AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 1:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Gaming Performance
To highlight CPU performance differences, all of our 3D gaming benchmarks were run at 1024 x 768, so keep in mind that real world gameplay will most likely be at more GPU bound resolutions with CPU differences mattering less. That being said, this is a CPU review, so we do want to know which of these chips runs game-code the best.
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).
While Phenom suffers greatly in video encoding and 3D rendering tests, there is hope for it as the 9700 can actually compete clock-for-clock with Core 2 in some games. If all you do is game on your machine, with the right video cards you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference between a Phenom and a Core 2 system - that being said, if you're looking at quad-core, chances are that you're doing something else with your system other than game.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
124 Comments
View All Comments
erikejw - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Good that you did not agree to this.
It is sad though that you agree to Intel tactis.
Reviewing a cpu that has no platform and will not be released for months.
Is that the worst paperlaunch ever and you happily benchmark it(QX 9770 or whatever it is).
Lets not go back to late 90s when Anandtech was a huge Intel fanboysite with payed
reviews by Intel with 90% of your ad revenues from them.
Now you are one of the best quality hardware review sites out there, lets not ruin it.
JumpingJack - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Wait... wait... the entire enthusiast community was beggin', pleading, for any early preview data on Barcelona and Phenom, it is not uncommon for companies in yesteryear to provide test sames weeks or even a month before launch to provide preview data. AMD gave us none of this, but power points, and promises that did not pan out.Now, Intel provided this CPU as a 'spoiler' for the phenom launch no doubt... but has AMD ever pulled the same shibang? Of course, every IDF there is something new announced to spoil the party.... what do you expect??
Come on... not only is intel providing more performance and more options, but they are doing it with ease... give them credit for that... if there is a travesty here it is that AMD cannot be competitive and the cost factor, if you want top notch performance, is going opposite of what we would want... you blame Intel? Blame AMD for a crappy showing.
Ohji - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
I don't think Anand's preview of the QX9770 shows any favoritism for Intel at all. Yes, Intel is distributing a pre-release version of its chip, but this fact was clearly stated in the review. Allowing AT to benchmark the chip prior to release is similar to what they did prior to the C2D lauch and is therefore not a paper launch but simply a performance preview. Being a site for computer enthusiasts, AT would be crazy to refuse to evaluate this processor -- such a decision would only drive readers to other sites.I believe that an enthusiast site's primary duty is to remain objective when evaluating products, and in this case I feel Anand's preview of the QX9770 was quite objective, highlighting both the positives (performance) and negative (throttling at stock speeds, heat, power). Truth be told, in my many years of visiting this site, I have never felt that any review has ever been unfairly biased...
strikeback03 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Well, they also went ahead and OCed the Phenom chips they had to simulate the 9900 and 9700, which are supposed to arrive in Q1 '08, i.e. roughly the same time frame as the QX9770 and X48 chipset. Furthermore the article for the most part seemed to emphasize the performance of the OCed chips and ignore the stock-clock parts, which will actually be available soon. So in a way you can say they did no more favors to Intel than AMD, in that this review here largely hangs on future processors as well.ViRGE - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Uhh, did you even read the article? AnandTech didn't review that processor, the fastest processor AT used was a Penryn clocked at 2.66ghz (the improvised Q9450).AssBall - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Oh, this must NOT be a 3.2 Intel ghz review then.....http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...
ViRGE - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Good point, somehow I missed that on the front page. My bad.MrKaz - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Good point.Why preview something that will not be out soon?
I wonder if Intel also send Prescott’s for preview months earlier to everyone knowing that it would suck.
gochichi - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Have you ever played monopoly and had too good of luck for your own good at the beginning? Then your opponents start making ridiculous deals amongst each other to bring you down? I'll trade you Park Place and Board Walk in exchange for Water Works and $50. What should Nvidia do?AMD has really managed to slow progress down this year. We're still talking about beating an 8800GTX, and can't seem to find a better deal than a Q6600 for miles to come.
AMD's products aren't really terrible, but they just can't compete with the very best. I think we can talk about Intel/Nvidia b/c though they are different companies, they are run the same way... faster, leaner, more agile, more desirable.
It's interesting to look at the AMD roadmap, and see that they expect there to be an integrated GPU on the CPU by 2009. Is this why they merged? Do they really think Intel and Nvidia wouldn't cooperate if they had to on a competing product? When AMD was successful, NVIDIA was a big part of that success. Now NVIDIA has to buddy up with Intel and nobody could fault either Nvidia nor INtel for "monopolistic practices" for giving each other preferential treatment. Amd needs to choose it's opponent... is it Intel? Or is it Nvidia? Cause at this rate it's going to loose to both. They need to make sure to treat NVIDIA right when it comes to their CPU business. It has nothing to gain from buddying up with Intel... but maybe cooperating on a chipset with NVIDIA that allowed for SLI or crossfire at the same time would be good.
Anyhow, hopefully AMD can continue on until they come up with something good. CPU wise I think they're handily more screwed than graphics wise. Just to think, if Intel were under pressure it could sell a 3.0Ghz quad for $215.00 without breaking a sweat... it could do so within a month's notice. Intel is going to start releasing it's next generation because it absolutely has to in order to survive... they can't wait much longer ... and it's not about drowning AMD. It's about the fact that Intel has to compete with the Intel chips it sold last year and the year before that. Cause CPUs keep ticking for decades, and that's a huge part of the competition (paid for chips that are 80% as good as new ones, are going to beat pricey new chips, that's all there is to it).
Aenslead - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Well, we where all kind of waiting for something like this.Lets see if the comercial value of a new line of CPUs helps AMD at all.