Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD's Phenom II 965, 3.4GHz, 140 Watts, $245

CmdrTaco posted about 5 years ago | from the less-is-more dept.

273

Vigile writes "While AMD does not have the muscle to push around the i7, they certainly have the ability to give the older and more common Core 2 Quads a run for their money. With the release of the Phenom II X4 965, AMD further attempts to dethrone the Core 2 Quad as the premier midrange CPU offering. While it may not be a world-beater by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly is catching Intel's attention in the breadbasket of the CPU market. The X4 965 is the fastest clocked processor that AMD has ever produced, much less shipped in mass quantities. While the speed bump is appreciated, the cost in terms of power and heat will make the introduction of the X4 965 problematic for some. Many of us thought that we would never see another 140 watt processor (as the Phenom 9950 was), but unfortunately those days are back. Still, AMD offers a compelling part at a reasonable price, and their motherboard support for this new 140 watt processor is robust."

cancel ×

273 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

as the power station would say... (0, Troll)

BobZee1 (1065450) | about 5 years ago | (#29052329)

some like it hot

38 C ain't that hot (5, Interesting)

Kyont (145761) | about 5 years ago | (#29053469)

I recently completed a home-build with this very CPU. Sure, the chip was the single most expensive piece, but with NewEgg combo deals and shipping discounts, I got the entire machine for about $600, including a smashing new case, plenty of RAM and disk space, extra USB ports and two disc burners. That's mid-range in my book.

I'm sure some of you hardware nerds will smack me down for one reason or another, but as a starting point I just installed the AMD factory CPU cooler it came with. I don't know what wattage it's pulling, but the CPU temperature is holding very steady at about 38 Celcius, and the fans don't even seem to be working very hard for that. It's working great, and at those temperatures, it should do fine for years to come.

My $0.02 on the very rare occasion of having first-hand experience with the actual hardware in the story.

FAIL (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052345)

I'm running a Q9550 at 3.4 Ghz right now (with the ability to go much higher) and mine only uses 95 watts.

AMD has a long ways to go to get back in the game. I can't imagine craptacular ideas like purchasing ATI are helping.

Re:FAIL (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 5 years ago | (#29052589)

219 dollars at newegg

Re:FAIL (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 5 years ago | (#29053837)

And motherboard?

At least before, motherboards for AMD CPUs were cheaper, often nullifying short-lived Intel's CPU price advantage.

Though power consumption alone turns me off.

Re:FAIL (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052605)

I paid $260 (with discounts) for my Q9550 nearly a year ago. It's only $220 retail now, without any discounts.

Also consider Intel has a 65W version of the Q9550.

I can't see how this AMD is any good.

Re:FAIL (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052893)

Intel and AMD release different numbers for their CPU's power consumption. Intel gives an average and AMD gives a maximum. They're not comparible. In real world testing, the X4 965 uses slightly less power at idle and slightly more power at full load than a stock Q9550.

Re:FAIL (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29053027)

It has been fairly well proven that AMD is full of it in that regard. Just search and you will find lots of tests comparing the actual power usage and Intel always comes out on top.

Re:FAIL (1)

lalena (1221394) | about 5 years ago | (#29053499)

In many of these tests, they measure the power used to perform a certain task. Even if the Intel consumes 10% more power, if it gets done 25% faster then it consumes less power overall.

Re:FAIL (4, Interesting)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | about 5 years ago | (#29053473)

Intel and AMD release different numbers for their CPU's power consumption. Intel gives an average and AMD gives a maximum. They're not comparible. In real world testing, the X4 965 uses slightly less power at idle and slightly more power at full load than a stock Q9550.

Sadly, that is incorrect.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-965_4.html#sect0 [xbitlabs.com]

While idle is comparable (Intel has a slight lead), full load most definitely isn't - 75% extra power consumption (which amounts to over 60W!) for the X4 965 over a Q9550 is far from "slightly more".

Re:FAIL (2, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | about 5 years ago | (#29053531)

It certainly appears that the Q9550 is in a sweet spot for low cost (including platform), power draw and performance.

