3.0GHz: Where Are You?

AMD ran a controversial demo of a quad core Phenom in July of last year:

The demo ran at 3.0GHz and was designed to set expectations for Phenom. The problem is that when Phenom launched, it did so at 2.3GHz. Even today we're only at 2.5GHz. Allow me to quote, um, myself:

"In a demonstration designed to prove that Phenom isn't broken, AMD featured a quad core Phenom X4 processor, with standard cooling, running at 3.0GHz. While Phenom won't be anywhere near that clock speed when it launches at the end of this year, AMD expects to be at 3GHz within the first half of 2008. "

AMD told some members of the press that there was nothing special about these 3.0GHz Phenoms that were demoed, which begs the question - what happened?

There's nothing particularly magical about the 3.0GHz number, but the problem is this: Intel gives you two options at $266, you can purchase a Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz, dual core) or you can purchase a Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz, quad core). The difference in clock frequency is 600MHz but you get two more cores, for the same price.

With AMD, the decision isn't as simple. At $178 you can purchase an Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition (3.2GHz, dual core), or at $195 you can buy a Phenom X4 9550 (2.2GHz, quad core). Not only do you have to spend a little more to get four cores, but you give up 1000MHz in clock frequency. Thankfully Phenom has some architectural enhancements that help narrow the performance gap, but it still does make AMD's job of competing much more difficult - forcing it to dramatically reduce prices.

Phenom could scale much higher, after all the individual cores aren't all that more complex than those in an Athlon 64 X2. We get the impression that there are some speed paths that could be optimized on the current B2 and B3 Phenoms that simply aren't because of a very sensible thought process. AMD is still on track to begin shipping its first 45nm Phenom processors (Deneb core) by the end of this year and it doesn't make sense to waste time and resources respinning a 65nm Phenom, when presumably these clock speed issues are addressed at 45nm.

AMD is expecting, clock for clock, 45nm Deneb based Phenom cores to offer up to 15% more performance (we're skeptical of that number). AMD also committed to matching clock speeds of 65nm Phenom processors when the 45nm parts launch. If Phenom is at 2.7GHz when 45nm launches, the first 45nm parts will come in at 2.7GHz (as well as models lower/higher obviously, but the point is that there will be clock speed parity with the move to 45nm).

Index Overclocking B3, a Little Better
Comments Locked

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • Margalus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    intel did not do "paper launch" of the wolfdale. They are just popular. If you can't find one, you aren't looking very hard. I've had an e8400 for over a month now, and have seen them in stock at multiple places since then.
  • The Jedi - Monday, April 7, 2008 - link

    Aside of the E8400 being faster than the E6850, they $#%@ed up the industry by pricing it considerably cheaper, creating massive demand, while being unprepared to fill that demand. The E8400 supplies dried up leading to scalping on eBay.

    Now supplies of the E8400 have returned and the price is around where it ought to be. Hopefully Intel will keep it together.
  • stinkyj - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    i see stock for 8400 too, but i see a wide variance in pricing. in stock == inflated price.
  • sc3252 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    Its nice to see some competition in the quad core arena. AMD isnt the fastest, but it does put out a competitive enough part for now. Hopefully in the next 3-4 months they will release faster cpu's to up the ante.
  • mlau - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link

    The LDAP guys think the new Phenoms are quite impressive:
    http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191">http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191

    They don't win against Intel on all irrelevant benchmarks (3dmark and
    the other synthetic crap), but fare quite well in server workloads.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now