AMD has recently released the Spider platform, the first joint product launch resulting from the company's merger with graphics manufacturer ATI. The Spider platform consists of three new product lines: the ATI Radeon HD 3800-series GPU, the AMD Phenom CPU, and the AMD 7-series motherboard chipset. This is the first time AMD has been able to offer customers a complete processor, graphics, and motherboard system platform with AMD chips handling all three major functions. They also represent AMD's most advanced technology to date.

The ATI Radeon HD 3800 graphics chips offer more performance and more power efficiency than the Radeon HD 2900 series. The AMD 790 chipset line brings HyperTransport 3.0, PCI Express 2.0, and CrossFireX quad-GPU support to motherboard platforms. GPU updates and new chipsets are always welcome, but the AMD Phenom processor is the most anticipated part of the platform.

AMD earned a lot of credibility in the PC gaming community during the past four years because it was finally able to come up with a CPU design that could take the performance lead away from rival Intel. AMD's Athlon 64 line outperformed the Pentium 4, Intel's best offering at the time. Intel was able to recover the performance lead with its new Core 2 processor line, but AMD had established itself as a viable option among gamers and many looked forward to AMD's new processor, the AMD Phenom.

The AMD Phenom processor features what AMD calls a "true quad-core" design, which has all four processing cores on a single piece of silicon rather than two dual-core processing units side-by-side as Intel does to create its quad-core processors. Having all four processors on a single die allows all the cores on the Phenom chip to share a single L3 cache. Each core still has dedicated L1 and L2 cache, but the shared L3 cache helps improve multicore performance by reducing the amount of time it takes each core to access shared data.

The Phenom features a number of power-saving features designed to increase efficiency. The system can independently adjust the frequency of each core and dynamically disable unused parts of the CPU to reduce power consumption. The Phenom also has several thermal sensors that will automatically reduce the processor speed if heat becomes a problem, in case of CPU fan failure, for example.

The Athlon 64 has an integrated memory controller that helps reduce system memory access time, and AMD has continued supporting that feature in the Phenom by incorporating a DDR2 memory controller on the CPU die. The new integrated memory controller can handle DDR2 memory speeds, ranging from DDR2-400 up to DDR2-1066. AMD has also added HyperTransport 3.0 I/O data bus support, which greatly increases the amount of bandwidth available for data communications, provided that the processor is installed on an HT 3.0 capable motherboard. However, that does not mean that the Phenom will require a motherboard upgrade.

The Phenom is a Socket AM2+ chip, but it will work on current Socket AM2 motherboards. The backward compatibility support will allow current Socket AM2 Athlon 64 owners to upgrade to a Phenom processor without having to buy a new motherboard, but they might have to update the motherboard BIOS. Backward compatibility aside, AMD would still like customers to pick up an AMD 7-series motherboard to go along with every Phenom CPU.

The AMD 7-series chipsets all include Socket AM2+, HyperTransport 3.0, and PCI Express 2.0 support. The AMD 7-series includes three different chipsets: the AMD 790FX at the very high end, the AMD 790X at the merely high end, and the AMD 770 at the mainstream. The main difference between the chipsets is primarily the number of video cards each one supports. AMD 790FX motherboards will be able to support up to four video cards in CrossFireX configuration. AMD 790X boards will handle up to two cards, and the AMD 770 will be the chipset for single-card systems.

You can use the AMD OverDrive utility to overclock your CPU and memory

AMD will supply motherboard manufacturers with an AMD OverDrive utility that will let users tweak settings, such as CPU speeds, memory timings, and voltages. Experienced users will be able to take advantage of the granular options, but the application will also include an automated "Auto Clock" overclocking feature for beginners.