Re:FAIL (1)

Moryath (553296) | about 5 years ago | (#29053839)

Speccing systems over the years, I'm amazed that people don't go more in-depth.

Every time I spec, I find that I can get an equivalently-performing AMD chip (plus motherboard and RAM and a nice, gigantic Zalman 9700-style heatsink) for ~$50 less than an equivalent Intel rig.

The Intel rig uses a stock HSF (meaning higher running temps and more risk) and still tends to cost ~$40 more each for the motherboard and processor. I've tried to see what I could do to get it to equal out, but there just aren't Intel boards from companies with anything approaching a decent reputation for cheaper.

Yes, Intel's been pushing the high-end scale in recent years. If you want to blow upwards of $400 on a processor, go ahead. In my price/performance range, I get more out of my money going AMD.

Re:FAIL (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29053855)

Tech Report tells a different story:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/17402/11 [techreport.com]

A story that says that you can't necessarily compare like-for-like when using different motherboards. At any rate, xbit seems to have grabbed a pretty power hungry MB for their testing. Looking back at the TR article, the Q9550 numbers are probably a little high, though, as Intel has told them to underclock a different processor for their Q9550 numbers.

In either case, you'd normally want a MB/Processor combo that was lower at Idle than at full load anyway, as most people will not be pegging their CPU all the time.

Re:FAIL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29053375)

2006 called and they want their hackneyed quip back.

Re:FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29053537)

Not a chance. If you're running it overclocked you're way over that 95 watts.

Re:FAIL (4, Insightful)

mdm-adph (1030332) | about 5 years ago | (#29053605)

You were running 95 watts at stock (2.83 GHz). You're way, way over that by now!

That's hot! (0, Redundant)

roger_that (24034) | about 5 years ago | (#29052351)

That's a hot CPU for a hot price. Take that any way you want.

My Computer ... (4, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 5 years ago | (#29052369)

.. can now double as still for my homemade vodka

Re:My Computer ... (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 5 years ago | (#29053719)

Brilliant! I was thinking grilled cheese sandwiches but that is WAY better.

AMD... (0, Redundant)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29052371)

140 watt processor, now with the power of two light bulbs! Space heater no longer needed in the room your computer is in!

Re:AMD... (1)

squallbsr (826163) | about 5 years ago | (#29053355)

I don't need ANOTHER heater:

I already have:
my Quad Q6600 + 22" monitor
my C2D MacBook + 24" monitor (Dell UltraSharp furnace)
my AM2 X2 + 2x 19" monitors
my P4 3.06 533Mhz FSB (forget which series the chip is from) + 19" monitor

Now if I could only efficiently recirculate air from my 150 sqft office to the rest of the house, I wouldn't need a furnace...

Re:AMD... (4, Interesting)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | about 5 years ago | (#29053495)

Now if I could only efficiently recirculate air from my 150 sqft office to the rest of the house, I wouldn't need a furnace...

If you have a furnace (or forced air system) see if you can turn on the fan only. The return(s) in the room should pull the heat out of the office to the other rooms. That is if you have a return in the office, a good system has a return (even a small one) in every room. My house built in the mid 1950's has small returns in every room.

problematic for some: (3, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 5 years ago | (#29052383)

read: if you didnt shit in a marble toilet this morning and start the day trying to figure out which of your sedans to drive to the office, you may find this chips introduction "problematic" from a pricing standpoint.

Re:problematic for some: (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 5 years ago | (#29052783)

With $1000 enthusiast CPUs, the price isn't horrible by comparison.

Still, you can get Intel CPUs that'll run at similar clock speeds for similar prices (except use more electricity), and right now, Intel has the performance/clock ratio advantage over AMD.

So I wouldn't call it /expensive/ in the grand scheme of things, it's just not that impressive either.

Re:problematic for some: (4, Interesting)

PitaBred (632671) | about 5 years ago | (#29053649)

The thing is, it's the value proposition of AMD that's attractive... the motherboards are cheaper, and you can upgrade incrementally with them. You don't have to get a whole new system to upgrade. The AM3 chips fit into the AM2+ sockets, the AM3 chips are compatible with DDR2 RAM as well as DDR3...

