Report: 3GHz Phenom II to launch at $275

The fastest Phenom II may nibble at the heels of Intel’s Core i7 on the price ladder, according to EE Times. The site has posted prices for a couple of the upcoming Phenom II processors, and it claims AMD’s upcoming 3GHz CPU will launch at $275—just $9 below the volume price of Intel’s 2.66GHz Core i7-920.

EE Times goes on to say the slower, 2.8GHz Phenom II will cost $235, which would put it in roughly the same ballpark as Intel’s new 2.5GHz Core 2 Quad Q8300. Of course, even the 3GHz Phenom II might not compete directly with any Core i7 for a while. That’s because the AMD chip will work with DDR2 memory and much cheaper motherboards than Intel’s new brainchild. More realistically, a $275 Phenom II would end up facing the Core 2 Quad Q9400.

Both 2.8GHz and 3GHz Phenom II variants should launch at the Consumer Electronics Show in early January. Puzzlingly, EE Times also mentions 65nm Phenom II flavors, even though AMD’s own presentation slides tie the Phenom II name to the new 45nm design.

Comments closed
    • glynor
    • 12 years ago

    Scott, just to explain how some of us who are not shills and/or fanboys voted “weirdly” in the poll… *[

      • TravelMug
      • 12 years ago

      /[

        • glynor
        • 12 years ago

        Based on the Shanghai vs Xeon results, a 3.0GHz Phenom II should be fairly competitive with the Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz Core2Quad. At $275, though, it wouldn’t be a direct competitor to that $319 CPU, it would be much closer to the $269 Q9400 at 2.66GHz, which it should fairly easily beat. Just like the 4870 didn’t beat the GTX 280 and didn’t even try. It certainly did beat everything in it’s price range though.

        If Intel drops prices in response, I still win. Just like the 4870 forced Nvidia to drop prices on the GTX 200 series of cards. I’m actually in the market for both a Phenom II (I have an AM2+ board that will handle them fine) and a Core 2 Quad (for my main PC).

        That’s my point. Competition is GOOD. “Beat” is not a scientific word. To me, it means “makes me more likely to buy” (a decision governed by value, not by theoretical performance at identical clockspeeds), and I suspect that’s what the manufacturers would care about as well.

          • TravelMug
          • 12 years ago

          Oh I’m not saying competition is bad, waiting for the Q9x50 series to drop in price as well. The Barcelona based Opteron in the other machine (server) will do for a while 🙂

          What I don’t really see from any of the results (Shanghai or leaked) is that the Phenom II will confidently reach and/or surpass the Penryn level of performance. We’ll have to wait a week or two I guess 🙂

            • glynor
            • 12 years ago

            Agreed! I was mainly just responding to their obvious confusion in the Podcast. Different people can (and will) look at that question in the poll in very different ways, which are all equally valid.

            The problem, to me, seems to be more poll question and answer wording than any attempt by fanboys and shills to muck up the poll (extreme outliers in the poll excepted, of course).

            Plus, any fanboys of AMD who voted for “Outperform the Core i7” aren’t really very good (or smart) fanboys. I’m sure AMD would rather all their fanboys vote very, very low. The idea is to set the expectations game low and then beat them, not the other way around.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 12 years ago

          I think he was questioning that you went from ‘close’ to ‘soundly beat’ based upon a few hundred MHz.

          • glynor
          • 12 years ago

          To be a little more clear… I was just making this point. If you have two different CPU architectures to choose from. CPU A runs at 3.0GHz and costs $100. CPU B isn’t as efficient of an architecture and needs to run at 10GHz to achieve performance parity to CPU A, but still costs $100.

          Assuming that both CPU A and CPU B fit into the same heat and power envelopes, then to me the two CPUs are “equal performers”. Now, if Company B comes out and sells their 10GHz CPU for $75 dollars instead? Then CPU B “beats” CPU A. Period. IPC is irrelevant for a purchasing decision. Interesting from an engineering standpoint, but not relevant for the consumer.

