AMD Cancels Phenom II X4 960T Thuban Quad Core Processors

[Lil' ˝ Dead]

AMD sent out an e-mail today letting the press know that we shouldn't expect to see any retail Phenom II X4 960T Thuban quad-core processors being sold individually on the retail market. These were very interested parts as the engineering samples that were available could be unlocked to become six-core processors. If we had to guess these processors will be available only in OEM systems on motherboards that don't have core unlocking technology in the BIOS. This is a big let down as it could have easily been the best price versus performance processor on the market for AMD. I wonder what AMD will be doing with all the fall out from the Thuban six-core processors now or if the OEM market will scoop them all up?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/8025/

Wow, that came out of left field.

[smduff]

Not that surprising really, AMD doesn't want to lose sales on the 6 core side of things.

[AuraNova]

That's a shame, but I agree that AMD wants to keep the 6-core sales strong.

[Doctor_Death]

I received the same email, can you really blame them. Give them 6 months it may find it's way back.

[logan]

That sucks. I was looking forward to benching one of those LOL

a quad that OCs like the X6 we reviewed would be absolutely amazing

[Drdeath]

Maybe they do not have many chips that didn't meet specs or bad silicons as in the past?

[Skyguy]

Well, chances are the silicon will be better, which means that more X4's would have all the cores intact (rather than some bad ones on previous silicon). That means just about every quad could be unlocked to a hex, essentially poaching their own hex lineup. Not good for the bottom line.

Seems to be a case where the motherboard manufacturers made a feature just a tad too good........scared AMD off of the new quad. OUCH.

[Lil' ˝ Dead]

AMD Phenom II X4 960T is NOT cancelled

According to our info, AMD's Thuban based Phenom II X4 960T is not canceled but rather just delayed. Unfortunately, our sources were not clear about the specific date but were pretty sure that it will come eventually.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/18809/1/

:confused:

[Biff73]

AMD Phenom II X4 960T is NOT cancelled
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/18809/1/

:confused:

It does'nt bother me whether it is cancelled or not,I am aiming only for 8 Cores

[Zinos]

I still think it's too early for even 6 core CPUs. There are VERY VERY little REAL world applications that can put 6 cores to use, and don't even get me started on gaming. 75% of games don't even utilize quads.

[eido.cohen]

I still think it's too early for even 6 core CPUs. There are VERY VERY little REAL world applications that can put 6 cores to use, and don't even get me started on gaming. 75% of games don't even utilize quads.

Zinos, even if most games don't fully utilize the power of a quad core CPU, there are objective differences between 6 core and 4 core Phenom IIs, between the i7 920 (8 threads) and the i5-750 (4 threads), even if all CPUs are clocked at the same Mhz. These are found in 1) The multi-tasking nature of a modern O/S and 2) the need for a CPU to be powerful enough to feed today's powerful GPUs (even if, on a relative basis, the entire CPU isn't being fully utilized).

1) So, very few people game in an environment where all possible processes (other than the gaming itself) are shutdown. While gaming, your anti-virus, or anti-spyware might do a scan, something might do an update in the background, Flash and Java content in your browser is consuming resources, etc. So, for a true multi-tasking environment, this is why a quad core beats out a dual core, even if the games themselves don't take full advantage of the remaining two cores.

2) In game tests (not just synthetic tests like Prime95), the i7-920 gets a higher FPS than the i5-750, even when both are clocked at the same speed. This is because today's top end graphics card are extremely powerful and need to be powered with the correct CPU to create a balanced computer. Look at this very recent article on building a balanced computer setup and see the gains in each game when you pair a GPU with the right CPU.

This is why I am just as eager as Biff is for the Bulldozer to come out, as it's both physically and electrically compatible with my AM3 motherboard. At that time, I'll see what is the best "bang for the buck" combo of a 8 core Bulldozer + graphics card, assuming of course that it has more significant gains than the 6-core Thubans have over the Phenom II.

[Drdeath]

It may be supply. AMD is making a dent in the OEM sector and they may not have enough chips which will help them grow OEM. Could be a nice thing for AMD.

I would think these are 1055 and 1090 chips that did not meet specs and labeled 960's just like what they have done in the past so the delay thing is wierd.

