Thoughts on the Phenom

[Crisler]

For the last two days I have had the opportunity to play with a Phenom based system. I thought I would post some of my observations here and open a discussion. Let me preface by saying I do not ever, in reviews post benchmark numbers. I feel they are ususally useless. I will reference some benchmarking here but will not quote numbers, let it suffice to say that if I comment on one beating another the difference is over 10% and if I give more descriptive terms the difference is even larger.

To begin we did our typical subjective testing by running the system next to an Intel Core2Quad. We loaded up a number of games and set the graphics to the same level and proceeded to play. I can safely say after a number of hours of play comparision that there was ZERO game play experience difference between the two systems. Every game we threw at each system ran just as smooth. BTW both systems did have identical amounts of RAM and Video cards.

The conclusion from our subjective testing is that in real world applications either chip was more than enough to enjoy an equal computing and gaming experience, in other words there is no loser in real life.

Now at this point I would usually end my testing due to the fact I feel the only truely useful measure of a system had already been done, but with all the info on the Internet I wanted so more data, so I grabbed some synthetic benchmarks designed to push the CPU, FPU and memory system and went to town.

In straight up Integer performance the Intel processor won every time. In fact pushing the Phenom to 3.0 Ghz the Intel chip at a stock speed of 2.4 was still winning but the race was really close. (less than 10%)

Moving to Floating Point however the scale did not just change but almost broke with the Phenom BLASTING the Intel chip by as much as 25% at stock speeds. Even overlcocking the Intel chip did not allow it to take the lead with Floating Point.

When it came to Memory Access the Phenom system also won by a fairly large margin, around 15%. The Intel was running a P35 using DDR2 compared to the Phenom on a 790FX based board.

The last test was one on Sandra that measures Inter-Core Effeicency. I expect the Phenom to rock at this but the Core2 won each time.

The results that count to me are the actual game play but the other results show some things that seem interesting to me.

While the Phenom might lag a bit right now it would seem it might have adge in design as we advance in software. What I mean is right now most software is written for integer math but with the current power of processors and the use of multi core it seems more percise math could now be used with little to no real hit. Now as I am not a programmer I am not sure that my assumptions are full of crap or not but logic would seem to dictate that by switching to floating point for the various calculations AI systems could be made more advance. If this theory is correct then the Phenom could be poised to put some serious smack down. Also the better memory bandwidth is a nice design advanatge the Phenom and the Athlon has shared for some time. Intel needs to learn from this and move in a similiar direction.

The area of concer for me is the fact that dispite being a true on die Quad Core the Sandra test is saying it is not as effecient as the Intel solution. This could be a flaw in the test so I am not sure how accurate this is, but if true is points to a weakness AMD needs to take a serious look at.

Now as I said some of this is just a logical thought process and so I have no basis for this and if I am wrong then please I would be grateful for correction. However in the end I do feel the only true test is the real computing experience with the speedometers turned off. When that is done the chips are to close to call and both deliver great computing experience.

I look forward to some serious discussion on these thoughts.

 

[acroig]

The only problems I see with Phenom is the "erratum in the translation lookaside buffer (TLB) which could cause system instability and can only be fixed through a new revision of the CPU" and the perceived weakness due to low clock speed. This should all be remedied in '08 so that bodes well for AMD.

Thanks for your mini-review and your thoughts on the product.

 

[JesterOnYer6]

They need to get those B3 cpu's out with the faster L3 then I am sure the phen will lay some smack down on the Intel.

 

[Debello]

The TLB issue is just bull crap imho, no normal desktop user will ever see it. I have read all the Phenom reviews and not a single reviewer ever mentioned in any of their benchmarks or gaming that their system ever locked up because of it (While having the Bios fix disabled or enabled). I have had my Phenom for about a week know and honestly unless you turn of fraps or run benchmarks you could not tell the difference between my phenom rig and my q6600 rig. I have tried to lock it up ran up all 4 cores to 100% usage and ran the 4gigs of RAM up to 87% (best i could do running real world apps), guess what even clocked at 2.5Ghz not a single lock up on my Phenom 9500. Heck even Kyle over at Hardocp has said his Phenom at 3.0Ghz has never lock up because of the TLB and he has a often bleak view of AMD anyways.

 

[Crisler]

I have had my Phenom for about a week know and honestly unless you turn of fraps or run benchmarks you could not tell the difference between my phenom rig and my q6600 rig..