          If Company A responds by dropping prices on CPU A? Then that makes me happy too, and everyone wins.

          At launch, the Phenom II will certainly not be able to perform better than the Q9650 CPU. However, I’m not in the market for a $550 CPU, just like I’m not in the market for a $550 GPU, so that isn’t really important to me.

          • SPOOFE
          • 12 years ago

          /[

            • glynor
            • 12 years ago

            Riiiiiight… For the record…

            Nvidia launched the GTX 200 series cards on June 16, 2008
            AMD launched the HD 4870 on June 25, 2008.
            Difference? 9 days

            Intel launched the Core i7 on November 3, 2008.
            AMD launched the Shanghai Opterons on November 13, 2008.
            Difference? 10 days

            So you’re right. The difference is huge… By a whole day. Now if you’re comparing the Phenom II to the 45nm Core 2 chips, then yes, it is “way later”, but that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

            To me, it looks clearly like the same GPU strategy they used with the RV770 translated to the CPU world. Intel released a monster (fortunately for Intel it doesn’t underperform like Nvidia’s did). AMD released a targeted, price-conscious, mid-range chip to beat on Intel’s previous generation while Intel was focused on their high-end monster (and was hoping to be able to keep the margins up on their new generation chips and chipsets). My hope is that this is v1 of the strategy implemented in the CPU world (more like the RV670 than the RV770 GPU). With luck, they’re busy re-working the upcoming generations of CPUs with the “RV770 method” right now. That would also explain the delay/cancellation of the Bulldozer core. It fits in perfectly with the “abandoning the attack on the high-end” methodology.

            Moreover, I’m not defending AMD for AMD’s sake. I like some of their products and some of Intel’s (and same goes for Nvidia vs AMD). In the end… I like good products, cheap. Lowering the price is lowering the price and reasons are irrelevant to me. This could force Intel to pull down the prices on the Core 2 (and possibly even the Core i7 chipset prices which are currently absurd) to prevent AMD from stealing away too much of the meaty mid-range market. If you think that Intel would drop their prices (thereby hurting margins) in this economy without absolutely being *[

    • pogsnet
    • 12 years ago
      • clone
      • 12 years ago

      big deal, how many users have liquid nitrogen cooling.

      real world overclocking and performance is what matters, if it’s within 5%+- and the cost is much less expensive as appears to be the case with cheap DDR2 and less spendy mobo’s supporting it then Phenom II will be a winner.

      while Core i7 seems to be doing the “Rambus” route AMD is doing what it has too by exploring all of the value opportunities available.

        • Hattig
        • 12 years ago

        It does however show that the Phenom II design isn’t limited in clock rate by design. AMD can shrink this design in the future and increase clock speeds without doing a TBredA.

          • SPOOFE
          • 12 years ago

          That’s right, AMD’s going to ramp up the clockspeeds and change their architecture name to “Netburst”…

      • ub3r
      • 12 years ago

      can it hit 4.2ghz with a stock cooler????

    • pluscard
    • 12 years ago

    “The competing Intel Core i7 chips include the 965 Extreme Edition, a 3.2 GHz part with 8 Mbytes L3 cache aimed at enthusiast systems and costing $999 and a low-end 920 part running at 2.66 GHz and selling for $284.”
    ————————————————————–
    That’s a heck of a spread.

    I can’t help feeling INTC cherry picks a handful of parts for the extreme editions, then prices them at a level to keep them out of hands of most folks, and keeping volume to a trickle.

    This would guarantee bragging rights, without having to ship the chip in volume.

      • echo_seven
      • 12 years ago

      I thought it was already established that both sides do this? The only reason AMD isn’t doing this is because….it can’t?

        • Meadows
        • 12 years ago

        AMD’s new processors clock higher than intel’s new processors.

          • SPOOFE
          • 12 years ago

          AMD’s new processors don’t exist yet.

