claim for top performance CPUs is not so near yet. But if they take advantage of the momentum they're gaining with graphic cards, they could with not so huge of an effort battle with nvidia's highest end and regain the fame of having the fastest GPUs in the market which ATI once had. They'd better concentrate on that and on GPU-CPU integration as they've still got a long road to go before they can start challenging intel's products in a decisively strong way.


RE: AMD...
By diablosinc on 7/2/2008 9:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
again, i question the use of the word "enthusiast" here. we all have enthusiasms. perhaps you get enthusiastic about the challenges of overclocking a cpu that is guaranteed to give you a large overclock with little effort....others might be enthusiastic about the challenge of squeaking out the most performance that they can from a notoriously difficult part.
i remember being proud of my 50mhz 486 running at 66mhz....and that was a challenge!
"enthusiasm" is supposed to be positive, so please...lets stop trying to rain on others' enthusiasm parades.


RE: AMD...
By LorKha on 7/1/2008 11:36:01 AM , Rating: 1
Face it, without AMD and their line of products, Intel will overprice their products and then you'll complain about how expensive Intel is and why there isn't another company to compete against it.

Q6600 - $215 on Newegg
Phenom 9850 - $235 on Newegg

-------Price without AMD--------

Q6600 - $97149387197 on Craigslist


RE: AMD...
By FaceMaster on 7/1/2008 7:11:22 PM , Rating: 1
...and you think that any company would be any different with out competition?

That includes AMD, by the way.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki