<font size="2">Our lab managed to get an engineering sample of a not yet announced Core i7-975 XE processor that is based on the new D0 processor stepping. Today we are going to check out the features of this new processor core and figure out its advantages over the previous Nehalem C0 processor stepping.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-975xe.html">Read more...</a><br /> <br /> </font>

<span class="content"><font size="2">&nbsp; We are back today with a quick update to an article we did a few weeks ago. That article addressed readership questions about how well the Phenom II X4 940 performed against a similar Intel Core 2 Quad (Q9550 in this case) with a multi-GPU setup. It was an interesting request and one that we enjoyed answering. Without repeating the entire article, we discovered the X4 940 was every bit a match for the Q9550 in the majority of our multi-GPU game tests. The one exception was Far Cry 2, but that title just favors Intel&rsquo;s processors, especially the i7 series. </font> <p><font size="2">Our conclusion brought about additional questions. The majority of questions centered on how well the latest Phenom II AM3 processors perform in multi-GPU setups and if DDR3 really makes a difference in performance, application or gaming. We had other comments questioning our sanity and/or heritage after commenting on game play fluidity advantages for the Phenom II in a couple of major titles. We still stand by those comments and might even discuss them again today. </font></p> <p><font size="2">In the meantime, our article today seeks to answer if the Phenom II X3 720BE is a viable alternative to the more expensive Phenom II X4 940 and indirectly the Q9550 in gaming with a CrossFire X setup. We had numerous readers wanting to know how well a &ldquo;budget&rdquo; oriented processor would perform in a multi-GPU setup if they decided to divert possible cost savings to procuring an additional mid-range GPU like the HD 4870 1GB. A fair enough question for gaming centric users although we still believe in procuring the single fastest card possible (based on price/performance) for gaming. However, considering current release schedules, pricing, and performance ratios for the higher end GPUs, a more modest dual GPU setup might be a better value proposition over the long term if driver support is consistent. </font></p> <p><font size="2">We will be back shortly to answer the DDR2/DDR3 performance questions and more as we extend our coverage on budget and mid-range platforms. Until then, let&rsquo;s discuss the system setup and get to the numbers. </font></p> <p><font size="2"><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3533">Read more...<!-- google_ad_section_end --></a></font></p> </span>

<span class="content"><font size="2">&nbsp; Seven billion dollars. That&rsquo;s the amount that Intel is going to spend in the US alone on bringing up its 32nm manufacturing process in 2009 and 2010.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> In Oregon Intel has the D1D fab which is already producing 32nm parts, and D1C which is scheduled to start 32nm production at the end of this year. Then two fabs in Arizona: Fab 32 and Fab 11X. Both of them come on line in 2010.<br /> By the end of next year the total investment just to enable 32nm production in the US will be approximately eight billion dollars. In a time where all we hear about are bailouts, cutbacks and recession, this is welcome news.&nbsp;<br /> If anything, Intel should have a renewed focus on competition given that its chief competitor finally woke up. That focus is there. The show must go on. 32nm will happen this year. Let&rsquo;s talk about how.</font> <p><font size="2"><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3513">Read more...<!-- google_ad_section_end --></a></font></p> </span>

