AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 1:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
If you were looking for a changing of the guard today it's just not going to happen. Phenom is, clock for clock, slower than Core 2 and the chips aren't yet yielding well enough to boost clock speeds above what Intel is capable of. While AMD just introduced its first 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz quad-core CPUs today, Intel previewed its first 3.2GHz quad-core chips. We were expecting Intel to retain the high end performance crown, but also expected AMD to chip away at the lower end of the quad-core market - today's launch confirms that Intel is still the king of the quad-core market.
As we've seen from our mainstream CPU comparisons however, all of this could change with some clever pricing - something AMD seems to have forgone with its Phenom launch.
Phenom manages to fill a major gap in AMD's desktop CPU product lineup: the company can now offer quad-core CPUs. And with the needed updates to the K8 architecture AMD is now competitive in some areas that it sorely needed improving in. Windows Media and x264 encoding are both strong points of the Phenom architecture, making it on par with Intel's quad-core offerings. The same can be said about some games, but at the same time Intel really pulls ahead in our DivX and other game tests.
Inevitably some of these Phenoms will sell, even though Intel is currently faster and offers better overall price-performance (does anyone else feel weird reading that?). Honestly the only reason we can see to purchase a Phenom is if you currently own a Socket-AM2 motherboard; you may not get the same performance as a Core 2 Quad, but it won't cost as much since you should be able to just drop in a Phenom if you have BIOS support.
If you ask AMD, this is platform story; after all, who wouldn't want to combine a Phenom with the 790FX chipset and a pair of Radeon 3850 graphics cards. The problem is that you can pair up 3850s on an Intel chipset just as easily, leaving the biggest benefit to 790FX the ability to run 3 or 4 3850s, which we're not even sure is a good idea yet. There are some auto-overclocking features, but talking about Phenom's overclocking isn't really accenting one of its strong points. The platform sell is a great one to an OEM, but it's simply not compelling enough to the end user - if Phenom were more attractive, things would be different.
To make the CPU more attractive AMD desperately needs to drop the price, and from what we've heard, that will happen in Q1. From what we've seen, AMD needs to be at least 200MHz ahead of Intel in order to remain competitive - that means bringing out a Phenom 9900 that's cheaper than the Q6600, at least. If AMD can do that, it's quite possible that in early 2008 we'll have the first sub-$200 quad-core part as the 9500 drops in price.
Oh and just in case AMD is listening: the Phenom 9600 has no business being here, the extra 100MHz only clutters up the product line. Once the 9700 and 9900 are out let's try and stick to 200MHz increments shall we?
Here's what really frightens us: the way AMD has priced Phenom leaves Intel with a great opportunity to increase prices with Penryn without losing the leadership position. Intel could very well introduce the Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.33GHz) at $269 and still remain quite competitive with Phenom, moving the Q9450 into more expensive waters. Intel has't announced what it's doing with Penryn pricing in Q1, but our fear is that a weak showing from Phenom could result in an upward trend in processor prices. And this is exactly why we needed AMD to be more competitive with Phenom.
It's tough to believe that what we're looking at here is a farewell to the K8. When AMD first released the Athlon 64, its performance was absolutely mind blowing. It kept us from recommending Intel processors for at least 3 years; Phenom's arrival, however, is far more somber. Phenom has a difficult job to do, it needs to keep AMD afloat for the next year. Phenom is much like the solemn relative, visiting during a time of great sorrow within the family; let's hope for AMD's sake that it can lift spirits in the New Year.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
124 Comments
View All Comments
B166ER - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Had to reply and clarify. The phrase refers to current setups in which quadcore gaming is not a primary reason to purchase said processors. Alan Wake, Crysis, and others, while being able to take advantage of quadcore setups, are not out yet, and I would guess that less than 3% of games out there now are quadcore capable, and scaling of such games is probably hardly optimized even if there were more supply. You speak in a future context in which these games will be available, even still the abundance of them will still be in wait.Nonetheless, Anand that might be your best review in my book to date. It speaks honestly and depicts a very seemingly structureless company that only has time on its side to pull itself up from potential disaster. AMD has not shown too many positive strides as a company lately, and mindless spending on what should have been a direct "let em have at it" approach only shows what was speculated previously: the company has a vacuum in leadership that needs to be filled by capable hands. And we all know proper administration starts from the very top; Hectors step down will not be mourned by me. Dirk has his cup filled, but his past credentials speak highly and show him capable. I can only wish well.
Phenom needs to be priced competitively, simple enough. and it needs higher quality yields for overclocking. Its amazing how they can stay just one step behind in almost every step currently. I hope the 7 series mobos bring about better competition vs Intel and Nvidia boards. We as a community need this to happen.
leexgx - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
there are about 2-3 games i think that use quadwingless - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Thats such a mixed bag it makes me sick. Phenoms are mediocre at best at almost everything but somehow magically rape Intel in Crysis. I'll have nightmares. WTF is going on internally in those four cores to make this happen? I hope software manufacturers code well for AMD so they can shine. The pro-Intel software market is huge and thats where the fight is. Unfortunately it doesn't look good for AMD there either because programmers hate having to learn new code.defter - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Rape Intel in Crysis??Crysis was one of the few benchmarks where fastest Phenom was faster than slowest Core2 Quad. Still the Phenom's advantage was less than a percent.
I think it's better to say that Crysis is the benchmark where Phenom doesn't utterly suck (it just sucks a lot).
eye smite - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
You really think those shining numbers are realistic from pre production sample cpu's? I think you should all wait til sites have full production MB's and cpu's and can give real data with all their tests, then you can decide it's a steaming sack of buffalo droppings. Until then, you'll just sound like a racaous bunch of squabbling crows.JumpingJack - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Ohhhh, here we go again with the 'It's note coded well for AMD' conspiracy theories.wingless - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
AMD recently released new software libraries for these processors....JumpingJack - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Yeah, great for the FPU library which they already compiled into their PGI for the SPEC.ORG runs, which consquently are slowly getting the non-compliant branding pasted all over them.TSS - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
"It turns out that gaming performance is really a mixed bag; there are a couple of benchmarks where AMD really falls behind (e.g. Half Life 2 and Unreal Tournament 3), while in other tests AMD is actually quite competitive (Oblivion & Crysis)."the UT series and halflife 2 are both very CPU intensive, while oblivion and especially crysis are videocard killers. it's hard to say but it sucks in games as well. you'd wanna see a difference in crysis though, make it scale to about 640x480. it's just too demanding on the graphics card to compare at 1024x768. in lament terms, in HL2 the graphics card is usually picking his nose waiting for the CPU, so a stronger CPU will make a dig difference. in crysis especially it's exactly the other way around, so that's why scores are closer together.
why is this true? in half life 2, there are 50 frames between the best and worst of the line up. in UT3, there are 50 frames between the best and the worst of the lineup (meaning regardless of clockspeeds or architecture. the frames per second is also measured in the hundreds, even by such a new and graphic intensive game as UT3 (though it should be noted as far as i know the beta demo did NOT ship with the highest resolution textures to keep file size down). now crysis has about 9 frames per second difference between a 2,2 ghz phenom and a 2,66 ghz intel proc, and oblivion manages about 16. same system different game it can only be concluded that the game is much more graphic card intensive, which shouldn't be hard to imagine since crysis is well known to be the graphics card killer of the moment.... and oblivion of the last generation (HDR and AA anybody?).
AMD's 10-30% slower in every other test they are as well in gaming. i belive the difference would've shown more if they used a SLI or crossfire solution, though i understand that's not possible with the chipsets and drivers existing at the moment.
MDme - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Time to upgrade.....to the dark side.