This to me is the real telling point of the entire AMD vs Intel arguement. Raw power is no longer the majkor issue in determining what chip to buy. In real life usage there is a parity that has been achieved. Now the issues need to revolve around value, upgrade options, power consumption and other things that have been to long ignored.

 

[Blacklash]

I've heard the same thing Debello has-

Kyle @ [H]ardOCP is saying normal desktop users shouldn't be bothered by the TLB issue-

"The TLB error has absolutely no impact on desktop apps. I have run the things for weeks OCed to 3GHz without issues."

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031793784&postcount=12

Apparently, he has been testing them quite a bit. I believe you would have to load all four cores to 100% for a time to have a possibility of seeing this error. Besides Prime, I don't have a single app that does that.

Supposedly you can disable "the fix" from AoD if you wish and I plan to do that. If I ever get my motherboard RMA I will be able to speak from practical experience.

The 9600 BE and later chips should not have the possibility of this problem manifesting.

 

[JethroBodine]

This to me is the real telling point of the entire AMD vs Intel arguement. Raw power is no longer the majkor issue in determining what chip to buy. In real life usage there is a parity that has been achieved. Now the issues need to revolve around value, upgrade options, power consumption and other things that have been to long ignored.

I believe you that without the framecounter on, it might be hard to tell the difference between a comparably clocked Phenom and Intel Quad core, but there's two problems with your premise here:

1. Are we now in the habit of buying slower hardware because the differences might not be visible to the naked eye? Why?

2. AMD processors run on AMD boards, and they don't fare so well in reviews:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13628/14

In the end, the 790FX is a bandwidth-rich new north bridge chip held back by a dated south bridge and flaky motherboard implementations. AMD will have to do better if it expects the Spider platform to take off with enthusiasts. In its current state, we simply can't recommend the 790FX

So why again would people knowingly buy CPUs that have lowers IPCs than Intel to run on boards that aren't as good as Intel*? I don't get it.

*there are some other motherboards to be considered soon, more on that later

 

[TheNGTV]

Remember Pentium III vs K6?

K6 won in integer, but got blasted in floating point.
And intel fantards gloated all the same.

 

[SLee]

In real life usage there is a parity that has been achieved. Now the issues need to revolve around value, upgrade options, power consumption and other things that have been to long ignored.

The Q6600 wins the value, upgradeability and power consumption battle too.

 

[JethroBodine]

Remember Pentium III vs K6?

K6 won in integer, but got blasted in floating point.
And intel fantards gloated all the same.

What was going on back in year 2000 is off topic.

The question is why we should buy processors every review site has shown us are slower for gaming clock for clock, just because that difference might not be visible to the naked eye. (which is a big part of what the OP said)

That's what it boils down to- do you reward the company that didn't do it's job as well?

If the OP said "I'm a CAD person and the Phenom does some CAD related benchmark 10% faster" my thought is "Buy a Phenom".

But when he says

The conclusion from our subjective testing is that in real world applications either chip was more than enough to enjoy an equal computing and gaming experience, in other words there is no loser in real life.

Now at this point I would usually end my testing due to the fact I feel the only truely useful measure of a system had already been done,

I take issue- because there's no reason to reward a second place effort for gaming.

Do we buy graphics cards that run our games at 60fps instead of 70fps because we can't tell the difference without the counter on?

The motherboard issue is a big deal as well, you have to run these cpus on motherboards that aren't up to Intel or NVIDIA standards.

 

[Crisler]

First the issue of speed to me is not relevent since the speed means nothing in real life. Do you buy a car because one goes faster than another when both are limited by the speed limit to 55 MPH? Of course not the speed is no relevent since in real life both cars will drive the same. Instead you now look for other reasons to buy.

That's what it boils down to- do you reward the company that didn't do it's job as well?

What job did they fail at? Did they deliver a processor that runs software? if so then they did their job.

Do we buy graphics cards that run our games at 60fps instead of 70fps because we can't tell the difference without the counter on?

Sure we do if the if the 60 fps card delivers as good as or better image quality and costs less.

The only argument I have seen here that is compelling to me is the one on the motherbaords. This has been the weak link for AMD from day one, Intel delivers awesome motherbaord chips plain and simple. However I have also not seen the "big" issues others have seemingly complained about. The Sb600 has never had an issue for me and worked as it should on every baord I have used.