Re:problematic for some: (2, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29053847)

I could, but I can't justify it to myself. Replace a whole PC, and you can do something useful with the old one. Replace a part.... this RAM is still perfectly good, but I can't do anything with it.

Re:problematic for some: (2, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#29053017)

Are you kidding? It wasn't THAT long ago that $245 bought you a budget CPU, and plenty of people without "marble toilets" had computers back then. Yes, it costs a bit more than the $50 budget chips that are available now, but I think you're exaggerating the impact of the price here. It's not that bad . . .

Re:problematic for some: (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 5 years ago | (#29053739)

drive? myself? Oh it was supposed to be a +1 funny post. Sorry.

is this for desktop or server ? (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | about 5 years ago | (#29052421)

if it's a server class part, i think they'd do better emulating sun's T2 part. 8 multi-thread cores, a single FPU unit shared by all cores and some logic to improve encryption and networking. this with x86 support would give Xeon a run for it's money.

now, as a desktop part, i think it's idiotic as hell. a low power chip with a decent software stack to offload certain proccessing tasks - like video and audio encoding - to the GPU (wich they also make) would do much better in terms of performance per watt.

but then, none of those options would serve as silicon penile extension, right ? no bragging rights like "dude, i just got a quad-core, 3.4 megahurtz chip! duuude !"

Re:is this for desktop or server ? (3, Funny)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | about 5 years ago | (#29052745)

Wait what? This also serves as a penile extension??!!?? I"ll take 3!

Re:is this for desktop or server ? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 5 years ago | (#29053761)

It better extend it more than 3 times, even at that price!

This is midrange? (2, Insightful)

Lord Byron II (671689) | about 5 years ago | (#29052471)

How is a $245, quad-core chip considered mid-range?

Re:This is midrange? (5, Interesting)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | about 5 years ago | (#29052555)

Have you seen Intel's pricing? Can't get a decent solution from them including a motherboard for under 500 whereas I just recently built a full Phenom II computer for about 400 (including hard drive). I'm not convinced that Intel is really interested in mid-ranged computing.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29052875)

You suck at pricing up intel kit, you can get a Core2Quad Q9550 and mobo for about $300, or an i7 920 for $350.

Re:This is midrange? (1, Informative)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | about 5 years ago | (#29053323)

huh? what planet do you live on to pay 350 for i7 920? i paid $199 for mine, given it was on a sale, but normal price for 920 are in the low 200 usd range.

here is a link:
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0302727 [microcenter.com]

Re:This is midrange? (2, Informative)

anagama (611277) | about 5 years ago | (#29053399)

I think he was including the motherboard in the price.

Re:This is midrange? (2, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | about 5 years ago | (#29053687)

You still need DDR3 RAM, and an i7 mobo. Those are both more expensive than an AM3 motherboard with DDR2 RAM. Not as fast overall, but it's a fair bit better value for the buck. Not to mention that you can upgrade incrementally with AMD... the AM3 CPU's work with both DDR2/AM2+ motherboards and DDR2/AM3 and DDR3/AM3 motherboards.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29053845)

Yes, but if you're going for value for your buck, the Core2Quad Q9650 is as fast as this, uses that nice cheep DDR2 RAM, is cheeper than this AMD chip, and the mobos are nice and cheep too. So all together, AMD's looking pretty crappy atm.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29053825)

Yes, and then you need to buy a $150 mobo, he did after all state he was looking for mobo *and* CPU.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | about 5 years ago | (#29053627)

Eh? I just paid CA$310 for an i7 920 and around the same for an LGA 1366 motherboard. I'd love to know what fly-by-night retailer you're getting stuff from...

      --- Mr. DOS

Re:This is midrange? (2, Interesting)

Jeff Carr (684298) | about 5 years ago | (#29053139)

I just built a new computer for my parents with an Intel boxdg41ty, E6300, 4 gigs of Patriot DDR2, a 1 terabyte Seagate drive, and a Corsair 400 watt power supply for about 275 after rebates and shipping. It isn't a gaming machine, but it works beautifully for just about anything the average non gamer will throw at it.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 5 years ago | (#29052571)

Midrange for servers?

