|
Advice Beginners BIOS Guide CPUs Links Mainboards Memory Network Storage Video/Sound Cards Contact Forum SiteMap Sponsors WebNews Home 
|
. | . |
Prices: Mainboards ABIT ASUS Chaintech Shuttle Soyo Tyan CPU Intel P4 2.4C-800 P4 2.6C-800 P4 2.8C-800 P4 3.0-800 P4 3.2-800 AMD AthlonXP XP 1700+ XP 2000+ XP 2400+ XP 2500+ XP 2700+ XP 3000+ XP 3200+ Athlon64 Athlon64 3200+ Athlon64 FX-51 Opteron Opteron 240 Opteron 242 Opteron 244 Opteron 246 Memory Corsair Crucial Kingston Mushkin OCZ |
|
|
|
LOSTCIRCUITS
|
|
| AMD's Phenom X4 9850 - Silicon Revision B3 | |
|
(Author: Michael Schuette, April 6, 2008) |
Overclocking
The initial samples we had of the Phenom, that is, the (never released) 9900 and the 9600 Black Edition had some halfway decent headroom but, at least the specimens that found their way into our lab were somewhat unwilling to break the 3 GHz barrier. There is no need to stress any of this, samples are samples and every CPU, especially when it comes to early samples, behaves somewhat differently. The X4 9850 clocked... and clocked .. and clocked.. not always stable but we managed to POST at 3.4GHz using the stock cooler and increasing the core voltage to 1.4V. At 3.3GHz we got into Windows, albeit there was not enough stability to get through all stress tests.
At 3.2 GHz, the X4 9850 was genuinely stable, finishing any stress test we threw at it, from rendering to 3DMark'06 and that is what we want to show as the final figure in this article. No... no need to worry, we won't bother with another CPU-Z screenshot, instead we have the CPU score of 3DMark'06 achieved with the standard air cooler and running at 1.4V core voltage at 3.2 GHz.
For comparison, a Yorkfield 9650 running at the same frequency scores 4659 (plus-minus a few). Not a bad score at all...
The Final Analysis
AMD is fighting for market share and aside from the aftermath of the ATI acquisisition, there are some quirky corporate moves that add certain surprise momenta. Like... are they ever going to listen?... The entire marketing strategy is currently based on the "better bang for the buck" motto, and there is nothing wrong with it, except that despite the better bang for the buck, most system builders still prefer Intel's architecture. Let's share some insight with AMD in a public way:
When asking white box builders why they prefer Intel CPUs over AMD, a fairly unanimous response is that the LGA design of the Intel package is just a safer way to go. Based on changing CPUs about 2 dozen times a day, we can only subscribe to the very same point of view. Intel has set a standard with the LGA 775 form factor, and the mere fact that in 99.9% of all cases, one can drop the CPU and step on it and no harm is done, is enough to sway the majority of all system integrators to avoid AMD just on the basis of those prickly pins. So it appears that moving to an LGA design like that developed for Socket F could result in instant gratification of a few % in market share just by taking the fear out of the white box builders. Yet, in a recent discussion with AMD representatives, the question about when LGA might be hitting the desktop market was answered by an adamant “NEVER!!!”.
It is certainly understandable that the QuadFX platform has left a somewhat bad taste in somebody's mouth, plus, everybody wants backwards compatibility with even the most outdated Athlon64 FX - in single core flavor. Let's ask this question" What is easier to change, A CPU or a motherboard? And who is going to buy another AMD 790 chipset-based board without a new CPU? So maybe, if the decision makers at AMD would consult real world system builders instead of looking into a clouded crystal ball, they might be able to avoid the hat trick of three consecutive Darwin Awards.
That said and done, the Phenom in its latest iteration is a remarkably good CPU. The bottom line of our results actually indicates that the B3 revision is markedly better than the original B1 or B2 revisions that, according to corporate liability paranoia, require the BIOS patch and then the work-around in form of AOD. Granted, in applications that solely depend on core speed, the 9900 is still the fastest Phenom officially (not) released, anything else belongs to the 9850 Black edition that further has the overclocking potential to become the most powerful CPU ever released by AMD. Until the next one...
Sure enough, there are weaknesses, especially in the area of single-threaded gaming but let's face it, for games like Crysis or World in Conflict it really doesn't matter what CPU is used, unless the resolution is kept at VGA level and everything in terms of eye candy is turned off. In a direct comparision to Intel's Q6600, both win some, both lose some but there is not a world of difference either way. Neither is there one in pricing. However, as awkward as it may sound, AMD's hybrid Crossfre mode, with the integrated graphics of AMD's IGP in tandem with a standalone AMD graphics card is a very appealing solution for most gamers. The IGP essentially comes for free with any integrated motherboard and just adds that bit of extra kick to the platform to make it run a bit smoother than a standalone solution - no matter what brand.
Think about that again for a second.
Ok, did the message come across? It is definitely a good story that the Texo-Canadian spinmasters have brewed up here, even if it is not a fully -blown Crossfire or SLI solution. But it is worth the consideration and in this case, there is no question which CPU it is going to be. Phenom all the way. In the next few days we will start looking in depth at the triple core offerings, dubbed X3. Quite honestly, we have no idea whether those will be a complete let-down or whether the performance differences will be marginal enough to ignore them, we are as curious as you are.... Stay tuned.
next page: => Overclocking - The final analysis =>
All advice and educational articles on LostCircuits are free, but if you feel you can, please make a small donation to us!