[eido.cohen]

Interesting comment at the bottom of the original legitreviews post:

3 months ago
I really don't blame AMD for doing this. They got beat up in some circles due to instability in unlocked X2s and X3s (even though they told everyone to unlock at your own risk). Customers were unlocking cores and overclocking and when things went belly up, they blamed AMD or trashed their CPU's performance in blogs, etc. AMD tried to explain that it was the result of what they were doing with the deactivated core, but no one would listen, so they discontinued ACC. Well, Asus came up with their own version of ACC and AMD did the only thing they could to curb the unlocking. I think you're absolutely correct in thinking they will only offer these procs in OEM PCs (if they offer them there!).

Just found this wikipedia article which shows that the 960T will be named "Zosma" and not "Thuban" and is expected by end of Q3 (so by end of September) as an OEM only chip. It looks like what "HTPCJunkie" says makes sense).


which list

[Zinos]

Zinos, even if most games don't fully utilize the power of a quad core CPU, there are objective differences between 6 core and 4 core Phenom IIs, between the i7 920 (8 threads) and the i5-750 (4 threads), even if all CPUs are clocked at the same Mhz. These are found in 1) The multi-tasking nature of a modern O/S and 2) the need for a CPU to be powerful enough to feed today's powerful GPUs (even if, on a relative basis, the entire CPU isn't being fully utilized).

1) So, very few people game in an environment where all possible processes (other than the gaming itself) are shutdown. While gaming, your anti-virus, or anti-spyware might do a scan, something might do an update in the background, Flash and Java content in your browser is consuming resources, etc. So, for a true multi-tasking environment, this is why a quad core beats out a dual core, even if the games themselves don't take full advantage of the remaining two cores.

2) In game tests (not just synthetic tests like Prime95), the i7-920 gets a higher FPS than the i5-750, even when both are clocked at the same speed. This is because today's top end graphics card are extremely powerful and need to be powered with the correct CPU to create a balanced computer. Look at this very recent article on building a balanced computer setup and see the gains in each game when you pair a GPU with the right CPU.

This is why I am just as eager as Biff is for the Bulldozer to come out, as it's both physically and electrically compatible with my AM3 motherboard. At that time, I'll see what is the best "bang for the buck" combo of a 8 core Bulldozer + graphics card, assuming of course that it has more significant gains than the 6-core Thubans have over the Phenom II.

I was moreso talking about the jump from quads to hex or oct cores, rather than dual to quad. I just don't see the performance increase in real world applications to justify the price of an Intel 6 core, and the AMD 6 cores are only better than my 920 on very specific applications, and hardly no real world situations. If I were on an AMD platform, it would be a different story because AMD's pricing is very reasonable when you look at the premium intel is asking.

Throwing this in to try and show what I'm coming from.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/12

I don't spend my time on my computer running Vantage, Everest, and Pi all day. I spend my time on my computer doing school work, chemistry rendering, and lots of gaming. All of which are things a 980x is no better at than my 920.

Here's another case where even a dual core is able to keep up. The clock speeds are different, but it's still impressive, nonetheless.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...er,2641-8.html

I do understand where you're coming from about a CPU potentially bottlenecking today's powerful GPU solutions, but that really only happens when you're using either a very old CPU relative to your GPU or you're running tri or quad GPU setups. I'm a firm believer that the biggest bottleneck of today's system is an HDD.

[eido.cohen]

I was moreso talking about the jump from quads to hex or oct cores, rather than dual to quad. I just don't see the performance increase in real world applications to justify the price of an Intel 6 core, and the AMD 6 cores are only better than my 920 on very specific applications, and hardly no real world situations. If I were on an AMD platform, it would be a different story because AMD's pricing is very reasonable when you look at the premium intel is asking.

Throwing this in to try and show what I'm coming from.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/12

I don't spend my time on my computer running Vantage, Everest, and Pi all day. I spend my time on my computer doing school work, chemistry rendering, and lots of gaming. All of which are things a 980x is no better at than my 920.