Re:This is midrange? (4, Funny)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | about 5 years ago | (#29052577)

Because it's between this [ebay.com]

And this [ebay.com]

Re:This is midrange? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052835)

Awww crap@! My pentium is now the best example of the worst processor? WTF? Its a 32 bit *protected* mode powerhouse! You wouldn't believe the frame rates I get with Doom!

Couldn't you have at least set the bar a little lower. To, I don't know something like this [ebay.com]

Re:This is midrange? (2, Informative)

kieran (20691) | about 5 years ago | (#29052611)

Don't let the quad-core bit fool you; that'll be low-end in a couple of years, no doubt.

Still, the chip in question is definitely at the upper reaches of "mid-range" in my book. I've just picked up the X3 720 model for my home machine, and that was stretching the wallet as far as I was inclined to.

Re:This is midrange? (2, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about 5 years ago | (#29052883)

Don't let the quad-core bit fool you; that'll be low-end in a couple of years, no doubt.

We've been waiting a decade for improvements in multi-threaded processing to take advantage of multiple cores.

Are you suggesting programmers are going to make the dramatic developments in the next couple of years that they have been unable to in the last ten?

Certainly I can see the number of cores increasing at the server end - it's straightforward enough to run one process per client. I'm unsure what's going to change on user desktops that will drive any massive increase in core numbers. Still, I'm prepared to be surprised.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | about 5 years ago | (#29053735)

You can get an X4 955 for $200 on sale. It's a 3.2GHz/125W quad-core. Not too much wallet stretching, especially compared to this new one.

Re:This is midrange? (3, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about 5 years ago | (#29052761)

Because it's between $100 and $500 which is probably the high end for most PC class processors. Intel has the Core2Duo at the low end, the Core2Quad and the low end Core i7 in the midrange and the faster Core i7 at the high end with a few enthusiast offering at the extremely high end (~$1000). That's basically been the market as long as I can remember which dates back to the early 90's.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 5 years ago | (#29052813)

$200-$400 seems to be Intels "mid range", so they are probably comparing it to that.

Re:This is midrange? (1)

confused one (671304) | about 5 years ago | (#29053779)

Because the high-end is the 8-core workstation sitting next to me at my desk.

As non-hardware geek, why would I want this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052509)

Someone please explain

Re:As non-hardware geek, why would I want this? (1)

azior (1302509) | about 5 years ago | (#29053307)

the ladies will love you for it, if you know what i'm saying...

Re:As non-hardware geek, why would I want this? (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 5 years ago | (#29053631)

What are you doing here?

2 things (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 5 years ago | (#29052527)

okay, 2 things about this: If their brand new, top of the line processor is only shooting to take out the midrange market because it's still worse than the best intel ones, that's not a real good sign. Also, you might not be overly concerned about power comsumption but in a small apartment or bedroom or home office, that room is going to get really hot really fast. Combine it with my 8800GTS and you've got a nice little space heater, which is great in the winter but not so much in the summer.

Space heaters (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052673)

That is why we have our computers in the cold basement, heat down there is good year round.

Robust support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052529)

and their motherboard support for this new 140 watt processor is robust."

Given the sort of heat sink a 140W CPU will require, the motherboard supports had damn well better be robust.

Q6600 (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#29052531)

I have my sights set on the intel Q6600 (2.6(?)ghz quad core2)... as soon as the price dips below $175. It's been the same price since Dec 2007, but it overclocks to 3.4ghz on the stock cooler and dissipates only 95w, meaning it plugs into pretty much any C2Duo motherboard. For now though, my 2.4ghz core 2 duo is fast/powerful enough to do anything, including run folding@home while running TF2 + 20 windows of firefox with 5-10 tabs each.

Re:Q6600 (1)

CrimsonKnight13 (1388125) | about 5 years ago | (#29052623)

You can easily hit 3.6GHz on air w/ an FSB of 1800 (mind you, I use an aftermarket cooler - Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme). It's a great chip to overclock with & I'd recommend it for anyone that wants to build a great PC with a lower budget.

