AMD 2.3GHz Phenom 9600 – first benchmarks

has anyone thought about the scalability of the AMD true quad core against the alleged compound architecture used by Intel? Would the AMD perform better in a true 64 bit environment? and please VISTA?!?!? FFS!!!!! even DX10 isn't enough to merit anyone using that sh**!! (not that I think this has any reflection on the results I just hate it with a passion)

Comment by skeptic at 5:31pm 27th January 2008

has anyone thought about the scalability of the AMD true quad core against the alleged compound architecture used by Intel? Would the AMD perform better in a true 64 bit environment? and please VISTA?!?!? FFS!!!!! even DX10 isn't enough to merit anyone using that sh**!! (not that I think this has any reflection on the results I just hate it with a passion)

Comment by skeptic at 5:31pm 27th January 2008

Just wanted to know why use an Nvidia card for the test? why not fling in a radeon HD 3870? This is suposed to be the card of choice to fully open up the so called 'Code name Spider' cross component architecture that is coming from AMD. It is something that I have never seen properly explored in benchmarks (only half a$$ed attempts thus far). Could it be that if you take AMD and ATI as a package you will find benefits that would not be their otherwise? In fact, since the Gigabyte board supports it, why not fling in 4 HD 3870's and benchmark that too XD

Comment by skeptic at 5:21pm 27th January 2008

Just wanted to know why use an Nvidia card for the test? why not fling in a radeon HD 3870? This is suposed to be the card of choice to fully open up the so called 'Code name Spider' cross component architecture that is coming from AMD. It is something that I have never seen properly explored in benchmarks (only half a$$ed attempts thus far). Could it be that if you take AMD and ATI as a package you will find benefits that would not be their otherwise? In fact, since the Gigabyte board supports it, why not fling in 4 HD 3870's and benchmark that too XD

Comment by skeptic at 5:21pm 27th January 2008

Looking at the new AMD 790fx motherboard chipset its clear to see that they are designed for a more advanced processor than even the Phenom. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if the current new batch of processors is a market test and they will be a limited run as a newer model maybe on the way. Thats easily proven considering the life span of the ATI 2900 serise as a few months down the line the 3800 serise is out. If I was Intel I would seriously keep my eyes open and ears to the ground as they have underestimated AMD before and it cost them big with the Athlon 64.

Comment by REM_Jupiter at 9:45pm 28th November 2007

amd are overpriced right now because of that new head they got hes a nasty man.The price will drop on this cpu at new year!!

Comment by megapig at 3:16pm 28th November 2007

Seems like you lot have had quite a lot of discussion in this comment sections, so i thought i'd set it straight.... Intel Kicked AMD where the sun dont shine.... Some people in the business have to suck.... Intel were really sucky with netburst, now its AMD's time to suck with Black edition and Phenom... Sorry guys, but Intel rules the day hands down, no questions asked, take no prisoners, or as some have come to known it as: THIS IS INTELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! (Sparrrrta)

Comment by Lightning_Pete at 4:45pm 27th November 2007

SOD INTEL...AMD ALWAYS

Comment by Razor1911fan at 5:41pm 26th November 2007

SOD INTEL...AMD ALWAYS

Comment by Razor1911fan at 5:41pm 26th November 2007

The test results quoted in the news story were with the memory controller set to unganged mode as this is supposed to be the highest performance mode (according to AMD and RAM manufacturers) if you are running multithreaded apps or multitasking.

Comment by jg_tech_ed at 5:24pm 26th November 2007

I wonder how the memory was set up for the benchmarking. Was this ganged or unganged mode?