<span class="content"><font size="2">&nbsp; </font><font size="2">We're in the midst of a price war folks, and at a time when the global economy is looking a little shaky this actually works very well for us. Let's recap what's happened.</font> <p><font size="2">AMD launched its first truly competitive CPUs in over two years in January: the Phenom II X4 940 and 920. Priced at $275 and $235 respectively, these two chips beat out the equivalently priced Intel CPUs, the Q9400 and the Q8200. If you haven't already, I would strongly suggest reading that article in order to get the background information necessary about what was changed in Phenom II to make it so competitive.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> Less than two weeks later Intel responded by cutting its quad core prices.<br /> <br /> We really have to applaud both companies here. Intel for responding so quickly and effectively; the 40% price drop on the Q9650 just made sense and now you can have a chip with 12MB of L2 cache for under $300 thanks to the Q9550. And we have to thank AMD for keeping the pressure on and making this possible. </font></p> <p><font size="2">The Phenom II X4 940 is once more priced similar to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, while the 920 is sort of in between a Q8300 and a Q9400. Based on last month's article we know that the Phenom II X4 940 is a better buy than the Core 2 Quad Q9400, but the 920 is a tougher sell compared to the Q8300/Q9400<br /> <br /> Things get more complicated with today's announcement; AMD is launching no less than five new Phenom II CPUs.<br /> </font></p> <p><font size="2">The Phenom II X4 910 is just a lower clocked version of the CPUs we reviewed last month. The 800 series is a bit more unique, albeit not in a good way. The 900 series all have 2MB of L2 cache on die and a 6MB L3; the 800 shrinks the L3 down to 4MB. If you remember back to our original Phenom II article I argued that </font><font size="2">a big reason for the original Phenom's failure was that it didn't have a large-enough L3 cache</font><font size="2">. With a 6MB L3 the 900 series seemed like a good balance between L2 and L3 cache size, but going any smaller than 6MB could prove to be overly detrimental to performance. Also keep in mind that Intel's Ronak Singhal was adament that </font><font size="2">Nehalem shouldn't have any less than an 8MB L3</font><font size="2"> (or 2MB per core), even the mainstream Core i7 derivatives are slated to have 2MB of L3 cache per core (4MB for the dual-core versions).<br /> <br /> The 800 series is simply an example of </font><font size="2">die harvesting</font><font size="2">. Some of the die have too many defects in the L3 cache, but fully functional cores. Instead of throwing away these CPUs AMD turns them into the Phenom II X4 800 series. While physically the same die size and transistor count of the 900 series, these chips simply have some of the L3 cache disabled.<br /> <br /> We've also got the Phenom II X3 720 and 710. These are both triple-core derivatives, once again they are physically the same die as the Phenom II X4 900 series, but this time with only 3 cores enabled. These are further harvested parts used simply to improve yields. I suspect that between the Phenom II 900, 800 and 700 series AMD is able to use as much of a single wafer as possible, all through harvesting and by targeting different price points. Note that this is a smart strategy to compete with Intel because Intel's 45nm yields are already quite mature, thanks to a year-long head start.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> As yields improve over time you can expect some of these parts to go away. But for now, AMD basically has a single Phenom II die that it's selling three different ways.<br /> <br /> The 700 series is arguably one of the best harvested Phenom II parts AMD has since it retains the 6MB L3 cache of the 900 series. With 2MB of L3 cache per core, this bests even the 900 series.<br /> When AMD produces a Phenom II die if part of the L3 is bad, it gets disabled and is sold as an 800 series chip. If one of the cores is bad, it gets disabled and is sold as a 700 series chip. If everything is in working order, then we've got a 900.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512">Read more...</a><br /> <!-- google_ad_section_end --></font></p> </span>

<font size="2">It is no secret that previous Phenom X4 processor generation didn&rsquo;t really overclock that well at all. Therefore, overclockers used to prefer Intel processors for the most part. However, the recently launched new Phenom II X4 manufactured with 45nm process may change this state of things.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-920-overclocking.html">Read more...</a> </font>

<span class="content" itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">&nbsp; In one breath Intel dramatically cut pricing on its Core 2 Quads. Intel&rsquo;s swift response was even faster than NVIDIA&rsquo;s after the RV770 launch. In the following breath however, Intel introduced new, lower power, and much higher priced Core 2 <nobr id="itxt_nobr_0_0" style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Quad</nobr> CPUs. Enter the S-line.<br /> <br /> TDP binning is something that AMD has done for quite a while on the desktop. The e-suffix parts (e.g. Phenom X4 9350e) are lower TDP parts, sold at a premium, to those users who need lower power consumption.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> The Phenom X4 9350e and the 9150e are both 65W quad-core parts from AMD, while all of Intel&rsquo;s quad-core CPUs have been 95W. Unwilling to allow AMD any sort of advantage, Intel has finally responded with 65W quad-core offerings of its own. The difference here is that while AMD&rsquo;s 65W quad-cores are all significantly lower clocked Phenom processors, Intel&rsquo;s 65W chips are available at up to 2.83GHz.<br /> <br /> The Core 2 Quad Q9550S, Q9400S and Q8200S are all 65W TDP quad-core CPUs. They share the same specs as their non-S brethren. The only difference here is that instead of being 95W TDP parts, these CPUs can fit in a 65W thermal envelope.<br /> <br /> </font> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">The price premium for these new S-parts is huge. The Q9550S costs $103 more than the non-S, the Q9400S will set you back another $107 and the Q8200S is the most affordable with only an $82 premium. Note that in the case of the Q9550S and Q9400S you're actually more expensive than the entry level Core i7-920. </font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Intel achieves these lower TDPs by running at a lower core voltage. With a mature enough manufacturing process, which Intel&rsquo;s 45nm process is, it&rsquo;s quite possible to produce CPUs that run much cooler than average and on a lower voltage. CPU power varies with the square of the voltage, so any savings in voltage can result in a non-linear decrease in power consumption.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Don&rsquo;t get too excited however. If you remember back to our review of the 9350e/9150e we found that the decrease in power wasn&rsquo;t worth the added price. Even Intel has come forward and told us that these are primarily OEM parts and not intended for the high volume enthusiast community. With Intel being honest in its intended purpose for these S-class CPUs we don&rsquo;t really have to do much to keep them honest, we just need to confirm the findings.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">To do this we took a subset of our regular CPU performance tests and looked at performance, power consumption and power efficiency. We measured total system power consumption at the wall outlet, which does admittedly lessen the impact of a lower power CPU but it should give us an idea of the real world benefit of these processors. If you want to see how the Q9550/Q9550S performs across our entire suite of benchmarks take a look at AnandTech bench, our new publicly available benchmark database.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">...and in case you&rsquo;re wondering, no, they don&rsquo;t overclock any better. Our Q9550S couldn&rsquo;t get any further than the Q9550 we used in our Phenom II review.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3505">Read more...</a></font></p> </span>

