The 140W TDP: Is Phenom the new NetBurst?

The Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition is now AMD's hottest microprocessor, carrying a 140W TDP up from 125W of the 9850 and retail 9750. The 15W bump in TDP is all for a meager 4% increase in clock frequency. The question is: does this translate into a significantly higher increase in system power consumption?

  Idle Load (Cinebench XCPU) Vcc
AMD Phenom X4 9950 (140W TDP) 188W 279W 1.312V
AMD Phenom X4 9850 (125W TDP) 204W 297W 1.312V

 

Surprisingly enough, our 9950 sample actually used less power than our 9850. We first checked to see if they both ran on the same VID and indeed they did: 1.312V for both.

There is some power variation between CPUs, even at the same voltage, so you should definitely not assume that the 140W TDP immediately insinuates a significantly higher power draw. At the same time, AMD didn't up the rating for no reason, and it's quite possible that on average the 140W TDP processors will consume noticeably more power than their 125W counterparts.

Overclocking or Overcooking? The Test
Comments Locked

36 Comments

View All Comments

  • Regs - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Between cool n' quite and flimsy power management, it just seems like AMD overshot their goals. Though to me, it seems like they could easily be fixed in Shanghai, but that's if they can keep all four cores busy instead I have 3 cores at stall, and one pumping at max in threaded or shared instruction instances. This will though cause more power consumption, and I think you guys all ready said that mobo support is just not their to power these suckers. You can have your cake, you just cant eat it.

    What do you goes think about AMD at 2.6 GHz? Looks more competitive stacked up to Intel's finniest at the given price point. Just makes me wonder if the over complicated power management features are keeping AMD from hitting 3.0 GHz or above. What do you think is holding AMD back?
  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Shitty engineering?
  • Griswold - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link

    Well, I dont know for sure. But its definitely not moronic comments from dumbasses such as you.
  • Assimilator1 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Yeah it looks like they've messed up the clock speeds for the lower Phenoms too, lol.
  • Aries1470 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Hi,
    Just found the following strange:
    AMD Phenom X4 9850 $205
    AMD Phenom X4 9750 $215
    The slower one is more expensive, while in the article it has the prices reversed?
    "The new Phenom X4 9950 will occupy the $235 space, which will push the 9850 down to $215. The Phenom 9750 will go away temporarily to make room for the new chips at the high end, leaving the 9650 at $195 and the 9550 at $175."

    I wonder which one is correct ;-) Hmm... I think a proof reader and an eye for detail is needed :-)

    Ok, now for me to read the rest of the article.

    Btw, any update on the new VIA Nano CPU - Codename Isaiah? Will there be a review? It is as fast as a 9150e or faster at the same clock speed? It has much less power usage. Now if someone over here could do a review or get more info that would be great, since it is like there is no other x86 competitor out there...

    That's all from me.
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    The 9750 pricing will not be changed by AMD officially and thankfully that model is being phased out in the retail sector and replaced by the 9850BE.

    I have a picture of the VIA Nano PR flag from Computex and a handout explaining how it should perform. That is about as far as VIA is willing to go at this point with information. I did hear from some OEMS that VIA was not even close to getting the CPU out this summer as originally thought, much less advanced reviews. However, we do push them on an almost daily basis for it.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now