CPU Performance Tests

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

3DMark06, CPU Score

Intel Core 2 Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
4162
AMD Phenom 9900 @ 2.6GHz
3925
Intel Core 2 E6700 @ 2.66GHz
2349
AMD Phenom 9600 @ 2.3GHz
3474

3DMark06, 1280x1024

Intel Core 2 Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
12317
AMD Phenom 9900 @ 2.6GHz
12171
Intel Core 2 E6700 @ 2.66GHz
11030
AMD Phenom 9600 @ 2.3GHz
11247

Valve Particle Test

Intel Core 2 Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
86
AMD Phenom 9900 @ 2.6GHz
75
Intel Core 2 E6700 @ 2.66GHz
43
AMD Phenom 9600 @ 2.3GHz
67

Crysis CPU Test, 1024x768, Medium Quality

Intel Core 2 Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
75
AMD Phenom 9900 @ 2.6GHz
65
Intel Core 2 E6700 @ 2.66GHz
60
AMD Phenom 9600 @ 2.3GHz
60

Unreal Tournament 3, 1024x768, Maximum Quality

Intel Core 2 Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
140
AMD Phenom 9900 @ 2.6GHz
121
Intel Core 2 E6700 @ 2.66GHz
140
AMD Phenom 9600 @ 2.3GHz
114

System Setup: Intel Core 2 Q6700, Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, Intel 975XBX2, AMD Phenom 9900, AMD Phenom 9600, ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows XP Professional SP2. Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 GTX, beta Nvidia ForceWare 169.09.
[Update: We listed the Intel Core 2 Q6700 and the Intel Core 2 E6700 incorrectly as the Q6600 and E6600, respectively, in the system setup. We have corrected the mistake and apologize for the error.]

We tested the 2.6GHz quad-core AMD Phenom 9900 against the 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Core 2 Q6700 to see how the two processors compared on a clock-for-clock basis.

The Intel Core 2 Q6700 turned in the better numbers in all of our tests. The Intel chip may have had an extra 60MHz to work with, but that's not nearly enough clock speed to account for the size of the performance gap. We also included the Intel Core 2 E6700 to see if we could spot any performance differences between dual-core and quad-core. The extra cores seemed to help most in the 3DMark06 CPU benchmark, the Valve Particle test, and the Crysis physics test.

The current Phenom chip design has a bug, or erratum as AMD prefers to call it, that may cause the system to hang in rare instances, such as while running in virtualization mode with high utilization across all four cores. All Phenom processors, including the Phenom 9700 and 9900 shipping in mid-to-late Q1 2008, will have revised cores with an erratum fix in place. Motherboard manufacturers will soon release new BIOS updates to resolve the issue in current Phenom processors, but the fix will result in some performance degradation.

AMD stressed to GameSpot that the problem is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that users will be able to use the AMD OverDrive utility to disable the errata fix to get full performance out of the processor. The Asus motherboard we tested did not have a BIOS fix, but we did not notice any system instability when we benchmarked our Phenom engineering sample using the motherboard's shipping BIOS. Please keep in mind that our test results show the Phenom running at full power without any errata fix limitations.

Judging by the benchmark results, it looks like AMD will need to increase clock speeds or lower the price of the Phenom to stay competitive with Intel, and it looks like AMD is doing a little of both. AMD has told GameSpot that the Phenom 9900 will sell for "below $350" when the chip arrives next spring. In comparison, the Intel Core 2 Q6700 currently retails for just under $550, but we wouldn't be surprised if Intel cuts the price to give the Phenom 9900 a warm welcome. AMD will also ship a 2.4GHz Phenom 9700 at around the same time for "below $300." Consumers can currently find the 2.2GHz Phenom 9500 and 2.3GHz Phenom 9600 in retail for about $250 and $275, respectively.

The AMD Phenom certainly isn't the Lebron James, Intel-killer many had hoped for, but it also isn't a Kwame Brown-like disappointment. The numbers show us that the CPU is competitive. If AMD can increase the clock speeds and keep the price affordable, the Phenom could very well develop into a star.

409 Comments

  • SuperGamer911

    Posted Nov 8, 2008 7:50 am PT

    Intel always pwns AMD. Maybe I should get an Intel Core 2 Duo instead of an AMD Phenom.