As for the comment on the P3, that is relevent since it is the reverse today. Intel is doing great with integer math but is getting mauled in floating point. Intel also gets mauled in memory handling.

I think however some people are taking my opions here wrong. I am not saying that buy an Intel does not make more sense, it does. But by the same token AMD has not brought a product that is not worth buying. The Spider system is an exciting concept that if they get the kinks ironed out will be a real winner. As it stands now it works and delivers so that in real life use it is in parity with Intel offers at the same prive point. As such no one will go wrong buying either solution, they will enjoy a solid computing experience.

 

[TheNGTV]

The motherboard issue is a big deal as well, you have to run these cpus on motherboards that aren't up to Intel or NVIDIA standards.

Downright we ALL know that the 790FX is by hell- one of the best chipset designs to grace the PC ever since the 440BX. Ten friggin watts is all it needs, generating so little heat that you'd mistaken it for a Southbridge. And that's for 32 PCIe lanes on a single tiny chip (unlike ahem...)

Intel's 3-series heatpig (although stable and all, still hot) and nVidia's- okay, the only modern mobos to come with a fan in reference designs- or, the only batch of 1333Mhz mobos that can't even run the new 45nm quaddies at their resignated multipliers... They've definitely set the oh-so standard so high that AMD made them dumbfounded with just a simple shrink.

The motherboard is definitely the big issue- 790FX as of now, coupled with Radeon 3800s, are the selling points of Spider. We'll see when the B3 Phenoms come out that people/OEMs will pick them up- contrary to what you pointed, people still bought Geforce FXes. Or GF7s. Or Radeon HD 2ks. (or nForce 6s for that matter) The only people making noise are those who don't matter much in terms of either sales or influence.

Go ask your kid to go to school, be first in class, or no pocket money. Try that, much? I think you should get it now. Same for Intel/AMD. People still bought P3s/P4s/PDs either way.

And, at least the 790FXes will support every AM2+ chip dropped in.

 

[Sand-Man]

"The motherboard issue is a big deal as well, you have to run these cpus on motherboards that aren't up to Intel or NVIDIA standards."

Was a hard day at work.Nice to have a laugh after that statement.

 

[nextbillgates]

First the issue of speed to me is not relevent since the speed means nothing in real life. Do you buy a car because one goes faster than another when both are limited by the speed limit to 55 MPH? Of course not the speed is no relevent since in real life both cars will drive the same. Instead you now look for other reasons to buy.

This analogy doesn't work, since computing doesn't have a "speed limit".

What job did they fail at? Did they deliver a processor that runs software? if so then they did their job.

A Pentium 3 is enough to run modern software, but that obviously wouldn't provide acceptable performance.

AMD was late to market, underperformed in both performance and power consumption compared to Core 2 Quad, and the price didn't reflect the lower performance. I can't think of a single reason why I should consider a Phenom system over a Core 2 Quad system, and thus, AMD has failed.

Sure we do if the if the 60 fps card delivers as good as or better image quality and costs less.

If it delivered as good or better quality and cost less, that would be a trade-off worthy of consideration. But there is no tradeoff, AMD is just slower.

I think however some people are taking my opions here wrong. I am not saying that buy an Intel does not make more sense, it does. But by the same token AMD has not brought a product that is not worth buying. The Spider system is an exciting concept that if they get the kinks ironed out will be a real winner. As it stands now it works and delivers so that in real life use it is in parity with Intel offers at the same prive point. As such no one will go wrong buying either solution, they will enjoy a solid computing experience.

Intel's solution, as it stands now, outperforms AMD's across the board. While that difference may not be very noticeable in the real-world applications of today, it very well could be in the applications of tomorrow. Considering that Intel's solution is more efficient, performs better, is less expensive, and more mature than AMD's solution, I see no reason whatsoever to go with AMD.

 

[SLee]

Downright we ALL know that the 790FX is by hell- one of the best chipset designs to grace the PC ever since the 440BX. Ten friggin watts is all it needs, generating so little heat that you'd mistaken it for a Southbridge. And that's for 32 PCIe lanes on a single tiny chip (unlike ahem...)

Yet a 790FX motherboard still consumes roughly the same amount of power as the hot 590 SLI:

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13628/12

And the 790FX is still paired with an aging southbridge.

 

[SLee]

Sure we do if the if the 60 fps card delivers as good as or better image quality and costs less.