<span class="content" itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">&nbsp; The AMD we used to know and love is back. As I write this sentence, most of AMD is still on vacation. By the time you read this, that will have changed, but it's such a stark contrast to what happened when the original Phenom processor launched. In the months leading up to Phenom, AMD treated it like it would be its hero. &quot;Just wait&quot;, we were told. So we did. And Phenom was the biggest disappointment AMD had ever left us with. </font> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">AMD re-launched Phenom the following year, in 2008, with slightly better reception. The CPU evolved from something unsellable to an honest alternative to Intel's CPUs, just not one we'd recommend. Phenom ran too hot, didn't offer better performance, and offered some strange behavior with Cool'n'Quiet enabled.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">While AMD was very excited about the first Phenom, we heard relatively little about Phenom II. The first time we heard the name was at AMD's Financial Analyst Day a couple of months ago, and then a month later we had a chip. AMD invited us to overclock the CPU, but I was busy working on another AMD story at the time and couldn't make it. I was done with flying around for AMD CPU launches; if Phenom II was going to be good, the chip would have to prove itself without an exotic locale or delicious Texas BBQ to sweeten the deal.<br /> <br /> AMD is launching two new 45nm Phenom II CPUs today. There's the Phenom II X4 940 at 3.0GHz and the 920 at 2.8GHz. I'll go ahead and say that although it's a little long, I like the name. The <em itxtvisited="1">II</em> just works. I'm also feeling a bit chipper, so I'll go ahead and give you the conclusion now too.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Here's how it breaks down. The Phenom II X4 940 is usually the same speed or faster than Intel's Core 2 <nobr style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Quad </nobr>&nbsp;Q9400, and priced similarly at $275. There are some areas where the Q9400 will be faster than the Phenom II X4 940, so if you happen to use an application that runs better on Intel hardware then you've got your choice made out for you. But for the most part, if you're buying a quad-core <nobr style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">processor<img style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; LEFT: 1px; FLOAT: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; POSITION: relative; TOP: 1px; HEIGHT: 10px; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px" height="10" alt="" width="10" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif" /></nobr> at around $275 today, Phenom II will tempt you.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Similarly, the Phenom II X4 920 is generally better than or equal to Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9300, and priced less (it's more of a competitor to the slower Q8300, but I didn't have one available for testing). The same stipulations detailed above exist here as well; there are some areas where Intel is going to be faster but for the most part our tests showed the Phenom II to be a better option.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Wait, what? An AMD CPU recommendation? </font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">After over two years of us recommending Intel's Core 2 lineup almost exclusively, AMD finally released a real alternative, one that's not just similarly priced, but actually higher performing than the price-competitive Intel part. Over the coming pages I'll explain how. </font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Now Intel could've spoiled the party, it still has the performance crown and it could easily drive CPU prices even lower. But out of the kindness of its heart, there are no unexpected price cuts, no new product introductions, nothing to spoil AMD's day (yet). While I'll talk about what Intel may do to restore its leadership at these price points, today is all about Phenom II. If you've been waiting for an AMD to be excited about for the past couple of years, today is your day. </font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Competition is back. Let's get to it.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492">Read more...</a></font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><!-- google_ad_section_end --><font size="2"></font></p> </span>