  • doomsdaydave11

    Posted Feb 13, 2008 4:25 pm PT

    its a bummer intel is still beating the crap out of AMD. I really like AMD . However thats ok with me because I only have like $200 to spend on a new proc. I won't be buying any fancy AMD 9800, 9900. Or any of intel's chips. AMD has always seemed to have the best price/performance ratios. (Not every chip, but you know what I mean... for the most part.)

    EDIT: Looking up at all those chip scores made me laugh. Crysis at medium settings had like half of the FPS that UT3 had. lol. Figures. That game's got some awesome graphics.

  • Sammojo

    Posted Feb 6, 2008 2:22 am PT

    Hmm, works well with 4 x crossfire but the phenom doesnt cut it. It cannot even outdo the Q6700, how does AMD expect to compete when intel has core2extreme?

  • soquerdemon

    Posted Jan 31, 2008 8:57 pm PT

    I think AMD has some work to do. I want a cpu that will give the most bang for my buck and if AMD can't provide it... well i guess i will have to buy intel. I am at best a MID-RANGE gamer and would prefer to spend more money on a cpu i can keep for a while and not have to upgrade as often, but that is just me

  • Penri_02

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 11:28 am PT

    total n00b questions... is the highest number good or bad?!?

  • martianrobot

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 6:58 am PT

    kave-man007:

    "buzzola01 wat r u saying"

    Kave-man007, what are you saying?

    Buzzola might be writing in Spanish, but at least he can string a sentence together in his native language using punctuation (albeit all in capitals!), and not resort to some lazy semi-incomprehensible text message typing!

  • micknator

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 5:51 am PT

    Intel is still better.

  • samir_ghofran

    Posted Jan 23, 2008 2:10 pm PT

    AMD is funny nowdays! What is this Secret Spider all of us have waited for??
    I'm going to buy Core 2 Quad surely.

  • Skyriderlink

    Posted Jan 20, 2008 12:30 am PT

    I think AMD knows what he is doing.Phenom are nearly no match especially when Intel cut prices which Intel will certainly do.I was a AMD user.My first PC was equipped with Athlon Xp 2800+ then I upgrade my system to X2 4600+ which was very powerful at that time when Intel has no processor powerful enough to counter X2s.It was obvious that Intel is paying attention to mobile chips.But when Intel brought glory of its mobile platform to desktop such as less power consumption and cooler chip,all AMD could do is to sit back what the show.It is obvious that I am talking about Core 2 Duos.I am forced to upgrade to Core 2 Quad but when AMD has better alternative,I thought Phenom was,I will up grade my system again.Until then..........

  • joe_dollar

    Posted Jan 17, 2008 7:06 pm PT

    They should have had an Intel E8500 in the comparison. Then we could all laugh that Intel's latest dual core can pwn AMD's latest quad core

  • joe_dollar

    Posted Jan 17, 2008 7:06 pm PT

    They should have had an Intel E8500 in the comparison. Then we could all laugh that Intel's latest dual core can pwn AMD's latest quad core

  • omerg1993

    Posted Jan 17, 2008 12:42 pm PT

    Xeuton_Mojukai ur right but dont tell me youll take the amd instend of a better system regardless to the price it might work 4 u now but in the future u will heve no other option but buying something stronger the the amd

  • Xeuton_Mojukai

    Posted Jan 14, 2008 6:32 pm PT

    The reason AMD has been so good for a long time is that they make quality stuff with a lower price tag.

    I don't need to get more fps than the next best setup. I just need enough fps to play the game, and that's exactly what this cpu delivers.

    Maybe I'm going crazy, but I just think we shouldn't be so obsessed with having "the best", and should focus more on having enough quality to be worth our hard-earned investment.

    Just because you get better price/performance ratio with a 1000 dollar cpu you don't need compared to a 400 dollar cpu that gives you enough to use doesn't mean you should automatically spend 600 dollars more for your rig.

    Then again, this is just me, a lowly mid-range gamer with no need for luxuries like 8800 Ultra Triple SLI or 1200 watt power supplies to feed them.

    In other words, I only represent the overwhelming majority of the gaming community that provides the greatest profit to these companies...

