Talk:AMD Phenom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

AM2+[edit]

Will these be on AM2+? Irdepesca572 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

-Never mind, it will be [1]

After socket F, comes socket G[edit]

Inq No socket 1207+, but Socket G

P.S. I'll let you guys decide whether this is credited source or not. --202.40.137.202 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Only AM2+[edit]

According to the August 2007 issue of MaximumPC they report that the Phenom incl. the FX will also run on most AM2 sockets. Is this true? (I do believe MPC as a creditable source. --∑ssarege∑ 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost everything in this article is speculations and rumors...right?

According to the AM2 and AM2+ articles, AM2+ processors will run on socket AM2. At the moment, all but two models of Phenom are AM2+, which should work in socket AM2 (unless the AM2 and AM2+ articles are incorrect). There are also two socket F Phenoms, i have no idea whether or not they will run on AM2 mobo's. Bonez0r 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No Socket F part will work in a Socket AM2 (or AM2+, or AM3) motherboard. Socket F is LGA, the others are PGA. It would not be physically possible. Ars seemed less than certain that Phenom parts will work in Socket AM2 motherboards; I would imagine chipset compatibility could be an issue even if they are socket-compatible. — Aluvus t/c 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

model numbers[edit]

for the GP-6650, GP-6550 if the TDP figure is correct and they're using the scheme noted on the k10 article AMD K10

wouldn't they be GS-6650, GS-6550 followed by GE-6's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.30.171.130 (talkcontribs).

If you have sources which can provide better model number information, please make any needed changes to the aritlce. Just make sure you include reference links to show where the data came from. I wouldn't trust the K10 article for your source but the references used for the data there can be used over here. --StuffOfInterest 11:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the athlon 1-series belong on the models table? it's listed as being based on the lima core which would put it with the cities processors rather than the stars processors. This suggest it has nothing to do with k-10/phenom architecture which is the subject of this article. 216.30.171.130 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note - very few AM2+ mainboards support the newer 45nm " Regor" CPU's. This should be added to the wiki , as a lot of people will try to upgrade because the socket is physically identical , only to find the processor is not supported . And "opened" cpu's is non returnable , leaving users no other alternative than to buy a new mainboard as well.

    • I dont know if i posted this in the correct place - if i didnt , please dont come by my house and break my kneecaps.** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.183.0.21 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New Names for Phenom[edit]

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/AMD_Revised_Desktop_Model_Number_Structure/5330.htmlTMV943 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

also http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Launches-New-Desktop-Processors-67990.shtml can't tell if they're using the vr-zone article as a source or it's their own confirmation. 216.30.171.130 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just saw another link: http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Quad-Core_Phenom_Models_%26_Clocks_Revealed/5331.html This one has model numbers for the 9xxx and FX-8x products. It looks like most if not all of the information is already in the article table, but this link may work as a reference. --StuffOfInterest 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I already added that link to the "External Links" section -- Imperator3733 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It really needs to move to an inline citation. This will tie the link to the place in the article it applies to. Also, this way, once the information is replaced the reference will go away with that informaiton. --StuffOfInterest 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible page rename?[edit]

Should this page maybe be renamed to AMD Phenom? It's a bit more discriptive than the current title and is closer to AMD K10, AMD Fusion, etc. Let me know what you think. -- Imperator3733 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shortest name is probably the best. Look at the Intel Pentium as an example. --StuffOfInterest 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Phenom 9700 and 9900 delayed further[edit]

Ars technica suggests that the release of Phenom 9700 and 9900 will be Q2 2008. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080110-amd-pushes-phenom-9700-into-q2-preps-low-power-variant.html

203.91.84.7 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First quad core design?[edit]

"AMD considers the quad core Phenoms to be the first true quad core design" - That should better be "the first true x86 quad core design". I guess the RISC world is a step further on that topic. Boelthorn (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, despite whether or not what AMD says is true, Wikipedia is quoting AMD. So as long as AMD said it, that's the way it should be. Although you should definitely make a note on the article if AMD was wrong.(Myscrnnm (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
That's some funky logic. 126.246.40.42 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

The IPA listed on the page says that Phenom is pronounced "fay-nom." I'm guessing that it should be pronounced "fee-nom"; anyone have any more insight on this? If not, I'll change the IPA to reflect the common English pronunciation. grylliade (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was 'feh-nom' as in phenomenon Lovefist233 (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I say 'fee-nom' -- Imperator3733 (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe " Fenom " as in Venom , but with more of a "f" sound ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.183.0.21 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Information about B2 and future steppings needed![edit]

from 'issues':

 "Phenom is affected by this bug up to and including stepping B2. [...]"

