AMD Phenom 9500 processor
AMD's four-core desktop CPU squares up for a fight with Intel's Core 2 Quad
Review Throughout last year, we ran a steady stream of news about the AMD’s Phenom quad-core processor, mainly because the chip was delayed. When the launch finally took place, AMD took us to Warsaw where we were told again and again about the virtues of its Spider platform: a combination of a Phenom processor, a motherboard with an AMD 790 chipset and a pair of ATI Radeon HD 3870 graphics cards.
We were waiting for the bell to ring so we could move to the next room where there were some 40 Spider-based PCs waiting for us when it was casually mentioned that the 2.4GHz Phenom 9700 inside the test systems had been pulled at the last moment so there would only be two Phenoms at launch, the 2.2GHz 9500 and the 2.3GHz 9600.
AMD's Phenom 9500: readily available
The problem, we were told, related to the Translation Lookaside Buffer and L3 cache, and was one of those naughty technical issues that would never manifest itself in the real world. However, AMD had to cover itself, so the 9700 was pulled. The nature of the problem means that it can be masked by a BIOS fix that has a performance hit of at least ten per cent, which sounds like the sort of figure you’d expect if you disabled the L3 cache.
The fact, that the 9700 wouldn’t be available to the buying public until it had undergone at least one revision meant that the test session was a waste of time, as would be evaluating the 9700-based test system AMD sent us a soon afterwards. Or, rather, AMD sent a system with a Phenom engineering sample running at 2.4GHz which we assumed was a Phenom 9700.
This was silly for two reasons. First, AMD doesn’t sell PCs or motherboards so all we wanted was a Phenom CPU. Second. the 2.4GHz CPU hadn’t been released so there didn't seem much point in reviewing this model. Instead, we put our money on the counter and bought a retail, boxed Phenom 9500 for £155 which is a mere £5 less than a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600.
AMD lists a number of advantages for Phenom over Core 2 Quad starting with the true quad-core design - the Intel approach simple builds two dual-core CPUs into a single package. Added to that, you get 2MB of shared L3 cache, Cool’n’Quiet 2.0 technology for low-power operation, the fast HyperTransport 3.0 bus and support for 1067MHz DDR 2 memory.
Upgrading from Athlon XP3200 - Is AMD any good nowadays?
Hi I have had and still got my trusty Athlon XP 3200 that I have used for virtually everything for the past few years, but a recent mainboard failure (Soltek Nforce 2 400 ultra type) left me finding replacements hard to find. I found only on'new' or unused Nforce 2 400 mobo on sale on Ebay which I was lucky to win - or daft enough to bid high enough for!
Anyways I decided that its time to move game playing from the XP machine and build a new one.
But reading reviews and so on its not clear whats any good these days. Intel or AMD, but whats bugging me is the AMD seem to swap sockets after only a brief time - one socket seems to be just a partial change to yet another. I think that phrase 'Futureproof' must be some joke!
What I'm considering is a small form case MATX mobo, single HD (sata), graphics card (doh), sound card, memory 2 -4 gb,one dvd rom/writer. Inshort this machine is for games only and the more serious stuff I'm leaving to my newly repaired Athlon XP3200 machine, the Radeon X800XL Agp card might as well stay there too I feel.
My problem is Intel or Amd? Once it was clear, AMD were cheaper and offered performance that more often than not beat Intel hands down - but today it is so unclear! Even prices seem muddy and as for chipsets too!!!
There is nothing phenomenal with Phenom.
Indeed David (AMD Athlon 64/X2) kicked Goliath (Intel - Netburst).
But now David 2.0 (Phenom) can't do that anymore and the chip giant is still on the lead... pounding poor little AMD. David 1.0 can even beat David 2.0.
Thus, there's really nothing phenomenal with the Phenom.
We all know that despite Intel processors are still on FSB and separate memory controller hub, beats AMD in overall aspects. Imagine what Intel "Nehalem" can do more with its hypertransport-like bus and integrated memory controller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_%28CPU_architecture%29 .
As for me, I will use AMD for budget reasons, and definitely go Intel for performance. Cheers to all! 8)
I had been using them for ten years now, the K6's, Athlons, all great. Up until recently they produced brilliant chips at a brilliant price. Then came the Core 2 and it was an utter empire strikes back moment, and since then AMD haven't had an answer. I may of been said to of been a bit of an AMD fan through the last ten years, but even I moved to the Core 2 and it's been incredible (unlike how utterly dreadful the P4's were). AMD really need to so something as currently they just can't answer the Core 2's. Intel seems to have the performance edge well in the bag currently, and with plenty of room to take the CPU's also. Poor AMD :(