Phenom II's Secret, In Pictures

I can be verbose, I know, I'm sorry - I'm working on it. But on this page, I'll use pictures to illustrate my point. Here's the 65nm Phenom die:

I highlighted one of the four cores in blue. The bottom part of the highlighted core its its 512KB L2 cache. The areas in pink are the 2MB L3 cache that is shared by all four cores. Now look at Phenom II:

Again we've got one of the four cores highlighted blue. The L1 cache size and the core itself look very similar to the original Phenom, but note how the new die is much more rectangular. The pink area represents the Phenom II's 6MB L3 cache.

Just comparing the two die you can see that while the individual cores look similar, the amount of L3 cache has gone up considerably. Remember that Intel found with Nehalem that an 8MB L3 cache was the bare minimum, leaving 2MB per core. The original Phenom had 2MB to share amongst all four cores, which is hardly enough; Phenom II fixes that. With a 6MB L3 cache and 512KB L2 per core, Phenom II looks a lot more like Core i7 from a compute-to-cache ratio:

Nehalem's layout makes a little more sense, with each core butting up against the shared L3 cache, but the point is that in both Phenom II and Core i7, the L3 cache is around 1/3 of the total die. The original Phenom alloted only 1/6th of the die for its L3.

 

The Phenom Inspired, Core i7-like, Phenom II Clock for Clock, Still Slower than Core 2 & Core i7
POST A COMMENT

93 Comments

View All Comments

  • Beno - Monday, January 12, 2009 - link

    fanboys help keep them alive.
    if more ppl started looking at AMD again, then Intel will be scared, so us the consumers will be happy because of prices.

    intel has been greedy and overpriced their c2 because there was no competetion at that time.
    Reply
  • garydale - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    I generally buy AMD processors for two reasons. The first is that I am not a gamer so I'm looking for cost-effective business application solutions. I'd rather double the memory than increase the processor speed, so AMD works well at the price points I build to.

    Secondly, I believe in the need for competition. With the power PC processor virtually absent from the consumer market and there being little else to choose from for the desktop market, AMD is Intel's only real competitor. So long as AMD has chips that are good enough to compete with Intel's on price/performance, I prefer to buy them.

    If Via got their Cyrix processors up to a decent speed, I might be tempted to switch to them, but let's face it, they don't really compete in this market. So in a two-way race, we need to put our money behind the underdog to prevent a monopoly.

    I've been buying ATI cards too for similar reasons. Nice to see that AMD's making advances in both areas.

    To be clear, I've got nothing against Intel, at least not since the Pentium fiasco, but I think everyone will agree that having multiple firms competing is better for consumers than having one company dominate (Windows 95, 98, Millenium Edition, Vista come to mind). :)
    Reply
  • aeternitas - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    Much of your post should go next to the Webster definition of "AMDfanboi"

    If you want true competition, buy the better product. I got my sweet A64. I will now consider P2 over a C2D, but because of price/performance/watt alone.
    Reply
  • Certified partner - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    "Blender is one of the few tests that doesn't strongly favor the Core i7, in fact it does not favor them at all. Here the Core 2 Quad Q9650 is the fastest processor, followed by the Phenom II X4 940 and the Phenom II X4 920."
    http://www.techspot.com/review/137-amd-phenom2-x4-...">http://www.techspot.com/review/137-amd-phenom2-x4-...

    "Blender shows Phenom II less competitive than the other 3D rendering tests we've seen thus far."
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    Both can't be true. Explanations would be highly appreciated. I suggest, that anandtech ask techspot about the test settings. Blender is capable of using several threads but I'm not sure wether the optimization is automated. Please, play with the settings. For example, 8*8 (render) tiles can benefit from 8 threads while 1*1 can't.
    Reply
  • Max1 - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    How much money has paid Intel to you for this "testing"? You have tested productivity of processors only on two games. In both games productivity of Core 2 is above. In one of them much more above, but it happens seldom. Other tests show, that productivity of Core 2 Quad in part of games is above. In part of games productivity Phenom II of same frequency is above. Why there is so a lot of coding and synthetic tests where Intel is faster, and as always there are no other applications? Why you continue to say lies, as earlier liars for money of Intel that Northwood is ostensibly faster, than Barton. Reply
  • strikeback03 - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    I'm surprised how long it took the fanbois to start commenting on this article. Didn't really get rolling until several pages into the comments. Reply
  • JimmiG - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    Bit disappointing that it's still slower than Core2 clock for clock. But given the performance of the original Phenom, I think the CPU performs as expected. A big leap for AMD. Unfortunately for them, Intel made an even bigger leap when they switched from Netbust to Core2.

    Also a bit concerned about this supposed "backwards compatibility". Many of the original 790FX boards, my M3A32-MVP Deluxe in particular, will not work with AM3 CPUs because Asus does not plan on releasing a BIOS update. Of course that's the fault of second-rate mobo companies like Asus, and not the fault of AMD. I'll probably end up getting a DDR2 PII-940 to replace my X4 9650, but I'll wait until the prices have dropped some.
    Reply
  • anandtech02148 - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    Just wait till Am3 socket comes out, Intel will have to make a slight cheaper version of x58chipset. Is that sweat i see on their forehead?
    Amd buy Via's Nano and give them a 2 prong attack.
    Reply
  • RogueAdmin - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    AMD has gone a long way to improving the performance of its processors, and everyone should go out and buy them. They need our support, and without it we will have to put up with whatever Intel decide to give us. And everyone here I think remembers the P4 days, let them not come again!
    The AM2 /2+ /3 platform is by far the easiest upgrade option. No need to worry if your NB chipset supports the latest FSB or RAM, because its all integrated into the CPU. A feature than Intel has copied in its new i7. Along with the monlithic quad core design, and level 3 cache. Also do not forget that AMD released the first x86-64 CPU, and intel basically complied to its x86-64 code to be compatible with the software developed for it.
    i7 is fast, very fast. But do you need that kind of performance in your everyday life? i7 is designed for workstation's hence the benchmarks of video encoding and 3D applications. Gamers would be better off getting a top of the line GPU. Is your CPU 100% utilized 24/7?
    I saw a comment about the 2 year old Core 2 Quad being faster, only in Far Cry 2, that one test. And I would rather play Crysis anyday.
    Since its release Intel has tweaked the performance of these with new cores no end.

    Sorry I digest.... lol

    Keep things competitive, buy AMD. Fanboy or no, let the price wars rage on.

    Reply
  • aeternitas - Friday, January 09, 2009 - link

    1. Most people use their everyday system to *work* too.
    2. Dont compare i7 to P2. Youll just look like youre really reaching and a fanboy.
    3. You dont -Need- anything better than a A64 for everyday tasks. Depending on how long you wanna wait though, you will go to a better system. That point about not -needing- better hardware has always been ridiculous and only applies to grandmas and people that use the computer for browsing and music. Those people dont care about this area in computer so its moot!

    P2 is great, but be realistic. Its competing against C2 right now. Comparing technicalities and -who was firsts- doesnt provide more FPs in anything. It just makes for flame fodder. The numbers speak for themselves and I think this article did a good job in putting the P2 in its place. As a great alternative for people looking to upgrade from older than C2 hardware.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now