    What do I know?

    ~ XM

  • SkyGSN-com

    Posted Jan 12, 2008 6:44 am PT

    They can do anything, but Intel is better. With no doubts!

  • dreamer77dd

    Posted Jan 7, 2008 5:38 pm PT

    i would wait for a chip from AMD that does not have a problem and that is faster then the one with the bug problem. it is suppose to be faster then athlon but if your buying a new chip it better be good or cheap. one of the 2. Plus I was not truely interested in this chip from the start i am looking at the other chips in 2009 that AMD has bin making. I find this is chip is for people to get use to the idea. almost a beta test that there trying to get money off of.. wonder what it would have bin like if they did nto have this problem?

  • athenian29

    Posted Jan 6, 2008 1:51 pm PT

    Meh. I just got an Athlon 6000+ for my new rig. We got an nVidia geForce 8800 Superclocked Edition video card, and I can't wait for the case to get here; that thing's gonna one bad@$$ machine. *grins slyly* I'll finally be able to catch up; the most recent PC shooter I've played is Halo PC (which I got for Christmahannukwanzadan), and I've been aching to play Crysis and COD 4 and Orange Box and all those other ones you guys have been taunting me with... *sniff* Life's so unfair!

  • AceCometh

    Posted Jan 6, 2008 8:56 am PT

    I'd love to upgrade to the new AMD Phenom, unfortunately I don't have the funds. I'd have to buy not only the processor, but a new mobo that can run it. Talk about some major cash!!

  • kave-man007

    Posted Jan 5, 2008 9:50 pm PT

    buzzola01 wat r u saying

  • TiberiumMember

    Posted Jan 5, 2008 2:15 am PT

    i am dissapointed from AMD

  • BUZZOLA01 posted Jan 1, 2008 7:21 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    BUZZOLA01

    Posted Jan 1, 2008 7:21 am PT (hide)

    SE NOTA QUE LA PERDIDA DE LIDERAZGO POR PARTE DE AMD, FRENTE A LOS MICROS DE INTEL, LO PONE NERVIOSO. POR ESTO Y DE ACUERDO A LOS TEST REALIZADOS, AMD DEBERA MEJORAR NOTABLEMENTE EL RENDIMIENTO DE LOS MICROS SINO SON HISTORIA.
    ME PARECE QUE LA FUSION AMD/ATI RESTO MAS QUE SUMAR YA QUE AMBOS PERDIERON ANTE SUS RESPECTIVOS COMPETIDORES (INTEL Y NVIDIA )

  • xheart_corex

    Posted Dec 29, 2007 1:53 pm PT

    *WARNING* Just to let anyone know who is thinking of buying one of these to upgrade an existing AM2 system....

    "The Phenom is a Socket AM2+ chip, but it will work on current Socket AM2 motherboards. The backward compatibility support will allow current Socket AM2 Athlon 64 owners to upgrade to a Phenom processor without having to buy a new motherboard, but they might have to update the motherboard BIOS."

    Check out this article on Toms Hardware.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/26/phenom_motherboards/

    So barely any boards will support it as the manufacturers havent released the BIOS updates.

    Looks like a pretty nice processor but best wait a while before getting one

  • heclec

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 4:00 pm PT

    Hrmph . . . .

    All of you that argue that AMD is crap over Intel or vice-versa and say that you will "spend the extra money" for Intel -- just remember, we don't all live at home with out mommies that buy our computers for us. That being said, if I had the money, sure I'd go with Intel. As it is, I almost always build with AMD. I'm not a "brand loyalist." Sometimes it's just about what you can afford, and everyone knows AMD is usually cheaper if not the "omg, uber-baddest, leet-thing" on the market. Live in the real world. Start paying your own bills, kids, and then decide which one you will/can buy.

    .. and don't talk about "brand loyalists" when you're obviously biased.