Re:Q6600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052667)

the q6600 is out of production. the q9550 is faster, uses less power, and runs cooler than a q6600 and this amd phenom. i run mine at 3.4ghz with 1.15V. thats less than stock voltage.

Re:Q6600 (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#29052769)

Does the q9550 do virtualization though? The q6600 does.

Re:Q6600 (1)

pinkishpunk (1461107) | about 5 years ago | (#29052991)

unlike intel amd does not segment their cpus into a lot of different subtype that lacks features, only the sempron types lacks virtualization support, the x2,x3,x4 types all has it.

Re:Q6600 (1)

NervousNerd (1190935) | about 5 years ago | (#29053265)

Actually the new Sempron 140 has AMD-V. [wikipedia.org] . It can also unlock into a dual core [techpowerup.com] . As always, even though AMD can't compete on the high end, they can almost always compete on the low end and lower mid-range.

Re:Q6600 (1)

arazor (55656) | about 5 years ago | (#29052999)

Yes the Intel Core2Quad Q9550 supports virtualization.

Re:Q6600 (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 5 years ago | (#29053551)

Don't stop him. He's on a roll.

Re:Q6600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29053029)

yes it does

Re:Q6600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29053095)

Yes, only the 8xxx series don't do virtualization, AFAIK. You might double check the spec sheet to verify.

The bigger problem for me is that the 8000/9000 series use a 1333 FSB, which means you've only got one step up for overclocking rather than 2 :(

Reason I haven't bought a chip above the E5400 yet, best clock multiplier means best overclock potential for the same cores.

Pentium E6300 is worth a looksee though, Dual Core, second best clock multiplier behind the E5xxx series, supports VT, and is only 80-90 bucks :)

Honestly for the cost of a FSB based Quad core now you can get a QPI Quad Core with hyperthreading. And assuming you're not running cache hungry apps, it's got plenty of memory bandwidth to saturate all '8' threads.

Re:Q6600 (2, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#29052849)

I've had a Core 2 Duo E4300 running at 3.0 ghz for almost three years now and I haven't found a reason to upgrade. Friends with quad core report no increase in speed or performance, and the only thing that would encourage me to upgrade is a more smp friendly OS but the offerings from Microsoft (Vista and Windows 7) have been pretty poor lately.

So are we done with the mhz battle? Is ~3ghz the breaking point? We've had Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now [archive.org] . That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"? We should be around 24ghz by now.

Re:Q6600 (1)

Reapman (740286) | about 5 years ago | (#29053003)

Agreed.. I remember winning a 3.2 Extreme Edition CPU 4-5 years back or something like that. My 2 year old C2D I've been able to overclock to 3.2, but the Mhz battle is truely dead, at least for now.

Not that it's a bad thing, CPU's are way more efficient and still faster then the CPU's 5 years ago, but it was fun watching the battle. AMD isn't much more then a whimper right now.

Re:Q6600 (4, Informative)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | about 5 years ago | (#29053039)

That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"? We should be around 24ghz by now.

If you're referring to Moore's law, it's not a doubling of speed every 18 months, it's a doubling of transistor counts. Clock speed has never been part of that equation, no matter what intel's late-1990s marketing department would have you believe.

Re:Q6600 (1)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | about 5 years ago | (#29052897)

Sorry, that CPU will never decrease in price. It will be phased out while remaining at its current price. I recommend combing EBay and Craigslist for a used one if you are convinced this is what you want.

Re:Q6600 (2, Informative)

mdm-adph (1030332) | about 5 years ago | (#29053651)

The newer batches of the Q6600 (2.4 GHz stock, by the way) are terrible overclockers -- you'll have to buy one of the older ones off of Ebay to have any chance of getting it above 3.2 GHz (even experienced overclockers had tons of trouble with the newest Q6600's).

Just get a Q9400 -- it's both faster, cooler, and has more overclocking headroom.