Comment by Dave70 at 4:31pm 26th November 2007

I was really hoping AMD was gonna do a litle better with their new Phenom chips. Close competition is good for everyone, and I'm just not seeing it right now :(

Comment by Sleipnir at 11:36am 26th November 2007

AMD demoed a 3GHZ Phenom but failed to show benchmarks.http://www.tech.co.uk/computing/upgrades-and-peripherals/motherboards-and-processors/news/3ghz-desktop-quad-core-processor-shown-by-amd?articleid=31790030

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 7:40am 26th November 2007

bigal01, no-one really knows what goes on behind closed doors at AMD either. Intel broke the 11th commandment and got caught. Just because AMD haven't been exposed for corruption etc doesn't mean that 'sharp' business practices don't exist there either. When AMD's Barcelona first came out, they were exposed as using 'suspect' benchmarks to convince people that the CPU was faster than Intel, and weren't on a level playing field. Now you may want to buy a 'lesser' CPU from an 'ethical' company, but if nobody else does then that company will go bust-it's simple business. AMD were in a strong position after the success of Athlon 64-they were the 'underdog' that everyone loved, especially when they gave Intel a bloody nose with the Athlon 64, which showed the dead-end that Intel were following with Pentium 4. So from a position of success and occupying the moral high-ground, AMD are now in a dilemma, and using the occasional 'statistical interpretation' of what their products are capable of when up against Intel. Business is a cruel environment-it may tolerate occasional 'sharp practices', but it won't tolerate flawed business decisions that lose money. I had great respect for AMD at the height of the Athlon 64 success, but they're losing their grip now and making flawed business decisions, and sometimes resorting to using 'questionable' statistical data to back up their performance claims. People are not going to pay over the odds with their own money for a sub-standard product, however ethically 'clean' the host company may 'appear' to be. AMD have made several flawed decisions after Athlon 64, and I have no intention of letting them waste my money on more mistakes. If you wish to give them your money and see if they waste it on more bad decisions, then by all means go right ahead. Keeping the faith is an admirable trait in itself, but if that faith becomes corrupted or indistinct, then you have to ask yourself why you are supporting it. Yes, Intel hit the headlines for the wrong reasons, but AMD, in it's desperation to convince people that Barcelona was better then Intel's Xeon, also resorted to 'bending the truth' a bit on the benchmarks. Yes, I'm sure faster Phenoms will appear, and better motherboard chipsets will become available too, but this takes time. And in that time Intel will be forging ahead with Penryn and Nehalem. For AMD to survive now, it needs people to buy it's slow Phenoms at high prices now, not later, or it will run out of money if everyone waits for faster steppings to appear. Cruel, but true.

Comment by RedOctober68 at 11:04pm 25th November 2007

bigal01, you might as well never, ever purchase anything from an American company ever again. I think theyre all corrupt to a degree; thats just business. Just because AMD is recording losses doesnt mean they wouldnt like to impose some bullyboy tactics if they could. When it comes to money, no-one is ethical, look at Microsoft for crying out loud.

Comment by Chimerical at 2:13pm 25th November 2007

I\'ve been building AMD-only machines for the past 5 years and I\'m not going to start building Intel machines any time soon. The new Phenom\'s will get stronger and the motherboards will develop a higher level of over-clocking this new CPU. Sure, Intel can throw more money at their development team to crank out another series of chips but I will stick with AMD for one sole reason - the corrupt marketing practices that Intel has used in the past. Kickbacks and other illegal activities cannot be forgiven and I would rather have a lesser CPU than one from a dishonest company.