What if the 70 fps card has better image quality and lower power consumption and lower cost? Like in the case of the Q6600.

As for the comment on the P3, that is relevent since it is the reverse today. Intel is doing great with integer math but is getting mauled in floating point. Intel also gets mauled in memory handling.

Integer code is by far more prevalent in software. And Sandra's ancient algorithms are not very relevant. The highly regarded SPECfp and SPECint results show that the C2D and Barcelona are roughly the same in FP, per clock and the C2D holds a considerable advantage in integer. Memory bandwidth is just one of the many component that makes up performance. Just like RPM limit or engine size on cars.

 

[ivzk]

The motherboard issue is a big deal as well, you have to run these cpus on motherboards that aren't up to Intel or NVIDIA standards.

Come on Rollo. Where you got the idea that NVIDIA is on par with Intel chipsets is beyond me. The awesome ram killing capability of the 680 chipset is well documented. On top of it, and perhaps even the 780 not being compatible with the next gen of Intel quads.

 

[Sound_Card]

The motherboard issue is a big deal as well, you have to run these cpus on motherboards that aren't up to Intel or NVIDIA standards.

How so?

 

[Crisler]

I find this discusssion so interesting. I was reading back through my posts and I do not see anywhere that I suggest that the Phenom is better than the Core2 and yet there are so many people defending the Core2. No where did I say you should choose a Phenom over a Core2 and yet some people feel a need to defend the Core2 over the Phenom.

My conclusions are for the average user there is no real difference and thus when they shop if they get a Phenom or a Core2 they will be happy. The average gamer will see no difference in thier game play and so can worry about other factors when comparing computers than what processor. They can worry about how much RAM, what size HD and so on.

Finally the Spider platform does have one serious advantage over the current Intel platforms it can scale. What I mean can best be described in the following scenario..

Joe decides he wants a gaming PC, his first. He does not have a ton of money but he wants a solid system that will play his games well. Joe decides on a Spider based system. He buys a 9600 Phenom with a triple crossfire board and a 3870 for video.

His buddy Mike decides to do the same thing and gets a Core2 system with an SLI board using an 8800GT.

Both marvel at the gaming world they discover and both decide they need more horsepower for their gaming addiction. Joe and Mike both buy a second video card for their system and are mazed at the improvement in performance.

A short time passes and both want even more, Joe buys a third 3870 and blasts past Mike in the image quality he can run games at. Mike can buy a whole new video card but would have to buy two of them to get a boost and the cards are a ton more expensive.

A year later Mike and Joe decide they want more CPU horse power. Mike has to buy a new motherbaord for the next generation Intel chips. (based on the last thing I saw from Intel). Joe however can just move to the new chip becuase of the committement made by AMD to NOT leave the AM2+ platform for 2 years and at least one full new generation.

Now Mike did have a faster system out of the gate but in the end the cost was not even close to the same to stay at the same level of game play as Joe.

Now this scenario is based on the premise that AMD lives up to it's promise of AM2+ support, that is the real issue to look at. If they live to the promise then the AM2+ has a lot more legs than the Core2. So in the end it is gamble on this.

Right now at the current levels Intel does have an edge, no disputing this. But it is an edge that has no real meaning since the game play experience never shows it. In the future sure it might mean more, but in the future your Intel system could set you back for twice the cash of the AM2+ system.

It is all a crap shoot boys. The good news is EITHER system will allow for great game play, so we all win.

 

[nextbillgates]

I find this discusssion so interesting. I was reading back through my posts and I do not see anywhere that I suggest that the Phenom is better than the Core2 and yet there are so many people defending the Core2. No where did I say you should choose a Phenom over a Core2 and yet some people feel a need to defend the Core2 over the Phenom.

Let me take you back to one of your posts:

I think however some people are taking my opions here wrong. I am not saying that buy an Intel does not make more sense, it does. But by the same token AMD has not brought a product that is not worth buying.

When one product has no redeeming qualities over a competing product, would that not make the product not worth buying?

My conclusions are for the average user there is no real difference and thus when they shop if they get a Phenom or a Core2 they will be happy.

Perhaps, although the knowledge that one has purchased an inferior product with no real benefit tends to put a damper on the entire system, regardless of how well it performs.

Finally the Spider platform does have one serious advantage over the current Intel platforms it can scale.

Do you have any benchmarks showing Spider's superior scalability over a competing Intel + Nvidia solution?