Phenom Black Edition

[Peter.Cort]

its all of them. it has the potential to shut down the system but doesn't always. and also they will work out the bug before they release more of the phenoms. and they are only releasing the b2 steppings (i believe thats what they are) because its what they have in stock. that and the tri-cores. lol.

 

[ricanflow]

The phenom that we are all refering to is the b3 stepping 9900 black edition, which is gonna eat the current intel quads alive.

 

[Nagasama]

all of the chips, even with the bug. the only time it has ever presented itself was in a controlled labratory environment.
i can almost assure you that you wont be able to find anyone that owns one that has had the problem present itself.
its just the fact that it is there, lol. every chip has bugs. C2D has had like 120 of them.
its was just silly for AMD to make such a fuss over it.
its not a big deal...but since they made it a big deal, i reckon most will be waiting to get one.

 

[LeftEyeBlind]

The phenom that we are all refering to is the b3 stepping 9900 black edition, which is gonna eat the current intel quads alive.

Is this true?

 

[NosBoost300]

Is this true?

i highly doubt it, why would a 9900 be any different than any other phenom.. same architechture... gonna have same clock for clock performance.... there is no reason it would do any better, and w/ q6600's already being about 10% faster clock for clock and yorkfield being 15% faster clock for clock.. there is no reason the 9900 phenom would be any faster

people needa stop w/ this phenom stuff being better than intel quads... as long as its the same phenom core, its just not gonna happe... i don't care if it clocks to 4.0ghz, yorkfields can do so almost on stock voltage and perform better at that speed anyway.. so even at 4.0ghz, a 3.8kentsfield will be on par if not better, and a 3.6ghz yorkfield will be on par if not better.. and we all know how easy 3.8 and 3.6 are to get on intel quads..

i'm sorry, phenom is NOT going to cream intel in performance... prices maybe, but performance.. i'm sorry.. NO

so the 9900 will have fixed TLB, okay, the problem w/ the current phenoms was just that it could reach past a certain fsb, don't remember what it was, but after a certain point was instable... so if this was fixed, what clock could you hit.. don't matter, if your not gonna oc farther than 4g's you can't even think about taking on any intel quad.... 9900 wat'll that be, just higher multi? okay.. so what, arent we gonna have that w/ these new black editions... bah, i have no faith in phenom beating yorkfield let alone kentsfield

amd got pwned in both single and multi-threaded apps by intel... LOL at the thought of phenom beating any quad... tests have shown already.. its lost, and by a noticeable margin... fixing tlb will unlock higher clocks... but as i said before, clock for clock amd is still losing

 

[Wildside]

i highly doubt it, why would a 9900 be any different than any other phenom.. same architechture... gonna have same clock for clock performance.... there is no reason it would do any better, and w/ q6600's already being about 10% faster clock for clock and yorkfield being 15% faster clock for clock.. there is no reason the 9900 phenom would be any faster

people needa stop w/ this phenom stuff being better than intel quads... as long as its the same phenom core, its just not gonna happe... i don't care if it clocks to 4.0ghz, yorkfields can do so almost on stock voltage and perform better at that speed anyway.. so even at 4.0ghz, a 3.8kentsfield will be on par if not better, and a 3.6ghz yorkfield will be on par if not better.. and we all know how easy 3.8 and 3.6 are to get on intel quads..

i'm sorry, phenom is NOT going to cream intel in performance... prices maybe, but performance.. i'm sorry.. NO

so the 9900 will have fixed TLB, okay, the problem w/ the current phenoms was just that it could reach past a certain fsb, don't remember what it was, but after a certain point was instable... so if this was fixed, what clock could you hit.. don't matter, if your not gonna oc farther than 4g's you can't even think about taking on any intel quad.... 9900 wat'll that be, just higher multi? okay.. so what, arent we gonna have that w/ these new black editions... bah, i have no faith in phenom beating yorkfield let alone kentsfield

amd got pwned in both single and multi-threaded apps by intel... LOL at the thought of phenom beating any quad... tests have shown already.. its lost, and by a noticeable margin... fixing tlb will unlock higher clocks... but as i said before, clock for clock amd is still losing

gosh...................where is ur compassion? U dont want to help the ones left behind *AMD*? If that is what u want to think then i have nothing else to say except that if ur wrong, ill be the first to tell u so. If not, well then ill still get one because price vs performance is where the Phenoms r at. So the Q6600 is 10fps or 10 secs better, who cares? The Phenoms being a cheaper price just comes to show that at they current have good *** performance.

 

[NosBoost300]

gosh...................where is ur compassion? U dont want to help the ones left behind *AMD*? If that is what u want to think then i have nothing else to say except that if ur wrong, ill be the first to tell u so. If not, well then ill still get one because price vs performance is where the Phenoms r at. So the Q6600 is 10fps or 10 secs better, who cares? The Phenoms being a cheaper price just comes to show that at they current have good *** performance.

people who need every second... like me... care about the performance, these "seconds" add up when you designing alot of things and have deadlines... and you need to burn multiple things

and these 10fps.. make the difference weather or not, you can play on very high.... so re-think ur words 10fps is a BIG deal

i never said it was bad.. i just said its not enough of a contender... and there's no logical reason, why something of the same architecture, would suddenly become alot better.. quad core optimizers? maybe... better mobo drivers? who knows... but as for the chip itself.. i don't see it happening... and again, not saying its a cpu, its still a great one... but not enough for my liking

 

[Apokalipse]

i highly doubt it, why would a 9900 be any different than any other phenom.. same architechture...

Most of it is the same. But there are improvements.

gonna have same clock for clock performance....

Not necessarily. yorkfield is faster clock for clock than conroe is. And they're basically the same architecture, with a few changes.

there is no reason it would do any better

see above.

and w/ q6600's already being about 10% faster clock for clock and yorkfield being 15% faster clock for clock.. there is no reason the 9900 phenom would be any faster

Oh, it might be. Not that I'm going to put money on it being better at current frequencies. but I think that AMD's K10 CPU's will scale well when you start
a) adding cores, and
b) increasing frequency
partly because of the Hypertransport bus.

Let's say architecture A gains 40% performance from a 50% clock increase, and architecture B gains 33% performance from the same clock increase. Even if Architecture A has 10% lower performance per clock at the original frequencies, at the higher frequencies it may match or even beat the performance per clock of architecture B

Take this graph for example:

Each line represents the performance of a particular architecture at a given frequency.
the line with the higher gradient scales better. So even though it doesn't perform as well at lower frequencies, it does perform better at higher frequencies.

I'm not saying this is or isn't the case with Phenom vs Core 2. But I think it is a possibility. AMD's hypertransport bus has been proven to let their CPU's scale well.

so the 9900 will have fixed TLB, okay, the problem w/ the current phenoms was just that it could reach past a certain fsb, don't remember what it was, but after a certain point was instable...

Actually, the TLB bug can affect all of AMD's quad cores, no matter what frequency.
But realistically, the chances of it happening are insignificantly small. That's why AMD missed it for a while.

 

[NosBoost300]

ah, very good arguement apok

 

[veg1992]

^ seriously... if I was a fanboy for something, I couldn't defend it that well