Comment by bigal01 at 4:19am 25th November 2007

Sadly, the Phenom seems like too little, too late. Yes, you could wait until AMD releases faster versions, but for Phenom to succeed, AMD needs people to buy them now, or it will lose money. Going back a few years to Athlon 64, this was a huge success for AMD because it was a good CPU design, and Intel's Pentium 4 was fundamentally flawed in concept. Athlon 64 was a huge wake-up call for Intel, and now it's fighting back with a vengeance. When Intel released it's Conroe CPU's, AMD was on the back foot again, because Intel's Core architechture was an excellent design, and considerably faster then equivalent speed Athlon 64's. AMD then shot itself in the foot with socket AM2/DDR2, because this forced people to abandon socket 939 and change to AM2 to access AMD's latest CPU's. What happened was that people who did actually upgrade their socket 939 systems went over to Intel's Core 2 Duo instead, because this was by far the better CPU, and used the new DDR2 memory as well, so there was nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by going down the Intel Core 2 Duo route. Put simply, there was no reason to go to AM2 if you were upgrading your AMD 939 system, because Intel's Conroe was the better route. Then, Intel dropped the prices of Core 2, and AMD were forced to drop the price of their CPU's, or face losing sales. Phenom needed to be noticeably faster then Intel's CPU's in all aspects for it to succeed, and sadly it hasn't turned out like that. Unlike the Athlon 64/Pentium 4 duel, this time AMD is not competing with a flawed Intel CPU-it's up against Intel's Core architechture, which is a truly formidable CPU design. Intel's Core CPU's are already at 3GHz, and enthusiasts have had them well over 3.5 GHz with ease. I've also read reports that the new Penryn 45nm cores have reached 4GHz with nothing more than air cooling. And finally, to add insult to AMD's already considerable injury, Intel's CPU's are very cheap, and very overclockable, so all the enthusiasts have been buying them. AMD is right up against it this time round, as Intel have no intention of repeating the Pentium 4 fiasco a second time round. They are on the ball now, and AMD seems to have dropped the ball. It seems that after the success of Athlon 64, AMD were giddy with success, and bought ATI in a spending spree, leaving them less money to develop a new CPU to take on Intel's certain response to Athlon 64, which was the Conroe. At best, Phenom achieves parity in some benchmarks against Intel, and loses in others, clock-for-clock. Or, as someone put it recently, AMD's fastest Phenom is not quite as fast all round as Intel's slowest. When you then take into account the fact that AMD's Phenom is currently languishing at 2.3GHz, and Intel is already at 3GHz with excellent overclockability, it's obvious where the smart money is going to go. AMD needs to drop it's prices to tempt people to adopt Phenom, but if it does this, then it cuts it's profit margins seriously, and may end up going bust. Time is not on AMD's side, as they need a much faster Phenom now, not in several months time. I was a long-time AMD fanboy, from the good old K6-2, through the Athlon XP, and finally the Athlon 64. I've had a total of 10 AMD CPU's in 5 years of computing, and have never owned Intel, until now. I finally went over to Core 2 a few months ago, and it's every bit a good as the reviews have said-very fast at stock speed, and with great overclockability. I want AMD to succeed, because competition is good for everyone, and keeps prices down. But from a pinnacle of success after Athlon 64, they've dropped a few clangers and not made wise decisions. When you're up against the Intel giant, you just can't afford to take your eye off the ball for an instant, or it'll have you for breakfast. AMD can't afford to make mistakes at this level, or it will go under, which will be a tragedy for everyone. Where's the old magic gone?

Comment by RedOctober68 at 6:14pm 24th November 2007

God your an idiot....

Comment by D_Cypher at 6:49pm 24th November 2007

amb are crap were crap and have always bean crap the b for a d is to say bulls##t intel played like a top 2 prem team badly 4 years and amd failed to show thier worth now that intel r back it is bye bye buy sell or sink AMb b##lsh#t

Comment by j7dunwiddie at 3:11pm 24th November 2007

If you're in the market for a new chip, lay all AMD fanboyism aside and give way to pure logic and common sense. There is no reason to buy this chip. The Phenom 9600 is sandwhiched between the lower priced, better performing Q6600, and the Q9300 - 4 cores - 2.5GHz - 6MB cache - $266 and the Q9450- 4 cores - 2.66GHz - 12MB cache - $316 coming out in January! The Q9300 is suppose to be the Q6600's replacement and is said to be faster. So say what you want about FSB technology but all of these chips blow the doors off of the Phenom 9600! So where is the value here? Where? Please don't say wait, AMD will get better, because so will Intel. Why wait when I have a better, cheaper product staring me in the face right now? When I buy something I try to get the best possible deal and most value for my money. From what I see, the Phenom 9600 is not it.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 12:53am 24th November 2007

i understand that the price is what matters to us but i was just trying to provide perspective for people who were not looking at what they should buy atm, but just have an interest in the new release and it's merits. the q6600 is a better deal, but dont write off phenom just yet. has anyone tought of testing this processor for raw processing power? i forget the name of the progrm but it could test your system to see how many mFLOPS it could produce, that seems like it would be an interesting bit of information to me...

Comment by yougotkicked at 8:46pm 23rd November 2007

I like the fact that they have, at least, given innovation a go. Despite what these benchmarks show, I will continue to hope that they beat Intel in other areas-power efficiency for one. A Turion x4 would be worth having...