Here's another case where even a dual core is able to keep up. The clock speeds are different, but it's still impressive, nonetheless.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...er,2641-8.html

I do understand where you're coming from about a CPU potentially bottlenecking today's powerful GPU solutions, but that really only happens when you're using either a very old CPU relative to your GPU or you're running tri or quad GPU setups. I'm a firm believer that the biggest bottleneck of today's system is an HDD.

Your i7-920 is a fantastic CPU, so once overclocked it is close enough to the 980x not to matter. I agree that a i-980x is a waste of money for most people and that you made a great "bang for the buck" decision. But you made a very clear point that one would need a very old CPU + new graphics card, or new CPU and tri/quad GPU solution to see a bottleneck in real world performance. There, I disagree, and the article you posted itself shows the evidence for this.

I personally chose a Phenom II 965 because of exactly what you describe - as it suffices for the games that I play. However, I am well aware that if I chose a SLI or crossfire solution, my CPU would be bottlenecking my system even at the relatively high at 1920x1200, esp. if I enable AA and other "eye candy". The Anandtech link you posted is at 1680x1050 which is 24% less of a resolution than what I game at. It is true that as resolution increases, most games become more GPU limited. But 1680x1050 is something many people still game at, and at this resolution, the i7-975 at 3.33Ghz was a full 30 frames faster (104.1 vs. 74.1) in the WoW test than the Phenom II 965 at 3.4 Ghz, which is a significant difference. Other games showed an even bigger difference (60 to 70% increase). Since these are average and not minimum frame-rates, and this running only a single 5870, the differences would be magnified with a SLI or crossfire solution. You don't need to have a very old CPU or else a tri/quad GPU solution to see these significant differences.

Also, once we are all gaming on 120Hz monitors in a few monitors, the bar will be raised for what is considered acceptable performance, esp. if 3D gaming becomes more than a fad (I'm skeptical, but still...)

Here, look at the article I posted above about building a balanced system. Look at the large increase in FPS in games when you match the 5970 or GTX 295 to better and better CPUs. Those two cards are equivalent to a dual Crossfire or SLI solution and not a triple or quad.

Also, the article how can you say the dual-core "keeps up"...? The 655k is not a true dual core, as it has hyper-threading enabled, which should level the playing field somewhat. The 655K is also clocked at 4.66Ghz vs. the 875k at 4.13 Ghz, a difference of 13%. Even with those points, the 655k is at 59.88 fps at 1680x1050 with AA turned on (in Crysis) and the 875k is at 77.20. Assuming a linear increase in framerates on an increase in clock speed, the 875k would theoretically be at 87.1 fps. That is a 45% increase than the 655k, which would do even worse without hyperthreading. If that test showed an i3 at 4.66 Ghz "keeping up", your point would be made. However, an i5-655k is a better processor, clock for clock, than an i3.

And, regarding the HDD, I have a SSD because the HD indeed is the biggest bottleneck in overall system performance. But, if I had to game on my 1 TB HD, I would barely notice a difference, as only during level load times would the SSD express its power in games. I have already tested this - both subjectively, and in FPS in tests, the only difference between the SSD and the HD in games is level load times. I got the SSD, not for gaming, but to speed up my entire system - especially my O/S, in day-to-day tasks. And for that, it is priceless.

BTW: In re: 6 cores not being worth it today. I agree, as the Intel 6 core (12 thread) is not worth it because it's obscenely expensive. The AMD 6 cores are not worth it (the $200 1055t is debate-ably worth it overclocked) because they are cache starved and saddled by an old architecture. And, at least for me, the reason that the upcoming Bulldozer is exciting is because it'll be an 8 core that is better clock for clock and core for core than the current AMD 6-cores (at least, on paper). As Doctor Death said, "Only time will tell".

[Zinos]

I believe they chose a lower resolution because, obviously, the higher the resolution, the more GPU dependency you will see. I personally play at 1900x1200. Furthermore, that Anandtech article showed me that more games tend to like an increase in clock speed opposed to other factors. WoW is the one game that I didn't even look at because it's notorious for being a resource hog and too CPU dependent. I'm also ONLY speaking for myself, what I am happy with, and what truly makes an upgrade and upgrade in my eyes. My entire point behind what I'm posting is that there are so many capable processors in the lower price bracket, not even including overclocking, that make it hard FOR ME to justify upgrading to anything more than my 920, today.