Re: Not only is Phenom a step backwards, it is a step backwards from a total failure.
Quad FX @ 3.4GHz - 13,991 3DMarks
Phenom @ 2.7GHz - 12,679 3DMarks
It's another example of Phenom getting killed due to its low clocks, not its per clock performance. It does better than Quad FX, and no question it's lower power, but it isn't a step forward, because AMD's 65nm process has so far dramatically underwhelmed, relative to AMD's 90nm process.
If AMD had the capability of stock binning at 3.0GHz, they would have a product that looked better relative to past products, and not too bad relative to Intel's cores (it would still underperform per clock, but at least it wouldn't underperform Intel's lowest bin).
Instead, Phenom bins at 2.3GHz - MAX - today, with 2.4GHz in Q2, and *maybe* 2.6GHz in Q3 (they've promised it, but history has shown that they do not often hit their promises). That's still a far cry from competitive. Maybe at 45nm, they'll hit frequencies which they should have hit at 65nm, and maybe they'll look good relative to Intel's 65nm products, too. |