Comment by DudQuitter at 8:42pm 23rd November 2007

Take a step back guy's and answer one simple question, when has anyone that knows about computers ever jumped the gun on hardware upgrades especially new technology? Rather than comment about the price each chip tested, consider the price that intel released their chip at originally, also the benchmark results at the time. I believe the hype over quad and even dual core cpu's is overrated as the normal user has no need or use for it, granted more games are available now aswell as programs but not enough to warrant a complete system upgrade, not to forget the likely os upgrade, I personally wouldn't install VISTA even if I was given it for free. Basically, firmware, hardware, drivers and software haven't been fine tuned to provide a fair benchmark on the phenom unlike intel's chip which as stated has been out for awhile now, as far as blunders don't forget the famous p4's. Food for thought, how far does anyone believe intel can get by layering cores together (botched job), I do agree that AMD is on the correct path, lets just hope they can keep going.

Comment by alcorn06021981 at 7:52pm 23rd November 2007

I'm a huge AMD fanboy - there isn't an intel chip in the house but I think the next one will be. This is BAD news - there's no point crying "give them time it's too new" - they should have been released when ready. There's also no point in the "the comparison isn't fair because of the 100Mhz difference" - the only fair comparison is bang per buck. This is really bad news because, if AMD end up going pop, they'll take with them the incentive for intel to innovate - no competition to worry about? Lets just sit back and count the money - oh put the prices up a little while you're at it - those sappy customers have nowhere else to turn anyway..... Cmon AMD - give me a reason to make my next PC and AMD at heart - and hurry, I'm on a 754pin A64 3000/AGP setup and well overdue a major upgrade - I've been putting it off until there's a decent new AMD chip but I won't for much longer....

Comment by ColinO at 5:32pm 23rd November 2007

its been out like two days and the intel chip has been out a lot longer new stuff always costs more. give it 6 months and i bet you can pick one of these up for £80 or there abouts. im not bothered about all this quad core nonsense yet i dont see the point in spending hundreds on cutting edge high end components when my dual core and 8800gtx does the job fine already with everything i throw at it. i upgrade roughly every 18 months, it allows new stuff to get released - then once the price drops its normally time for me to upgrade. give it time this stuff will balance itself out

Comment by rjkoneill at 11:58am 23rd November 2007

seriously still a bit too early to knock off the entire Phenom range...waiting for a fair test.

Comment by ecviper at 11:57am 23rd November 2007

To yougotkicked. You can't say its not a fair comparison due to he Phenom being clocked at 2.3 instead of 2.4 like the Intel. The only comparison that is fair is to compare CPU's of the same price. If the Phenom is more expensive it should be faster regardless of clock speeds.

Comment by Harry1985 at 11:47am 23rd November 2007

Couldn't imagine it can even come worser for AMD but that's just what's happening, it is getting worser and worser. Where will this end? For me AMD stands for American Master of Disaster!

Comment by Henry at 9:57am 23rd November 2007

that does not add up with some of the other benchmarks i have seen on the net. in games this cpu is meant to be one of the best.

Comment by megapig at 9:18am 23rd November 2007

Have seriously lost the plot.

Comment by bluetuba at 5:54am 23rd November 2007

yeah it really isn't a fair test people. i'm not going to dodge the results, yes phenom is dissapointing and undperforms compared to intel. but the problem is that you simply cannot take this as a proper image of phenoms future. for one this is clocked at 2.3 as opposed to the 2.4 of the q6600, it dosent account for the performance difference on it;s own but it still makes the comparison unbalanced right there. secondly there is the problem of the motherboard, gigabyte is good value for money but you cant hold them up to asus! DFI has a phenom board on the way which i would consider a fair comparison. and then let us not forget that core 2 has been around for a while, it has had time to be perfected and produce wonderfull things like G0, amd has not. the early core 2 duos werent as spectacular overclockers as the latest ones are, so why would you expect a product which does not have a steppng that is certified to run at 2.4ghz yet, on an inferior motherboard, to overclock even remotely as well? i feel that there is still a lot we do not yet know about Phenom, like how does it respond to latency timings? you should test it wil the ultra-low latency kit from G. Skill, on the upcoming DFI board, after amd has been able to perfect the manufacturing process. plus these are amd's 'rush-em-out-the-door-to-meet-a-deadline' chips, i would wait untill amd has released the rest of it's Phenom range to make any judgement on the quality of the arcitecture. but i'm not going to disagree these are not as good an option as intel's offerings at the moment, but given time i think it could be.

