Yep. That's what the channel wants first.Vern said:I thought they cut it back to produce Energy Efficient ones?
Yep. That's what the channel wants first.Vern said:I thought they cut it back to produce Energy Efficient ones?
B3 stepping will definitely not have the bugstill has the bug
I don't think you've seen the thread where there have been people systematically hunting for the TLB bugso what is the point of OCing it if it has a chance of crashing ur system at full load?
So use a BIOS that doesn't have the fix.Plus, i hate it how the BIOS fix decreases performance.
With an unlocked multiplier, who needs a higher model number?i can hold out until the 9700 n 9900 come out.
I don't think they are. Phenom performs very well clock for clock, and scales better than C2Q when adding cores, and when increasing frequency.wow they are really killing the phenom
Nehalem is due in mid 2009. B3 stepping is due in about a month.by that time you will wait a few more months an nahalem will be out
Don't need to if you have unlocked multipliers.they should have just released teh chips and doen a 9750 version and 9950 version like intel did with there e6000 series
I max out my CPU a lot of the time. But there's an easy way to make sure the TLB bug won't happen, without a BIOS fix.and there is no way you will 100% your cpu, that will cause the crash, i have yet to go over 50% on my c2q, alltho i do not fold.
Nehalem is due in mid 2009. .
Phenom performs very well clock for clock,
and scales better than C2Q when adding cores
and when increasing frequency.
O RLY?Nehalem is due in Q4 2008
Nehalem desktop for Q4 2008? - BeHardware
DailyTech - Intel Slates "Nehalem" for Q4 2008
when paired with DDR2-800 with pretty ordinary timings.But around 10% less than the Kentsfield
multi-chip socket F/F+ systemsBut tell me how you will add cores ?
Doesn't scale as well when you increase frequencies.They will not make more than 4 cores for desktop, and it seems than Core 2 performs better with 4 cores
Search XtremesystemsI like to see a proof for that !
Great, let's test it in GAMES. Gee, that's a true test of frequency and core scaling!You need to check this
Phenom vs. Athlon Core Scaling Compared | Tom's Hardware
It seems that Phenom scales worse than its predecessor (Athlon64) in most cases
when paired with DDR2-800 with pretty ordinary timings.
They perform very well when you put DDR2-1066 in with them, and with good timings. Then, you will see them pulling ahead in a lot of games.
Phenom at 2.6GHZ with DDR2-1066 gets 4300 CPU score in 3Dmark06, for example. Faster than a QX6800.
multi-chip socket F/F+ systems
Search Xtremesystems
Phenom offers more than 100% clockscaling?! - XtremeSystems Forums
Great, let's test it in GAMES. Gee, that's a true test of frequency and core scaling!
and let's not give it DDR2-1066 RAM!
That's nice. But I really don't care.Read your own article
"The high-end quad-core Bloomfield Nehalem-based processors are slated for the fourth quarter of this year but for the performance level quad-core Lynnfield processors we'll have to wait until the second quarter of 2009.:
Nehalem will first come out on Q4 2008
However, the mainstream phenom will come on Q2 2009
You said mid 2009, which is neither Q4 2008 nor Q2 2009.
That review, they didn't use an AM2+ board. regular AM2 does not support DDR2-1066. Only DDR2-800.No
Please check this
Phenom 9700, AMD's 1st Quad-Core CPU | Tom's Hardware
They were you using DDR2-1066, and it performed 10% worse than C2Q (Kentsfield) at the same clock speed
Phenom 9700, AMD's 1st Quad-Core CPU | Tom's Hardware
I don't need to prove anything to you. Even if I do give you links, you're going to keep attacking the Phenom anyway.Why you don't show us proof for your claims ?
See above.Links ? proof ?
Oh, like Superpi? those kind of real-world applications?Having higher 3dmark score doesn't always mean that processor is faster is real world applications, anyway.
I only gave you one link.It only scaled well in one application (cinebench) !!
From Athlon64 2.2GHz to 2.8GHz, there was %16.5 performance change.
From phenom 2.2GHz to 2.8GHz, there was only %12.7 performance change
And please before you reply to me, see this
Phenom vs. Athlon Core Scaling Compared | Tom's Hardware
They were using AMD 790FX motherboard, and they were using DDR2-800 with a good timing (4-4-4-12), yet Phenom scaled worse than Athlon64 with higher freq
Depends where you look.Do you know that DDR2-1066 cost almost twice as much as DDR2-800 ?
That's nice. But I really don't care.
I don't need to prove anything to you. Even if I do give you links, you're going to keep attacking the Phenom anyway.
I could give you examples. but really? I can't be bothered arguing with an intel fanboy.
See above.
you're going to keep attacking the Phenom anyway.
Oh, like Superpi? those kind of real-world applications?
I only gave you one link
Besides, I really can't be bothered arguing with you.