    • casingh
    • 12 years ago

    WOW would be nice to finally have some real competition in that price point.

    • fwibbler
    • 12 years ago

    What I don’t understand is this: If the new Phenoms are so easy to overclock to higher speeds, then why doesn’t AMD release one clocked at 3.2 and even 3.4Ghz ?
    Then they would have something that would compete with Intels offerings and could charge the higher prices they need for them.

      • TravelMug
      • 12 years ago

      Because they wouldn’t stay within the TDP limit with enough CPUs they require for those SKUs. The 3Ghz version is in the 125W bracket and probably close to that under load. Let’s say the CPU does 120W under load. Without raising the voltage the 3.4Ghz version would do 136W which puts it into the 140W bracket. If they have to raise the voltage even a bit (for example 0.05V) they would be over 140W. And in real life they don’t even come that close to those limits, they have a bit more buffer.

      Also for the “it does 4Ghz on air” crowd: did you notice and stop to think about the fact that the 4Ghz overclock achieved on the AMD party was with 1.6V? Because if the default voltage at 3Ghz is 1.25 or 1.3, the heat put out at 4Ghz/1.6V would be pushing even the best air coolers out there.

    • shaq_mobile
    • 12 years ago

    i dunno, my e5200 does me just fine. i havent ever played a game where i thought “gee maybe i should have spent more than 85 bucks on my cpu”

    i spent 525 dollars on my computer and i can play any game on the market. thats less than an i7 and a motherboard to go with it. and if you wanna buy a sweet rig thats pretty cool, but spending 1500 bucks on a computer is pretty soggy when you could spend 500 and get a 42inch monitor and get 15-20% less frames in a game nobody plays (crysis) and dont even pretend that you do, because nobody does.

      • indeego
      • 12 years ago

      The C2D system I built in early 2007 has been the first time where a good 18 months afterward I am still perfectly happy with performance. Typically I find something lagging and want to upgrade some part a good <6 months afterg{<.<}g

    • brucect
    • 12 years ago

    First of all i think we have to wait and see what the numbers are? i think we will be seen 3GHz PII at newegg around 230-250 by jan 2009.
    Performance wise my opinion we have to wait for AM3 DDR3 parts.
    Yes Fudzilla reports preformance will be up %5 but you never know what suprise AMD has for us in 2009.

      • mesyn191
      • 12 years ago

      Deneb isn’t usually bottlenecked by memory bandwidth, 5% sounds about right. DDR3 is ATM a waste of money. Now if you wanted to get a AM3 CPU to slap in a AM2+ socket for some cheap overclocking and upgradability then that might work.

    • ub3r
    • 12 years ago

    Finally reasonable performance per $.
    Upgrade here we come.

      • indeego
      • 12 years ago

      The E8400 isn’t reasonable perf/$g{

        • DASQ
        • 12 years ago

        Maybe he means from AMD?

    • Prototyped
    • 12 years ago

    The EE Times link gets me a 404.

      • JumpingJack
      • 12 years ago

      The story was factually inaccurate and was withdrawn.

    • TurtlePerson2
    • 12 years ago

    I think that this is indicative of the performance from these chips. If they’re priced at $275 then it means that they’re probably as good as high end Yorkfields.

    • gargar
    • 12 years ago

    finally i can replace my Athlon 64 X2.

    this is why i love AMD, can easily upgrade.

      • accord1999
      • 12 years ago

      Unless you happened to have one of the many Socket AM2 motherboards that ended up incompatible with Phenom.

        • Kurotetsu
        • 12 years ago

        Theres also the S939 –> AM2 transition that some people STILL haven’t gotten over.

      • swaaye
      • 12 years ago

      How many CPUs were released for Socket 775? You may wanna look that up. Lots of ~3yr old P965 boards can semi-unofficially the latest 45nm quads. They can run anything from that down to a Pentium 4.

