Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 18
<span class="content"><font size="2">I&rsquo;ve found myself in between two product launches. From AMD we have today&rsquo;s announcement: the<strong> 3.4GHz Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition</strong>. </font><span class="content"><font size="2">Priced at $245, the 965 is a mere clock speed bump, but an important one. It comes at the same price as this spring&rsquo;s Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition; you get more performance at the same price. </font><span class="content"><font size="2">It is also the highest clocked processor AMD has ever shipped; K8 topped out at 3.2GHz and the original Phenom never went beyond 2.6GHz. We're also back up to a 140W TDP, something we haven't seen since the old Phenom 9950 went away.</font><span class="content"> <p><font size="2">With the 965 BE, AMD has simplified its product lineup. The 800 series Phenom II X4 is gone, as are the DDR2-only Phenom II X4 940 and 920. Most of the 700 series is also done with. Yields are clearly improving and much of the die harvesting is clearly no longer necessary. AMD ought to get rid of the Xn suffix and just use simple model numbers at this point. For more information on the Phenom II architecture, see our launch article.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The second product launch is rumored to happen next month. It&rsquo;s the introduction of Intel&rsquo;s Lynnfield processor. The affordable Nehalem, available in both Core i5 and Core i7 flavors, promises to start at just $199 with motherboards in the low $100s.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3619">Read more...</a></font></p> </span></span></span></span>

0 Comments
Intel finally updated their Core i7 family and introduced two new solutions that feature not only higher clock frequency, but also have new D0 processor stepping. So, the new processors can boast not only better performance but also certain advantages during overclocking, improved heat dissipation and power consumption.

Read more...

0 Comments

Seven months have passed since Intel officially launched its Core i7 processors, and for seven months they have remained at the top of our performance charts. Albeit pricey, Nehalem can’t be beat; it is the world’s fastest desktop microprocessor.

Just last week we previewed Intel’s upcoming more mainstream Nehalem, codenamed Lynnfield. Based on our early results and leaked Intel roadmaps, I’m expecting Lynnfield to pretty much negate the need for low end LGA-1366 Core i7 parts. Rather than allow Lynnfield to cannibalize Intel’s high-end LGA-1366 Core i7 platform, Intel is raising the performance bar with two new i7 CPUs: the Core i7 975 Extreme and the Core i7 950. 

The 975 replaces the 965 and is priced at $999 while the 950 replaces the i7-940 and is priced at $562. The chips run at 3.33GHz and 3.06GHz, respectively, with maximum turbo frequencies topping out at 3.6GHz and 3.33GHz. Intel really has no other external motivation to push for higher frequency parts, so we only see a bare minimum increase in specs here.


The Core i7 Extreme part, like its predecessor, ships unlocked so you can easily overclock it. Its un-core (L3 cache + memory controller) operates at 2.66GHz, just like the i7-965. The i7-950 is locked and runs its uncore at 2.13GHz, just like all other non-Extreme i7s. 

Both of these chips use Intel’s new D0 stepping so they should clock up a bit higher than the original i7s.

Read more...

0 Comments
The transition to 45nm CPU manufacturing process has already created a revolution among triple- and quad-core AMD processors. Now 45nm cores are ready to go into dual-core CPUs, too. But is a finer manufacturing process enough for AMD to offer something interesting in the sub-$100 price range? Our today’s article should answer this question for you.

Read more...

