Odd question: How would this cope in a laptop/notebook setup? Would it be a huge drain on battery life, too much to make it worthwhile, or would it not significantly increase the power assumption but give rise to a good quad core portable?
who needs a quad core home theatre? never had to do any serious number crunching while watching a dvd before...
this looks like your choice is, do four things really slowly or you can do two things really quickly with a much cheaper athlon64 .. maybe it averages out in the end..
It's not DVD playback - you can do that on a VIA EPIA! The IGPs on those have MPEG-2 acceleration.
If you're playing 1080p h.264 rips and you aren't using something like a 780G/8200 IGP, then a 9350e + CoreAVC codec = win! Unfortunately I don't have a 5400+ 2.8GHz 65W dual core to test either, but a 2.5GHz dual core wouldn't do it and we loaded all four cores 30-40% on the 9350e.
This CPU is a niche product for a specific application, that's all.
Not to belittle AMD, but tests over at Anandtech show that a Phenom 9550 will behave more or less exactly as a Phenom 9350e if clocked at the same speed (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=6). The major difference is that the 9550(!) is cheaper.
Originally Posted by azrael- Not to belittle AMD, but tests over at Anandtech show that a Phenom 9550 will behave more or less exactly as a Phenom 9350e if clocked at the same speed (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=6). The major difference is that the 9550(!) is cheaper.
Yup, just what we though, except we don't have a 9550 to test :(
Are those comparative Phenom 9550 scores in the article from an earlier test scenario?
Still, the 9350e is a nice enough processor for what its meant for. AMD just shouldn't sell it at a price premium compared to the otherwise identical 9550.
I'm more worried about those other findings at Anandtech. Namely that the Phenom seems to have problems getting out of Cool'n'Quiet mode properly. I hope this is fixable via a microcode update.
Originally Posted by azrael- Are those comparative Phenom 9550 scores in the article from an earlier test scenario?
I'm more worried about those other findings at Anandtech. Namely that the Phenom seems to have problems getting out of Cool'n'Quiet mode properly. I hope this is fixable via a microcode update.
The 9550 results were a clocked down 9850. I'd only want to test a true retail sample to do a more sensitive comparison though.
We found the same as Anand - CnQ basically sometimes doesn't come out of it (Sony Vegas, or Prime95) even when the CPU is loaded. I think it's a driver issue although others blame Vista thread handling and power management.
i must say, when the next generation of laptops comes along with Quad cores, then i shall upgrade my now aging laptop which was purchased in either 2005 or 2006 and has recieved a few upgrades since then. the Dothan is still a powerful CPU, wish it was a Yothan.
still looking at sub-notebooks, but my work is graphic intensive...:'(
I really want AMD to knock out a decent CPU, iv been a fanboy for along time, cough K6-II. But intels price and performance was just a common sense purchase no matter how much i love AMD.
Even up to 88W! So maybe the laptop would be a wee bit thicket, but coupled with a WUXGA and a mobile 4850, it could make a nice high end laptop.
Those notebooks were accompanied by up to 105-watt external power bricks. The reality is that 95% or more of all notebooks worldwide are available with a 65-watt brick, only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnout21 I really want AMD to knock out a decent CPU
Give AMD some good, hardcore German porno and you can be sure they'll knock more than one out.
The board used for the Phenom is a piece of crap. The sb is 1000 and fails to give a true test of the fsb. The full fsb is 2600 and ht is 6200 on good amd boards with either chipset. I personally use a 750a MSI with 8800 gt sli and get close to 50 fps with a 9950. I use OCZ 1066 ram 4gb as well. If you test with crap you get crap. I have 2 systems with wolfdales and they are fast but the 8800 ultra is outdated. You think they would have used a GTX 260 or 280 by now or even a 9800 GX2. The quad cores listed mostly get the same or worse frame rates unless you go to a 9450 or core extreme you can forget it. In fact unless you are at 2.6 ghz you can forget it period. Crysis is a rough hardware game period. I switched from a 9600 phenom to a 9950 and added over 20 fps with the same board and ram. Clockspeed is everything in sli. My choice of the 2.6 phenom with a decent board was great and now I am getting a GTX 260 for hybrid sli. My sons enjoy their wolfdales and for the price they make the q6600 a waste of time. In fact I wouldn't go lower than a q6700 in an Intel quad for this game after multiple systems and testing on my own.
Comments 1 to 19 of 19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors#Mobile_Pentium_4
Even up to 88W! So maybe the laptop would be a wee bit thicket, but coupled with a WUXGA and a mobile 4850, it could make a nice high end laptop.
this looks like your choice is, do four things really slowly or you can do two things really quickly with a much cheaper athlon64 .. maybe it averages out in the end..
btw when are the 45nm phenom's out
If you're playing 1080p h.264 rips and you aren't using something like a 780G/8200 IGP, then a 9350e + CoreAVC codec = win! Unfortunately I don't have a 5400+ 2.8GHz 65W dual core to test either, but a 2.5GHz dual core wouldn't do it and we loaded all four cores 30-40% on the 9350e.
This CPU is a niche product for a specific application, that's all.
Yup, just what we though, except we don't have a 9550 to test :(
Still, the 9350e is a nice enough processor for what its meant for. AMD just shouldn't sell it at a price premium compared to the otherwise identical 9550.
I'm more worried about those other findings at Anandtech. Namely that the Phenom seems to have problems getting out of Cool'n'Quiet mode properly. I hope this is fixable via a microcode update.
The 9550 results were a clocked down 9850. I'd only want to test a true retail sample to do a more sensitive comparison though.
We found the same as Anand - CnQ basically sometimes doesn't come out of it (Sony Vegas, or Prime95) even when the CPU is loaded. I think it's a driver issue although others blame Vista thread handling and power management.
still looking at sub-notebooks, but my work is graphic intensive...:'(
I really want AMD to knock out a decent CPU, iv been a fanboy for along time, cough K6-II. But intels price and performance was just a common sense purchase no matter how much i love AMD.
Fixed, twas me typoing
True, next time I'll redo the whole lot separately.