AMD's Phenom X4 9750 & 9850 Review

2008-03-30 09:45:07

#1

Naturn: Deeds, not words.; +311|6878|Greenwood, IN

I want to say first off Intel supports please stay out of this thread. We all know Intel has better chips right now so please don't post anything unless its AMD related.

First off AMD is back in the game right now with their X4 line up. They have fixed their TLB erratum problem and have increased the frequincy of their chips. They will be releasing a new 9850 Black Edition X4 which according to the review site can hit 3.0GHz with just a minor voltage tweak. From the looks of it Intel has got some competition for now.

[ The Review ]

I did some searching last night and found that AMD has already began production of their 45nm lower powered CPUs for later this year so i'm excited to see those.

- Naturn

Last edited by Naturn (2008-03-30 09:49:26)

2008-03-30 09:54:41

#2

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6686|Finland

AMD definately needs new core architechture...

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-03-30 10:10:32

#3

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6735|cuntshitlake

If those are more stable, and better benchmarking than the first phenoms, AMD might beat Intel in quad prices. Yet again not in performance though

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2008-03-30 10:11:04

#4

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6854|SE London

So AMD have nearly caught upto Intels previous generation of CPUs. Big deal.

2008-03-30 10:17:47

#5

SpIk3y: Minister of Silly Walks; +67|6411|New Jersey

The Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition can't always keep pace with the Core 2 Quad Q6600 or the Core 2 Duo E8500, but it's close.

I'm probably one of the biggest AMD fanboys around (never owned an Intel chip, doubt I ever will) but what Bertster said is right. AMD is just now catching up to Intel's last generation, which doesn't exactly qualify as competition. That review seemed overly optimistic. But at least they're moving forward now after sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for so long, I have some hope for the future.

Last edited by SpIk3y (2008-03-30 10:20:17)

2008-03-30 10:35:04

#6

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6469|Winland

125w TDP at 2.4GHz... That's worse than a Pendium D at 3.6.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-03-30 10:49:27

#7

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,054|7044|PNW

DeathUnlimited wrote:
If those are more stable, and better benchmarking than the first phenoms, AMD might beat Intel in quad prices. Yet again not in performance though

Depends on what quad Intel you're looking at, because there's a few for less than $300.

2008-03-30 11:09:49

#8

Lai: Member; +186|6423

I still think AMD generally has better price-quality ratios than Intel, but what I also find very important: service!

2008-03-30 13:08:08

#9

tobz102: Member; +11|6211|UK

just got myself a 9600 black edition.

im dead pleased with it, the price is amazing

2008-03-30 13:15:24

#10

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7008|Salt Lake City

Freezer7Pro wrote:
125w TDP at 2.4GHz... That's worse than a Pendium D at 3.6.

Not when you consider a quad core chip. That puts power consumption right in line with Intel's quad processors. My Q6600 is 2 x C2D chips, which are rated at 65W per C2D core. That's a TDP of 130W.

2008-03-30 13:26:49

#11

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6725|The Twilight Zone

I also heard x3's were just released.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-03-30 13:58:10

#12

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6469|Winland

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
125w TDP at 2.4GHz... That's worse than a Pendium D at 3.6.
Not when you consider a quad core chip. That puts power consumption right in line with Intel's quad processors. My Q6600 is 2 x C2D chips, which are rated at 65W per C2D core. That's a TDP of 130W.

...but yet, the Q6600 is just 105w.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-03-30 14:00:33

#13

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6765|N. Ireland

There's a difference between the Q6600 and Q6600 G0 though!

2008-03-30 14:05:50

#14

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6686|Finland

95w for my Q6600 G0 but atm it is more like 130w
~80c max load temps... still ok but I really don't wat to OC more. And for 24/7 use I have the Intel speedstep enabled so it is much cooler.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-03-30 14:12:58)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-03-30 14:31:53

#15

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6735|cuntshitlake

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
95w for my Q6600 G0 but atm it is more like 130w
~80c max load temps... still ok but I really don't wat to OC more. And for 24/7 use I have the Intel speedstep enabled so it is much cooler.

What cooler

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2008-03-30 14:58:49

#16

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6686|Finland

DeathUnlimited wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
95w for my Q6600 G0 but atm it is more like 130w
~80c max load temps... still ok but I really don't wat to OC more. And for 24/7 use I have the Intel speedstep enabled so it is much cooler.
What cooler

9700nt at optimal ~medium RPM

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-03-30 17:18:52

#17

The#1Spot: Member; +105|6812|byah

The way I see it Intel is hurting its self by advancing way too fast as Amd is steadily improving on technology.

2008-03-30 17:21:49

#18

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6686|Finland

The#1Spot wrote:
The way I see it Intel is hurting its self by advancing way too fast as Amd is steadily improving on technology.

Intel is making money... a lot.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-03-30 17:47:31

#19

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6740

Well the Intel chips do preform slightly better but the AMD chip is not much slower and is at a much lower price. Hopefully this would put AMD back in the game as if Intel kept up its dominance for to long then they would not need to make a better product as there is no competition, which would be bad for everyone.

BF2S Forums AMD's Phenom X4 9750 & 9850 Review

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

Board footer