0 Comments
<br /> <!-- google_ad_section_start --> <div id="intelliTxt"><span class="content"><blockquote> <p><font size="2">&ldquo;AMD in many cases delivers greater performance than the similarly priced Intel CPUs, but not nearly a large enough performance gap to make up for the difference in die size. Again, great for consumers, but potentially painful for AMD in the long run. As yields improve AMD should be able to make more of these cores members of the 900 family, but without a separate, smaller die there will still be economic inefficiencies at the lower end.&rdquo;</font></p> <p><font size="2">&ldquo;AMD&rsquo;s Phenom II is very competitive, but the strategy does not have much long term staying power. AMD needs to introduce smaller die versions of its CPUs soon.&rdquo;</font></p> </blockquote> <p><font size="2">Ask and you shall receive, right?</font></p> <p><font size="2">Intel did a bang up job tarnishing the Pentium name with its clock speed rampage during the Pentium 4 days, but the Athlon brand still holds a special place in our hearts.<br /> </font><span class="content"><br /> <font size="2">The Athlon II X2, to be specific, is a 45nm monolithic dual-core processor.&nbsp;</font><strong><font size="2">While the most recent Athlon X2s are derivatives of the original Phenom architecture, the Athlon II is based on the new and improved Phenom II architecture.<br /> </font></strong><span class="content"><br /> <font size="2">Take two Phenom II cores, increase their L2 caches to 1MB, leave out the L3 and you&rsquo;ve got an Athlon II.&nbsp; The entire die measures only 117.5 mm^2 and is made up of a meager 234 million transistors.</font></span></span></p> <p><font size="2">The new Athlon II is actually AMD&rsquo;s smallest dual core processor ever, even smaller than the original Athlon 64 X2.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s also AMD&rsquo;s first 45nm dual-core processor.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s also AMD&rsquo;s first Socket-AM3 processor to carry the Athlon brand (ok, I&rsquo;ll stop).&nbsp; As an AM3 chip it will work in both AM3 and AM2+ motherboards, just like the Phenom II.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The Athlon II is only launching with one model today the 3.0GHz Athlon II X2 250.&nbsp; Priced at $87, it&rsquo;s likely that we won&rsquo;t see more Athlon II X2s until AMD is ready to further switch its lineup over to 45nm in order to keep up with demand.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3572">Read more...</a></font></p> </span></div>

0 Comments
<span class="content"> <p><font size="2">Despite the fact that the 45 nm Quad-core Opteron was the best server CPU at launch, a few months later AMD&rsquo;s success was washed away by a tsunami called &ldquo;Nehalem&rdquo;. The Nehalem architecture combined subtle tweaks to an already superior integer engine with brute force tactics such as a triple channel integrated memory controller. The IMC delivered low latency and massive amounts of bandwidth thanks to the highest clocked DDR-3 DIMMs. But it was not enough for the ambitious Intel engineers. They added Simultaneous MultiThreading (SMT), and this was the final blow to any competition left standing in the server market. SMT or Hyperthreading as Intel calls it, boosted performance by 30% and more in key applications such as SAP, Oracle and MS SQL Server. The end result is that the current Xeon outperforms AMD&rsquo;s best CPU&rsquo;s by 60 to 85%! Historic, as Intel never had such a commanding lead since AMD entered the market with it&rsquo;s Athlon MP.</font></p> <p><font size="2">One could start debating about some of the details of these benchmarks, but that would mostly be splitting hairs. Yes, these scores were obtained with DDR3-1333, while the vast majority of X55xx servers are equipped with DDR3-1066. And yes, power consumption of the fastest Xeons is about 20W higher per CPU than on the &ldquo;Shanghai&rdquo; Opterons. So in order to compare in the same power range, you should compare with the E5540 at 2.53 GHz. But even with DDR3-1066 and at 2.53 GHz, the latest Xeon would - roughly estimated &ndash; outperform the best quad-cores of AMD with 40 to 70%. The lead is even higher in bandwidth intensive applications. Only in the pretty rare dense matrix applications, with Linpack being the most popular benchmark, AMD could still make a point. AMD can deliver the same amount of Gigaflops at lower power consumption and a lower price. Nice, but we are talking about the 1% of the applications on the market. The other ray of hope for AMD was the competitive performance that the Opteron 2389 2.9 GHz delivered on ESX 3.5 on our virtualized benchmark vApus Mark I. But with ESX 4.0, the new Xeon &ldquo;Nehalem&rdquo; should widen the gap again thanks to better hyperthreading support and the fact that EPT is fully supported in the latest ESX hypervisor. AMD&rsquo;s next generation CPU is scheduled to appear in 2012, so it looks like AMD will have to leave the high-end and midrange server CPU market to Intel. Unless&hellip; </font></p> <p><font size="2">Ever since the introduction of the 45 nm CPUs, AMD has been executing very well. So well, even, that it reminds us of the K75 times. You might remember how in October 1999, AMD introduced the &ldquo;K75&rdquo; in 250 nm and sped up the &ldquo;x86-Alpha&rdquo; to 1 GHz in March 2000, only 5 months later. It has indeed been 10 years since AMD has executed so well. Only six months after the successful launch of their 45 nm quad-core, AMD rolls out their hex-core &ldquo;Istanbul&rdquo; at 2.6 GHz well ahead of schedule. It is basically a &ldquo;Shanghai&rdquo; Opteron with 2 extra cores and a slightly tweaked memory controller. What is more impressive, though, is that AMD is capable of launching a hex-core at 2.6 GHz today, a CPU that consumes only a few watt more than the six month older quad-core at 2.7 GHz. Well done, AMD. But should the IT professional care about the new six-core of AMD? In which applications does it make sense to consider an &ldquo;Istanbul&rdquo; based server? Are two extra cores enough to bring back AMD&rsquo;s Opteron on the specsheet of your next high performance server ?<br /> <br /> <a href="http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3571">Read more...</a></font></p> </span>