  • KOoI

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 3:22 pm PT

    pshhh...brand loyalists are always wrong

    objectively speaking intel was ahead last generation, even though it was behind. What i mean is while AMD was using 90nm cores intel started switching to 65nm cores. This gave them a performance increase, AMD was still ahead. However having factories equipped for 65nm manufacturing put intel strategically ahead and allowed them to get acquainted with the possibilities for 65nm. AMD didn't start toying with 65nm until core 2 architecture smacked them in the face. It IS impossible to make a processor in 90nm that can't be outperformed by a 65nm one. So at the start of this generation AMD was behind and still is. They probably will be too because instead of making the architecture the best it can be, as intel did with core 2, AMD is trying to cramp more and more processors together. Although this boosts benchmarks, it does very little performance wise. AMD just has bad strategy.

  • LordBD

    Posted Dec 25, 2007 3:05 pm PT

    Vi..go!!!

  • amilmitt

    Posted Dec 25, 2007 7:14 am PT

    it seems to me that AMD is catching up to intel, it seems intel will have a run for its money if AMD launchs something better soon than there current core 2 duos like they did with there athlon series.

  • maximus_2

    Posted Dec 24, 2007 5:28 pm PT

    when new Intel will come out... people will be ashamed of thier's AMDs lol

  • POWERFUL-TNT

    Posted Dec 22, 2007 8:47 am PT

    Intel is still a bit better. What about their new 45nm CPUs will be twice m>re powerful than the any AMDs. Strange that the 9900 is a bit slower th

  • adam0926

    Posted Dec 22, 2007 4:07 am PT

    I will be sticking with Intel for now

  • genocidekev12

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 4:08 pm PT

    soo good

  • last_alawi

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 8:18 am PT

    Hi all,

    For members jjjttthhh and brownba3, many many thanks for the good and neutral posts.
    I am much appreciated for your styles in writing, and for subjective.
    For jjjttthhh; I really would like to congratulate you for your impressive English language.
    And for brownba3; I really admire your scientific opinion, because every computer shopper should think just like you.
    I hope to see many more useful posts like those, because that will give gamespote's newcommers a very good competitive welocome.

    Regards,
    Ali

  • sorin_ro

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 8:14 am PT

    E 6750 rocks

  • brownba3

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 8:08 am PT

    I must admit I am somewhat of an AMD fanboy - have a 64FX53 2.4 Ghz ASUS SK8V 940 socket motherboard - from about 4 years ago - I had to get a second motherboard after a maid fried my first board, but have gotten consistent high speeds and amazing performance - on a single core and old style ATI Radeon x (900 I think!) - with XP pro. It smoked all of the Intels out there at the time and has had no issues with any of the RPGs and action/1st person shooters I have played - starting to see some issues on the horizon of gaming, but so far reeeal happy. Looking at the current crop of processors it seems like Intel is beating AMD - not happy about that, but when I buy I don't care too much a couple hundred dollar difference in CPUs. If buying now it would be the intel quad - I'm buying for 3-4 + years (I know stupid soon outdated...) I have a lot of faith in AMD - Intel is usually first out of the gate with a good/great product that breaks open new concepts. Amd has seemed to always be the better finisher. I can wait a little longer with my system and see what Phenom/AMD 2nd (ok 3rd) generation quad cores will look like. If they can work on the stability, the speeds will come up and AMD should see a return to the top - there already are more choices with AMD for graphics - last review I read (if I remeber correctly) mentioned that AMD boards can use ATI or SLI and that ATI was giving better results. As one person did mention though - if nothing else AMD keeps intel on their toes. Without AMD, Intel will become windows... a good product but not always what you want or need... until then, make mine Marvel

  • jjjttthhh

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 7:19 am PT

    Hey Rayden...
    your = indicates possession
    you're = you are (as in "If you are smart"..which apparently, you're not.)

    there = adverb expressing some relation of place
    their = attributive adjective, used before a noun

    It's not that AMD is better.....it's that they're still good and way cheaper.
    So AMD does rock......for the money..........and I'll likely buy one again.
    So how about you get your sh** together before you post crap.

