AMD Phemon FX-80 4.0 GHz.............

[xguntherc]

OK. So I've been hearing some things about this off and on. but remember the Athlon 64 FX.. that used to be the best of the best until the Core 2 Duo came out and wiped the floor with it. But read this...

Controversial news that AMD will be releasing a performance quad core CPU under the name Phenom FX. Two models are supposedly in the mix named the FX-80 clocked at 4GHz, and the FX-82 clocked at 4.4GHz.

The news that sparked the debate which is now spread across many sites now, that a site called Reviewage in the UK had a screenie of CPU-Z running a 45nm Phenom @ 4GHz. Reviewage claim they spotted the image on a UK computer store website.

Even after the original link provided was broken (which also brought up thoughts that this is fake). Now reviewage have posted once again the picture of the CPU-Z screenie
here

They also claim that the FX-80 outperforms an Intel Kentsfield clocked @ 5GHz, but this still a rumor has not yet been proven. However the screenshot of the 4GHz Phenom leaves many wonder, has someone faked a CPU-Z... or does AMD in fact have a hand their yet to deal in their CPU battle with Intel?

If you have found anymore news about this, or have something you would like to share/add, then please!

 

[xguntherc]

Oops. I forgot to give my input..

I also personally think that this is somewhat likely. as look what the 65-45nm did for Intel. I could very much see this happening for AMD also, not to mention they've paired up and have been working with IBM. who are currently on stage to release the Power7, an Octo-core CPU running at 4.0 GHz for there servers. I'm not saying that AMD will be releasing a 4.4 GHz CPU that will KILL everything else out. but I can very well see them releasing something in this area that could do some damage. After all the latest Athlon FX-74 was a Dual 3.0 GHz unlocked Multiplier that was a fast fast CPU. I could see them releasing a Deneb FX-82 clocked at 3.6 Ghz or something that could easily reach 4.0 GHz speeds and above.


HMMM.. just in time for Nehalem maybe. Not sure. But we wont know, Til we know. that is how this business goes.

 

[Scotteq]

I certainly believe a Pheonom can outperform a Kentsfield, just so long as the measurements happen to be memory bandwidth, and/or in an SMP configuration.

Besides that, all a CPU-Z screenie really proves is that the computer was able to boot into Windows and not crash long enough to start CPU-Z and obtain a screenshot. Looking at the linked page, I don't see anything showing what the config was, or what the test conditions were, or what they were doing. Just a screenie.

You'll pardon the cynicism, and I sincerely do not with to start a partisan flame war by denigrating someone's choice... But based on AMD's recent performance history I'll believe it when real people are able to buy them and achieve similar results.

 

[xguntherc]

oh no offense taken. I'm right with you on that. I personally don't know what to think. I'm saying it's very well possible. but I'm not saying I think it's completely true.

Also I've only used AMD once. and I'm a proud Intel user, so ur not bashing my preference or anything. I just thought it was an interesting read.

thats all.

 

[Scotteq]

Agreed that it's an interesting read/idea.

Regarding the extra sensitivity: It's a bit different here, but at a lot of sites merely mentioning either maker amounts to an invitation to a flame war. So it's become a habit to be careful about my wording on this stuff :D

 

[xguntherc]

ya I don't blame you.. I'm not one of those stupid kids sitting around waiting to flame and get into fights online.. cuz what good do they cause.. nothing.

I see what you mean, I'm careful also. or try to be sometimes.

 

[Fumz]

I'd really, really like to see AMD get competitive again, but I doubt they've developed a 4GHz Phenom. 2GHz jumps in clock speed just isn't AMD's style. In all their history they've never come out with such a massive jump in clock speed... lol, usually the AMD guys have to suffice with a 33MHz jump.

 

[xguntherc]

lol ya i know huh.. they'd get intel to lower some prices a little. Just like ATI did to Nvidia this round.

Well. I know thats a big jump for them. and that a more realistic release would be like 3.0 GHz, and a 3.33 or 3.4 GHz release.. and even then thats pushing it.. I think that sounds possible. and that those chips could then do a 4.0 GHz overclock with some good cooling. but I'm pretty sure they don't have anything thats default stock speed is 4.0 GHz

but if you didn't see where I wrote that AMD has been working with IBM with there latest CPU research. then look up the IBM Power7 it's an Octo-core Server CPU that runs all cores stock at 4.0 GHz.. it's very crazy powerful. they've developed some cool stuff. and I could see them giving AMD some info and access to there finding and research. so yes it's possible. will AMD release something like that. probably not. If they did it would totally kill there current X3 line, that they Claim is just sooo good. then it would vanish and they'd have to hope people'd buy there x4's.

 

[Fumz]

I saw where you "wrote" AMD was working with IBM, I just missed the part where you "linked" AMD was working with IBM.

Also, keep in mind, if all AMD can do is put out a cpu that's capable of beating Wolfdale and Kentsfield chips, then AMD has already lost. Noticeably absent is the AMD comparison vs Nehalem.

No point in bothering the press to say AMD has crushed an Intel chip Intel has itself already crushed.... right?

 

[xguntherc]

well yes and no.. the AMD chips already run on a very similar to Nehalem system.. they don't use 1600 MHz FSB and such like intel does.. look at a screeny of someone overclocking there Phenom or a Athlon FX or something and look at the FSB speed.
like this.
http://www.overclock.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83490&d=1222246696

AMD already is running on a system similar to the way Nehalem will be working. thats why they don'y everclock as well as intels do. and acording to what I've read, and heard. Nehalem are not going to be nice to overclockers.. so it will be interesting to see what directions some of the Enthusiasts take. ya know. and hold on and I'll get that "Link" or info your asking about. lol also I've read that AMD shares info and research wth, and gets helped with R&D Work by IBM.. so i don't know.