0 Comments
<span class="content"><font size="2"></font> <p align="center"><font size="2"><strong>Note: This article was not condoned or supported in any way by Intel. We obtained all pre-release hardware on our own.</strong> <strong>Enjoy.</strong></font></p> <h3><font size="2">The Recap</font></h3> <p><font size="2">Yeech, ok, this is more complicated than it should be. Last year Intel launched its brand new Nehalem architecture, the first processor was codenamed Bloomfield and sold as the Core i7.<br /> <br /> </font><span class="content"><font size="2">The Core i7 has four cores (with Hyper Threading, so that&rsquo;s 8 threads), an 8MB L3 cache and a triple-channel DDR3 memory controller. Of course there&rsquo;s a lot of other special sauce that makes the i7 the beast that it is; if you want more details check out my original Nehalem architecture article.</font></span></p> <p><font size="2">Since its launch, i7 has only been available in three flavors: the 920, 940 and 965. The most affordable one, the i7-920, costs $284 in 1Ku quantities. </font><span class="content"><font size="2">The Core i7 fits into Intel&rsquo;s new LGA-1366 socket and is mated with Intel&rsquo;s X58 chipset:<br /> <br /> </font></span></p> <div id="intelliTxt"><span class="content"> <p><font size="2">With the memory controller on-die, the X58 chipset acts like a PCIe switch than anything else; all other I/O (e.g. USB, SATA, Ethernet, etc...) go through the ICH10 which is connected to the X58 hub.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Despite being a relatively simple piece of silicon, Intel prices the X58 chipset as a premium product. The X58 chipset is more expensive than any other desktop Intel chipset on the market, that includes P45 and X48. In turn, X58 motherboards are pricey.</font></p> <p><font size="2">At launch X58 motherboards sold for well above $200 and it took a while for us to see boards finally drop down to and below that $200 price point. Only recently have we found a motherboard that&rsquo;s even somewhat affordable with MSI&rsquo;s X58M priced at $169.</font></p> <p><font size="2">With a $200 motherboard and a $284 CPU, the i7 was priced out of competing with even AMD&rsquo;s highest end Phenom II. While the Phenom II X4 955 costs $245, you can easily pair it with a $100 motherboard. </font></p> <p><font size="2">Rather than drive LGA-1366 pricing down, Intel had another plan - to introduce a more mainstream platform for Nehalem.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570">Read more...</a></font></p> </span></div> </span>

0 Comments
Our lab managed to get hold of two very interesting dual-core solutions from AMD manufactured with 45nm process. These processors will be positioned as primary competitors to Intel Core 2 Duo and looks like they have very good chance to succeed. Take a look at the first benchmark results and see for yourselves.

Read more...

0 Comments

I’ve been writing about the “new” Intel for nearly three years now. It’s been so long that I almost forgot what the old Intel was like. It’s not that the old Intel wasn’t competitive performance-wise, it’s that the old Intel wasn’t pleasant to work with. The old Intel was the one that always thought the Pentium 4 was the fastest thing on the planet, even when it wasn’t. The old Intel wasn’t forthcoming with information and acted like it worked in a world where it had no competition. The old Intel wasn’t a very good Intel.

The new one is nothing like that. We get open sharing of information, real discussion about AMD’s strengths and weaknesses and it also helps that we also get the world’s fastest microprocessors with it.

We’ve seen that the new Intel can stand the test of time, at least over the past three years. But can the new Intel last when it’s not always winning reviews? Sure, Intel’s Core i7 remains untouched but what about at cheaper price points? Last month we found out that Intel is quite competitive at the $70 with its Pentium E5300. But between the $70 E5300 and the $280 Core i7-920 there are a few price points where AMD is recommendable.