Oh great! Now everything is clear ;)

Seriously: I think someone who knows, what exactly the B2 and B3 steppings are, should not only explain this in the article, but also mention the fact, that phenoms B3 will no longer have this bug anymore (click here) And were there any B1-stepped phenoms?

Many thanks in advice to everyone, who contribute this information!!! 217.185.164.132 (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume there were B1 steppings otherwise there wouldn't have been B2. Whether these were publicly released, I don't know but I think the answer is no Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No Phenoms with steppings earlier than B2 other than engineering samples. There may have been some B1 Opterons out but either only as ES or they were quickly replaced by BA. B2 Opterons were canned and delivered as Phenoms it seems. --Denniss (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AMD K10 and Phenom[edit]

I wonder why there are two separate articles as the Phenom is basically the official name of the K10 CPU. I thin those articles could be merged 217.184.64.92 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think both pages should be cleaned up but kept separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.187.238 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the two pages should be separate ... just like how Intel Core i7 is separated from Intel Nehalem Architecture. - Cncxbox (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

name of page[edit]

AMD Phenom is better than Phenom (processor), can somebody change that. --87.219.84.4 (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it change to AMD Phenom -- Fernvale (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Change made by 65.33.222.115[edit]

ROTFL, is it a joke? IMHO rumored informations should not be supposed to exist in Wikipedia... <span style="font-size: smaller;ges should be separate ... just like how Intel Core i7 is separated from Intel Nehalem Architecture. - Cncxbox (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Change made by 65.33.222.115[edit]

ROTFL, is it a joke? IMHO rumored informations should not be supposed to exist in Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.228.199 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Split Phenom and create a Phenom II article[edit]

We should split the Phenom and Phenom II article as they are not the same (at least the stepping and revision of the architecture. This is supposed to be different from the original Phenom processor... - Cncxbox (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There's not much deiiference between the Phenom and the Phenom II. Just a switch in manufacturing technology (65 nm to 45 nm), more L3-Cache (6 MiB instead of 2 MiB) and some minor core changes. Just not sufficient for an "own" article. --Denniss (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yet, the incredibly similar Pentium II and Pentium III have their own seperate articles. 89.167.221.131 (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The first gen P3 was more or less a P2 with SSE. The next two generations had many more changes qualifying for separate erticles. --Denniss (talk)
Where does it say that processor articles are based on architecture? That's what the AMD K10 article is for, if you want everything about K10 in one place. These articles are for the products marketed as "Phenom" and "Phenom II", respectively, which are independently notable, and are meaningfully different due to real-world considerations, such as: performance, competitiveness, and reception by the market; as well as several technical differences, including 45nm process, socket compatibility, etc. In short, it is not reasonable to assume that someone who wants information about the Phenom II wants to read through the Phenom (or K10) content first, nor would he necessarily be well-served by doing so. The Phenom II has enough content to support its own article, and hence it should have one. FWIW, I do agree with renaming this article to AMD Phenom, but as has been stated multiple times now, you need to perform this move through the proper procedure and not by copy-paste. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop unilaterally moving and merging pages. First of all, you are doing it incorrectly, through copy-paste. Renames should move the article and its history (go to WP:RM). Secondly, there has been no discussion about merging the second article together, and the way you merged it could hardly be called proper. Do not perform the merge yourself if you are too lazy to do it correctly. 65.87.26.166 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not split Phenom X4 cpus (brain not working well google + seach not working well for me tonight could not see list for X4 cpus (Should be in the title with phenom)) Leexgx (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Page moved[edit]

Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: As per the various discussions above, I have moved the article to AMD Phenom.--Aervanath (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-free file problem[edit]

Info.svg File:AMD Athlon 64 X2 logo.png was removed from this article because it either does not have a Non-free use rationale or there are problems with the existing rationale. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for the applicable policy and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for how to fix the problem. If further input or help is needed, questions can be directed towards Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or my talk page. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)