The era of the silicon chip is gone. (4, Funny)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 5 years ago | (#29052559)

AMD and Intel are just running on its fumes. Silicon (Si) is inherently limited by its inorganic composition which means it produces lots of heat especially when it is on the Web. All the smart engineers at the secret R&D labs are working on organic computing: solving the paradox of user interface versus wattage by harnessing the power of bacteria to create a new paradigm of information that is multi-dimensional. Instead of "processes" and "treads" and "HTML" we will have gases and sugars dancing to the rhythm of our wildest imaginations. And one more thing... you will not need your eyes any more since the two-dimensional "screen" and "paper" metaphor will be replaced by a revolutionary direct access to pure consciousness. Buy my book.

More cores? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29052563)

Anyone know when we should expect the first CPUs from either Intel or AMD that have more than 6 cores?

Re:More cores? (1)

lukas84 (912874) | about 5 years ago | (#29052657)

Intel already has the 6 core Dunnington CPUs out since over a year now. The new nehalem based 6 cores are due Q4.

Re:More cores? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29052763)

Intel already has the 6 core Dunnington CPUs out since over a year now. The new nehalem based 6 cores are due Q4.

Thanks, but I'm specifically asking about > 6 cores.

I'm doing some work regarding scalability of certain algorithms on multi-core systems, and if a new CPU with even more cores is just around the corner, I might delay a hardware purchase until then.

Re:More cores? (4, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | about 5 years ago | (#29052863)

Beckton, the 8 core / 16 threads Nehalem CPU will be out in Q1 2010.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1050976/intel-bunch-fun-cpus-moves-2010 [theinquirer.net]

Re:More cores? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29053023)

Thanks.

Re:More cores? (1)

kieran (20691) | about 5 years ago | (#29053177)

Talk to Intel - if you're doing something that might help them sell multi-core chips, they might bung you a pre-release chip for free/cheap.

Failing that, is using more cores per die very different to using multiple processors?

Re:More cores? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052947)

AMD has 6 core Istanbuls in production now, and will have a 2 die 12 core MCM version Real Soon Now.

Re:More cores? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29053171)

AMD has 6 core Istanbuls in production now, and will have a 2 die 12 core MCM version Real Soon Now.

Do you mean a total of 12 cores in a single chip package?

Re:More cores? (1)

lukas84 (912874) | about 5 years ago | (#29053333)

MCM = Multi Chip Module

i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. (2, Interesting)

millisa (151093) | about 5 years ago | (#29052579)

When it comes down to processor comparisons, I see very little compelling about this new AMD proc. The i7 920 is going to outperform it at most things, uses less power and is only 35 bucks more. Eventually for those of us always-on users, even the 10 watt savings of the i7 is going to kill the slight price advantage.

The only thing I see interesting here is the fact that you have more commodity boards to choose from, could do a slower upgrade (re-use your ddr2!) but this isn't any different than the currently line of quad proc amd chips, many of which can be had for cheaper and use less power.

Come on, AMD, you can do better.

Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. (2, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | about 5 years ago | (#29052633)

Yeah, but the i7-920 requires a mainboard with triple channel memory and a quick path interface. They're more expensive than the AMD board, making the price comparison a bit more difficult.

That said, i bought an i7-920, i think it's the better choice - so far, i haven't been disappointed. We have a few new servers with 5540 Xeons, and they're absurdly fast.

Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. (3, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29052939)

You can get an i7 920 for $200, so not only is it faster and lower power, it's also cheeper.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0302727 [microcenter.com]

Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. (3, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#29053417)

Yeah, but you have to pay the "i7 tax" for a new $220+ motherboard. Core2Duo/Quads will happily plug into any $50 motherboard you (already) have.

Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 5 years ago | (#29053565)

any significant processor upgrade is going to mean a new mobo too. Unless you're upgrading your processor every few months, it's almost always stupid to keep a mobo that's probably just as obsolete as your old processor (if the new processor will even work with it at all) just to save the relatively trivial cost of a new mobo.

Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29053805)

You can get hold of S1366 mobos for about $140 these days. Still pretty pricey, but no where near as bad as they were recently.