The question then becomes how does the new Intel deal when it isn’t the fastest on the market? 
Surprisingly well it turns out.

It’s a quad-core chip running at 2.66GHz with a 2MB L2 per pair of cores (4MB total). It’s like two Pentium Dual Core processors on a single package.

These chips actually have a 6MB L2 but with 2MB disabled either because they have irrecoverable defects in the cache or simply to hit the right price point. In other words, the Q8400 is literally a Q9400 but with 2MB of its L2 disabled.

The Q8400 is Intel’s most recent response to the Phenom II X4 940. Initially AMD priced the 940 similarly to the Q9400. Then, Intel cut prices so that the 940 had to compete with the much faster Q9550. AMD responded, with a price cut that put the 940 on par with the Q9400 again.

Once AMD began shipping Socket-AM3 Phenom IIs, it dropped the prices on its Socket-AM2+ parts once more. This wasn’t so much a price cut but rather a gradual phasing out of the AM2+ CPUs, eventually I expect an AM3-only market since those chips can also work in AM2+ boards.

Rather than take the bait and drop the Q9400 prices once more, Intel instead responded with the introduction of a similarly priced Q8400 at $183.

AMD’s Phenom II X4 940 was generally the same speed if not faster than Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9400. With less cache, the Q8400 shouldn’t perform any better than the Q9400, so the question is - does it perform any worse?

Then there’s power consumption to worry about and overclocking, but we’ll get to those in due time. Let’s just say that the situation is far more complex than it seemed at first sight.

Read more...

0 Comments
<p><font size="2">Die size hasn&rsquo;t changed, clock speeds barely went up, and performance per clock also remained static. But what&rsquo;s this?</font></p> <p><font size="2">Ah yes, AMD is improving its 45nm manufacturing process and today we have the latest incarnation of AMD&rsquo;s 45nm silicon. </font></p> <p><font size="2">The first versions of AMD&rsquo;s 45nm Phenom II couldn&rsquo;t really go much higher than the final 65nm Phenom without increasing voltage. By comparison, Intel&rsquo;s Core i7 920 could go from 2.66GHz all the way up to 3.80GHz without so much as a single extra millivolt in our tests.</font></p> <p><font size="2">This new Phenom II however can also hit 3.80GHz without increasing the core voltage. At least that&rsquo;s what one of our samples did in our testing. Whether it&rsquo;s 3.8GHz or 3.6GHz, the fact of the matter is that AMD&rsquo;s 45nm process is improving and that&rsquo;s what&rsquo;s behind todays introduction of the Phenom II X4 </font><font size="2">955</font><font size="2">. Architecturally the Phenom II hasn't changed; if you're curious about what makes these things tick, please look at </font><font size="2">our original article</font><font size="2"> on the CPU.<br /> Clocked at 3.2GHz with a 2.0GHz un-core (or North Bridge) frequency, the 955 isn&rsquo;t that much different from the 940 in terms of clock speed.&nbsp;</font></p> <p><font size="2">This is a Socket-AM3 part, meaning it can work in both DDR2 based Socket-AM2+ motherboards and DDR3 based Socket-AM3 motherboards. There&rsquo;s a huge compatibility caveat about AM2+ support but I&rsquo;ll address that shortly. The Phenom II X4 955 is also a Black Edition part, meaning it has an unlocked clock multiplier for easy overclocking.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Along with the 955 there&rsquo;s also a 945 being introduced today. The 945 is identical to the 940 in core clock speed but has a 2.0GHz un-core and is also AM3 compatible.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The prices are pretty attractive; the 955 will sell for </font><font size="2">$245</font><font size="2"> (and it already has been) and the 945 will go for $225. That pits the 955 against Intel&rsquo;s Core 2 Duo Q9550 ($266) and the Core i7-920 ($284), the latter having a much higher motherboard cost of course.</font></p> <p><font size="2">And you know how I love spoiling surprises so here you have it. Unless you&rsquo;re running applications that are very well optimized for Intel&rsquo;s architectures, the Phenom II X4 955 is faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9550. Compared to the Core i7-920, it loses hands down although the chip does come close in some games.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Sorry, I&rsquo;m not much of a tease :) Now for the rest of the article.</font></p> <p><!-- google_ad_section_end --><font size="2"><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551">Read more...</a><br /> </font></p>

0 Comments
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 18