      Socket 754, 940 and 939 were painful ordeals for AMD people. AM2 has been better, but there were as said AM2 boards that don’t do Phenom. Socket A was the last AMD socket to have a really wide list of options, probably because the RAM controller was in the chipset yet.

    • Krogoth
    • 12 years ago

    Nehalem’s #1 competitor is Core 2. XD

    Core 2 is simply too good of a deal in $$$$/performance ratio. Nehalem is going to end-up being a workstation and server product for a while.

    Phenom II may steal some Core 2 sales at OEM and late-comers for DIY crowd.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 12 years ago

      Core 2 DUOS are “too good of a deal,” but not the quads. They’ll generally do less for you for the extra money spent, have lower stock clock speeds, are harder to overclock, and cost more than actually buying two of the equivalent dual cores they’re made of to begin with.

      Intel refuses to make a serious move for bringing quad cores into the $100-200 range, even though a few more of theirs really should be priced that way as it is right now. They make them too much money. It leaves that area wide open for AMD, and they’ll likely be moving into it by the time the AM3 range is all available.

      It disappoints me that they are pricing these higher than the Phenom 9950 originally cost for a CPU that should cost less to manufacture, but they know what they’re up against.

        • Krogoth
        • 12 years ago

        Core 2 Quads are superior then the Core 2 Duos.

        You are able to multi-task better and handle applications that take advantage of four cores. They are not much more expensive then their dual-core counterparts expect Pentium-based Core 2s.

    • TheBob!
    • 12 years ago

    So are the Phenoms. AMD has shown them at 6GHz on LN2

    • flip-mode
    • 12 years ago

    $275 Phenom-II
    $100 mobo
    $80 8 GB of RAM
    ——-
    $455

    $285 i7-920
    $300 mobo
    $155 6 GB RAM
    ——
    $740

    Um, yeah. Is the i7-920 going to be faster? Yep, but there are about 300 reasons that it should be faster.

      • Fastfreak39
      • 12 years ago

      Good point my friend. If performance is decent and overclocking is as good as recent news suggests then I’ll be jumping the fence back over to AMD.

      • Kurotetsu
      • 12 years ago

      The thing is, Intel captured ALOT of marketshare with Core 2 (both with DIY builders and OEM manufacturers). And those people may not care to totally build a new system when they can just drop a Wolfdale or Yorkfield into their G3*/P3* board. AMD has stated repeatedly that their new Phenom II is meant to compete with Core 2, not Nehalem. So comparing it to the build cost of a Nehalem doesn’t make much sense.

      Phenom II is going to have to vastly outperform all the Core 2s out now to convince people who currently have Core 2 systems to give those up and build a new AMD system. Obviously, for current AMD and pre-Core 2 system owners, this is a no brainer.

        • Lord.Blue
        • 12 years ago

        However, those of us with an AM2+ system will see this as an amazing jump in performance.

          • henfactor
          • 12 years ago

          Having weathered the C2D storm, I’d say we’ve earned ourselves a little performance boost. I’m looking forward to it!!!

    • jdaven
    • 12 years ago

    I think at this price point the 3.0 GHz Phenom II will compete against the 2.83 GHz Core 2 Quad 45 nm. Right now that Intel processor is at $317 on Newegg and AMD knows that Intel will reduce prices soon. Most leaked benches on the web show the Phenom II 940 performing right around (to slightly better) this 2.83 GHz processor. The AM3 version might add 5% according to Fudzilla bringing that processor closer but not quite beating Core 2 Quad’s at 3.0 GHz.

    The Phenom II 920 2.8 GHz will probable beat Core 2 Quad’s from Intel at 2.66 GHz.

    Therefore, AMD will not having anything against Core 2 Quad’s above 3.0 GHz or any of the Core i7 at least for the time being (Core i7 920 will be close to the Phenom II 940 but not quite there). Rumored overclocking capabilities will of course make AMD the best since you can get close to 4 GHz on air at $275 which will probably beat the 3.2 GHz Core i7.