  • Nomad0404

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 6:38 am PT

    AMD actually has the better architecture when it comes to quad core processors but they are far harder to produce with a much higher rate of failure than you'd get slapping two core duo processors together and calling it quad core like Intel. However, I think the major limiting factor for AMD is that Intel has 45nm production and they don't - recent news seems to me that AMD are getting together with the rest of the chip world to develop this further by sharing development costs.

    AMD need to be competitive people - if all you fanboys want sub $100 turbo chips like the Pentium 2140 (overclockable by more than 115%) then you need AMD to keep the competition up with INTEL. Otherwise Intel will get to the stage where it can charge what it likes for it's processors and you'll be paying big bucks for small gains.

    Just my thoughts on the situation.

    Phil

  • PeterTheGeek

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 4:53 am PT

    Thanks for the write-up, very useful. I did some quick math and adjusting for the CPU speed difference, it looks like the Core 2 has maybe a 3.6% speed advantage on the 3DMark06, CPU Score. I bet in some of the distributive computer projects I run the AMD would rock. It has a better memory architecture that should keep large amounts of data flowing under heaver loads. I just hope that Folding@Home can get good performance from quad GPU configurations. Right now they say not to Crossfire because their code doesn't run as fast.

  • RaYden_333 posted Dec 19, 2007 2:40 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    RaYden_333

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 2:40 am PT (hide)

    The point is ... if you want to waste money on really incapable tech buy AMD
    If your smart you'd give a little extra to receive a ton more of quality, therefor always buy INTEL I've tested several edge CPU's and NONE of the AMD ones kept up or worked as flawlessly as the INTEL ones ... and I personally NEVER EVER WOULD MAKE/SUGGEST a rig with AMD inside. AMD is a waste. They have potential but they keep F****** UP, they better get there Sh** back together. I don't wana see another amd supporter post stuff like, AMD is better, cuz its a retarded affirmation !

    Intel 4 ever

  • BontraXenderKyl posted Dec 19, 2007 1:52 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    BontraXenderKyl

    Posted Dec 19, 2007 1:52 am PT (hide)

    ....anyway, who wants to buy **** AMD, i don't need it and who else need it???
    Intel proved us at the last year that her processors are very promising in conflict to AMD that always grows down and down....

  • I_Sinsear_I

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 7:38 pm PT

    I'd like to point out several things. First of all, I'm an IT tech so I actually do know what I'm talking about. First and foremost, as several people before mentioned of how XP is better than Vista in gaming; well, this is true if you have an older system. For users with a newer system, you'd get a lot more out of Vista 64 bit than XP. Second, comparison between intel and AMD is skewed, its like comparing a BMW M3 to a Porsche 911 Turbo. For the sake of comparison, I will talk about the highest end vs the highest end. The best K10 processors AMD will release, as of date, is the Phenom FX-91, which is due out around early Q2. This will be comparable to intel's Yorkfield XE QX 9950, also due around early Q2, maybe late Q1. However, the QX9650 (which is what I have currently, OC'ed to 4.2 GHZ liquid cooled) is getting amazing scores in 3d mark 06, far surpassing the best of amd's processors. So my ultimate point is this: while the FX-91 will probably beat the best of today's intel processors, by the time they release it, intel will have bigger and better. I'm not trying to say I'm an intel fanboy, I'm just pointing out the facts; which is rightly so since AMD dominated the cpu market for years with their athlon processors, which were far superior than the pentium processors intel released.

    PS: my system: QX9650 OC'ed to 4.2GHZ//Corsair Dominator DDR2 1250 4gb//Creative X-Fi Fatality Series//BFG Nvidia 8800 Ultra 768mb OCed to 700mhz X2 in SLi//Western Digital 10000 RPM 150gb raptor X2//Asus Extreme X38 Mobo//Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit//entire system liquid cooled with thermaltake

  • md206

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 6:16 pm PT

    plainelmo yes give them time to perfect since intel has been doing this for a long time. Though i think financially they are in trouble big time. I like my e4300 core duo 2. I taste of dual core was awesome cos i overclocked to 2.8ghz easy without crashes with a good cooler and got speeds for an intel core 2 extreme. I have been running the pc for 3 months now at 2.8ghz. No overheat problems. AMD ^^ ....cant even do 2.8ghz and E4300 core duo 2 is around 68 pounds^^...I use it for crysis and im so impressed i will wait until next summer to buy a Quad....