Comment by yougotkicked at 3:56am 23rd November 2007

I have been using amds since the original athlons came out but have when core 2 duo's came out they were far better performers , value for money and overclockers .....since then I haven't gave them a second look ...looks like I will be contunuing that trend.....AMD's have always served well but ....the days of them sticking it to INtel are long gone I reckon ....

Comment by akoli at 2:10am 23rd November 2007

Bought an e6600 then a Q6600 after only using AMD for 10 years. They have made the biggest contribution to the progression of CPUs due to making Intel finally wake up and do something groundbreaking for a change instead of just assuming they are omnipotent. Hate to see them suffer, but they simply cant compete at the moment. Shame, but the consumer wins!

Comment by buzzard73 at 12:24am 23rd November 2007

If AMD have "issues" with the faster clocked cpus falling over a 2.4Ghz+, surely this means that until this is sorted the current lower clocked steppings of the CPU will be poor overclockers? i.e keel over and die above 2.4? Sounds like another F*** up of titanic proputions on AMDs part trying to rush chips out the door.... :-(

Comment by barron_greenback at 11:52pm 22nd November 2007

it could be the motherboard thats limiting the processor...the intel is tested on a very fast asus board while the AMD is only tested on the gigabyte board...need to pair the AMD chip with a similar performing board as the intel/asus setup.

Comment by ecviper at 10:21pm 22nd November 2007

Hay!, it might just be a new Bios update or a driver prob eh?......maybe?

Comment by Jux_Zeil at 6:02pm 22nd November 2007

I'd hoped AMD would give better performance so there is good competition. I'd like to see more results on the multitasking front, certain Intel based motherboards score far lower than expected with the reference chip. So lets wait to see it in more motherboards first.

Comment by Harry1985 at 5:15pm 22nd November 2007

I'm still disappointed. I really wanted AMD to be competitive, even if it was just for price/performance, but it dont look like it's gonna happen... Ouch especially for the multitasking result.

Comment by D_Cypher at 4:53pm 22nd November 2007

This isn't going to be good for competition in the CPU market unless AMD cut prices dramatically again. At least the new ATI GPUs look good particularly in the mid-range where Nvidia have been struggling with the 8600's.

Comment by Isitari at 4:35pm 22nd November 2007

2008 looks like another long year for AMD/ATI lets hope they have the finances to play catch up.

Comment by the_jetsetwilly at 4:27pm 22nd November 2007

At this price it certainly is overpriced, I flicked over to Tom's hardware that states that it is cheaper than the Q6600! and works out 1p cheaper in terms of performace/value. Which is to be belived??? Either way this is a little disapointing from AMD. If they had released this processor 1 year ago their position may have been more stable. With the new Intel Penryn just around the corner and nehalem not far off I see this weak offering by AMD as a major problem. They needed their new chips to be significantly better than the Athlon chips and it achieved this to a degree but has still falled short of even the lowest quad core chip that Intel offer! Another bad day for AMD

Comment by Thorian at 4:06pm 22nd November 2007

• Far Cry 2 release date revealed
• 50,000 Warhammer Online BETA keys up for grabs
• Nvidia and ATI accused of fixing prices
• Ghostbusters is first film to be released on USB stick
• Intel launches new budget quad-core and dual-core CPUs
• Win £500 with your modding skills
• Google announces Chrome web browser
• VIDEO: Monkey Island creator returns with DeathSpank
• Top 10 PC games chart
• PC gamers receive bill of rights

These are the most popular news articles over the past seven days.

• Ghostbusters is first film to be released on USB stick
• Top 10 PC games chart
• Intel launches new budget quad-core and dual-core CPUs
• Nvidia and ATI accused of fixing prices
• Google announces Chrome web browser
• 50,000 Warhammer Online BETA keys up for grabs
• Far Cry 2 release date revealed
• VIDEO: Monkey Island creator returns with DeathSpank
• Win £500 with your modding skills