Re:i7 920 130watt - $280, x4 965 140 watt - $245. (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 5 years ago | (#29053403)

Its my understanding that with cool & quiet, the cpu scales down its Mhz and power consumption when not busy. Last Tom's hardware article I saw comparing power usage showed that the AMD's used significantly less power when idle, despite their higher wattage ratting. So if you're leaving it always on, you shouldn't notice much of an energy difference, unless its crunching away @ 100% all day.

The low platform cost makes it a winner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052607)

The $245 CPU price does not tell the whole story: you should also factor in relatively low cost of the motherboard and memory options relative to the sadly spendy i7 platform.

Re:The low platform cost makes it a winner (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29052951)

Yes, but the chip doesn't compete with the i7 at all. It competes with the Core2Quad Q9650, which has plenty of cheep boards out there.

News? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29052637)

I don't see how this is news... It's the same technology on the other Phenom IIs, except with an overclocked multiplier and price.

Re:News? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | about 5 years ago | (#29052837)

It's nothing special, just a higher binned Phenom II.

Considering you can get an i7 920 for $199 at microcenter, this seems kinda useless since the i7 will overclock better and run much faster.

The re-birth of the BTX form factor (1)

kriston (7886) | about 5 years ago | (#29052709)

Finally, the BTX form factor will be reborn. So long have we been complacent with the temporary trend of cooler running chips there is finally the need for the BTX form factor to extend beyond the Dell desktop.

Re:The re-birth of the BTX form factor (1)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | about 5 years ago | (#29053031)

It'll be a true rebirth - Dell hasn't used BTX motherboards for quite some time now. I'm not holding my breath however.

I'm getting old (1)

stangbat (690193) | about 5 years ago | (#29052787)

When I put my last machine together in September '08 I went with a 65 watt X2 5200+ (Brisbane). Cool and quiet won out over hot and noisy. Or perhaps you could say slow and boring won out over fast and exciting. Hmmm, maybe there are deeper personal issues at root in this decision...where did my comfortable shoes go?

Re:I'm getting old (1)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29053373)

Nah, CPUs got fast. It went from, say circa 2000, where lots of tasks would use most of the processing power available on a cheap computer to circa 2005 where some small fraction of tasks (and poorly written flash) use most of the processing power available on a cheap computer. For the majority of users, everything since then has been a numbers game, with little real impact.

Re:I'm getting old (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | about 5 years ago | (#29053641)

Sort of.

For high resolution gaming, ie with SLI video cards @1920x1200 or 2560x1600 you really need the latest and greatest, a 3.6-4.0ghz overclocked CPU is a must or else it bottlenecks the SLI Videocards.

For people doing HD Video/Audio work, having a fast processor is also necessary.

For anyone doing Scientific/Engineering computing, faster is always better as you can never get too fast the simulation will just get finer.

For anyone doing 3D Rendering, again faster is always better because the faster your processor is, the more effects/higher resolution you can run at.

For the average home user, they probably don't need anything better than a 2.0ghz Core 2 Duo.

Re:I'm getting old (1)

anagama (611277) | about 5 years ago | (#29053567)

Besides the quality of life features you get with a quiet lower power chip, there are ongoing cost savings. You're saving 75 watts per hour, 1800/day, and 657,000/yr over the 140 watts for this chip. Assuming 10c per kW hour, that's $65.70 per year in electricity costs you aren't paying. If you run your system for three years, you save $197.10.

NOTE: I'm assuming the wattage figures for both chips are the peak levels of course, although idle speeds for both are likely lower and the difference between power usage may be more or less.

hard comparison to make (3, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | about 5 years ago | (#29053357)

  • AMD Phenom II X4 965 - $249
  • Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 - $219
  • Intel Core i7 920 - $279

Article shows that performance is roughly equivalent beween the Q9550 and Phenom 965, with the AMD part enjoying a slight advantage if you look at all the benchmarks together. This while costing $30 more and consuming more power.

Would be interesting to see a comparison of the i7 920 with the Phenom. I'm guessing the 920 would outperform, which is what you'd expect since you're paying $30 more.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>