  • md206

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 6:06 pm PT

    I have never used a amd cpu but i do feel sorry for them. They need 3ghz chips to compete with intel.. Ati needs better drivers and architecture to compete with nvidia. Ati is on the right road but amd is making matters worse since ati is under amds name. AMD spider pc benchmarks for crysis is what gamers want to see for Quad 3870 and 3850 to even consider buying. I can run every game on max with my nvidia card except crysis so there really need to convince us. Its a shame really they release spider to play wot,call of duty 4 ^^.....not a system hog at all. If spider is aimed at crysis show us wot it can do cos it feels u want us to blow our wallets for nothing.... WAKE UP AMD....

  • JOSE24DGUEZ

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 2:21 pm PT

    intel rocks, amd is good though...like someone said "it's like comparing nvidia and ati"

  • BorkaBonum

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 6:46 am PT

    AMD will lowen prices, I don't know what causes todays high prices on 9500 and 9600 but there is little doubt prices won't fall before Q1. If Phenom 9500 Black Edition clocks as intended there is little doubt that is the processor with highest potential in the family. And I would also like to see how the 9900 stack up against the AMD Athlon X2 6000+ since that is a CPU many AMD users is running with today and a processor for $260+ need to be an solid investment from the first minute and forward. Next wave of Phenoms will perform better, 9550, 9650 and forward will perform better than the Phenoms today and the finished retail 9900 will potentially either run slightly faster than it does here Or clock quite well. Intel isn't really the king of any kind, on the Dual-Core market a E6750 still performs slackier than a 6000+ at stock, while the E6750 is beeing more expensive. Phenom 9900 seems to be right on the heels on the Q6700 which is also quite a bit more expensive, etc. AMD has been the innovators before today and will continoue to be, the only problem is caused by economy issues after they bought ATi, but AMD won't pass out, they're just having a hard(er) time than usual on the High-End market. Before Intel Core 2 Duo Intel didn't get a touch on the AMD processors when it came to gaming. Compare any Intel processor before C2D with either Athlon X2 or Athlon FX.

  • Vlaimir_Lem86

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 5:50 am PT

    My q6600 OC'ed sligtly almost beats the AMD 9900...
    This is like comparing Nvidia with ATI....

  • Germany-Xbox

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 5:12 am PT

    Intel Core 2 Q6700 WoW

    intel last 2007 used 45 nano

  • living_dead17

    Posted Dec 18, 2007 2:30 am PT

    What I don't understand is why they haven't compared the new quad core to AMD's top of the line dual core CPU's. Personally I don't care how they stack up against Intel, I prefer AMD's processors and always have, what I want to know is how much of a performance gain would I get over my X2 6000+ and whether or not it would be worth upgrading.

  • plainelmo

    Posted Dec 17, 2007 6:10 pm PT

    AMD has always been a great alternative to those wanting something different to an Intel 'Pentium' cored machine. They just need a little more time to perfect their stride, I will atleast give them this.

  • karahasan

    Posted Dec 17, 2007 5:59 pm PT

    I guess merely being a "true" quad core and having Hypertransport isn't enough nowadays. I can't believe they still couldn't beat Intel's latest but older processors.

    Regardless, more choices for me once I get enough moolah for a new pc. And despite lower performance, I still might consider getting AMD's new products...unless Intel lowers its quad core prices.

  • emmm78

    Posted Dec 17, 2007 12:17 pm PT

    Phenom is late and can`t even keep up the pace.Shame, I`ve always been an AMD user. Cutting prices for a lower product is not competition!

advertisement

AMD Phenom 9900 Processor Hands-On

We take the AMD Phenom 9900 out for a spin. Find out about AMD's Spider platform and how the Phenom performs.

Tags