 

[xguntherc]

Here is some other info I found.. not sure about the speeds. as the thought of a stock 4.0 GHz is out of the question. but there newer 45nm chips are better, and faster and what that did for intel. could happen for AMD. and seeing some reach obve 4.0 GHz i think is possible. but according to this info I am about to post. they are releasing next year around the 2.6 GHz range during Q2 of 09 and even some EE chips down to 2.1 GHz for energy.. and then at the very end it says that later in 09 they are supposed to be bringing back the old loved FX series.. just as my screenshot originally mentioned.. the add goes to say the Deneb FX series could be seen late next year.. thats toooo late! here it is.

Corrected: Deneb in Q4, FX to resurface in mid-2009 | NordicHardware

And here's a screeny of CPU-Z with someone running one of AMD's new 45nm Phenom quad cores.. at least if this is real. it shows that you can at least overclock a AMD to that speed.. if you get the Black Edition of course..and use all 20x Multi's. lol
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530
/9505/79106d1217345869amdphenqk4.jpg

 

[Fumz]

well yes and no.. the AMD chips already run on a very similar to Nehalem system.. they don't use 1600 MHz FSB and such like intel does.. look at a screeny of someone overclocking there Phenom or a Athlon FX or something and look at the FSB speed.
like this.
http://www.overclock.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83490&d=1222246696

AMD already is running on a system similar to the way Nehalem will be working. thats why they don'y everclock as well as intels do. and acording to what I've read, and heard. Nehalem are not going to be nice to overclockers.. so it will be interesting to see what directions some of the Enthusiasts take. ya know. and hold on and I'll get that "Link" or info your asking about. lol also I've read that AMD shares info and research wth, and gets helped with R&D Work by IBM.. so i don't know.

Perhaps there's something I'm not seeing, but that link is to an Athlon X2 6000+ at 3.3GHz. There's nothing special about that, and anyone who's compared a 90nm Athlon to any Intel dual core knows that the Athlon just gets crushed. I had an Opteron at 3.1GHz and the difference between it and Wolfdale at 3GHz was just night and day.

So how does this demonstrate AMD's new cpu runs "on a system similar" to Nehalem?

 

[xguntherc]

Well look at the overclock.. and look at the bus speed.. it was like 218 or something of that sort.. and what do our intels run at.. basically the AMD's run at a much slower bus speed than Intels. It's a completely different way of working. and Intel's Nehalem looks something like it. I'm sure there's huge differences. but I was just saying. I don't know too much about it so I could be way off. but type in google AMD overclocks. and look at some CPU-Z shots.. and see the Bus speed.. then check Intel ones. they run much faster.. and apparently Nehalem is suposed to be re-worked and bus speed is going down to the low 200's or something.

I don't know. was just saying. lol

 

[Fumz]

Athlon 64's don't have front side buses, they have an HT link. People call them fsb's, but that name isn't technically accurate. What made the 64's so much better way back when was their Hypertransport channel. A front side bus allows data to travel in one direction at a time. A hypertransport channel allows data to move in both directions at the same time. However, most people still call it a front side bus because that's basically what it is.

In the screen shot, the AMD's "rated" front side bus is running at 872MHz (218x4), only cpu-z just isn't using the term, "rated" or "fsb", it's using "HT", which is only fair because it's the correct term. Intels don't have 1333MHz front side buses, they have 333MHz front side buses. It's "rated" at 1333MHz in exactly the same way, (333x4).

I'm still not sure why you linked this pic? Considering that at stock a 6000+ is 3.1GHz, this is the most feeble overclock we've ever seen. :huh: He's clocked from 200MHz fsb (or HT) to 218MHz fsb (HT), going from 3.1GHz to 3.3GHz. Not exactly massive.

I'm still unclear what this has to do with AMD's new cores? Help an old man out.

 

[xguntherc]

well I don't know much about old AMD's or what not.. but someone was saying that the way AMD work now.. are different to current Intels. and the new Nehalem is running closer to the way AMD does..but better of course.. I'm not to sure I don't know to much about old AMD, or Nehalem.

and I linked to that pic cuz it was the first one I found. lol.

nevermind. I don't know.. I need to read up on Nehalem a little. but for now I'm thinkin I'll be more than happy with whats comin in the mail tomorrow. HEHE

 

[Everlong]

The next AM socket is AM3 too, which has been in development for a while, so maybe the AM3 socket will be for these FX processors? Interesting, but if they're only able to run faster than Kentsfield...they're still behind on Yorkfield, and most likely Nehalem.

 

[xguntherc]

Ya.. they need to be as good or better than Yorkie. We'll see next year though

 

[Mustangsupra]

Just out of curiousty does AMD have anything out right now that can compete with Intel core 2 extreme cpu? I bought a Phenom X4 9850 because I got a really good price, but I know that it doesnt really come close to the high end intel cpu's. Would be nice if AMD released a nicely priced cpu that can compete.

Jeremy

 

[Everlong]

Just out of curiousty does AMD have anything out right now that can compete with Intel core 2 extreme cpu? I bought a Phenom X4 9850 because I got a really good price, but I know that it doesnt really come close to the high end intel cpu's. Would be nice if AMD released a nicely priced cpu that can compete.

Jeremy

No they don't, the processor you have now is the best AMD have brought out, but still every 45nm Intel processor there is can outperform them (dual and quad). It's still a decent processor, but still not up to what Intels are.

 

[Mustangsupra]

It gets the job done for me and for the price it was hard to beat. It would be nice if Intel would have a little competition, maybe force them to lower their prices a little.

Jeremy