    At least that’s my prediction.

      • SsP45
      • 12 years ago

      However the Core i7s are also rather good overclockers. My 920 has already hit 3.6Ghz on air without breaking a sweat. I expect to be able to hit around 4Ghz with a bit of tweaking and a new BIOS from Gigabyte. Granted the AMD motherboards for the Phenom II’s will be much lower than current i7 boards.

        • TheBob!
        • 12 years ago

        So are the Phenoms. AMD has overclocked them to over 6GHz on LN2

          • vdreadz
          • 12 years ago

          Yea true but not on air without LN2.

            • charged3800z24
            • 12 years ago

            Yeah, but on air to 4ghz, if reports are true… and 4.5ghz on water…if this is true.. it is a good thing for AMD.

            • SPOOFE
            • 12 years ago

            AMD fans have been saying “If this rumor is true” since Conroe. Knock off the hype and wait for the product; everyone already implicitly understands that releasing a good product is a good thing.

        • jdaven
        • 12 years ago

        But the price and how you overclock are the two most important points for overclockers. The whole idea behind overclocking is buying an inexpensive processor with unlocked multipliers and getting it to speeds of a more expensive processor.

        So you have a $284 list ($300 on newegg) Core i7 920 going to around 3.6 GHz air. And you have a $275 list Phenom II 940 going to around 4.0 GHz air using unlocked multipliers which is a more ideal way to overclock than increasing QPI clock, the only way to overclock a Core i7 920. Both overclocks should yield about the same performance.

        The end result is that you have a cheaper AMD processor, AMD motherboard and DDR2 memory allowing about the same performance increase as the Core i7 920. Also, overclocking the Phenom II using unlocked multipliers versus QPI speed increases for the Core i7 920.

        I think the Phenom II is the better choice. Just my 0.02.

        • jdaven
        • 12 years ago

        Here is an overclocking review of the Core i7 920 over at [H]ardOCP.

        §[<http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4NSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==<]§ They said that no matter what they did, they could not get their Core i7 stable over 3.8 GHz on air or water. It has been shown that the Phenom II 940 can go well over 4 GHz on water. So for at least water cooling, the Phenom II 940 looks to be the better overclocker. We'll wait and see what the reviewers find out in less than a month.

          • SPOOFE
          • 12 years ago

          /[

        • jdaven
        • 12 years ago

        Ok here is another review where they were able to get the Core i7 920 to 4 GHz but then hit a wall and could not get it to go any further.

        §[<http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/06/overclocking-intel-core-i7-920/1<]§ As anyone here gotten their Core i7 920 at or above 4 GHz using air or water cooling?

          • JumpingJack
          • 12 years ago

          4.2 on air cooling, but only tested prime 95 for ~10 mins, ran Cinebench R10, scored 23120 … so I cannot say stable. 4.0 Ghz was easy. 4.3 Ghz would boot, but any load would lock up or BSOD … haven’t played with much though in terms of settings … to get 4.2 Vcore = 1.38V, QPI = 1.60 V and I had the room very chilly (opened window 🙂 ) … NOTE: Not a i7 920, it was a 965 so I had multipliers to help.

            • jdaven
            • 12 years ago

            Yeah the 965 can go up to 4.3 Ghz but it costs $999 and the Phenom II 940 costs $275. The comparison has to be with the Core i7 920 in order to make sense. No one is going to spend close to $1000 to overclock to 4.3 GHz when you can speed $275 or $284 to get close to the same clock although not the same performance.

    • TheEmrys
    • 12 years ago

    At that price point and easy upgrade path for memory, looks like I’ll be staying AMD for a bit longer.

      • moritzgedig
      • 12 years ago

      At that price point I will even stay with my old AMD CPU.
      I am willing to pay 0.3€/(GHz x(mm)²)
      atm I make use of two cores but if I had two more, I wouldn’t be able to use 50% of my Investment.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This